OK, I'd like to add something from my own personal experience. When my son was born, I asked the pediatrician if he should be circumcised. I didn't have any particular prejudices about it one way or the other-she said absolutely not, circumcision's no good. Since I happen to be circumcised myself, and had no idea what to do with one that isn't, I asked her if we should pull the foreskin back and wash the head when we gave him a bath-she said no, don't do anything to it, just leave it alone. OK, fast forward about 6 months. My son started having trouble urinating-we took him to the doctor (another pediatrician) and he said that adhesions had developed that were causing him to have difficulty urinating, and the only solution was to have him circumcised. We took him to the pediatric surgeon, who circumcised him, and he insisted on not charging us a nickel, so we can't say that it was all about money. When I told the boy's pediatrician that the attending doctor in the hospital had been against circumcision, he said that was crazy. He told me that when he was in medical school, that he participated in a study (I in fact had already read about the study) that concluded that circumcised men were considerably less likey to develop cancer of the penis (yuk-what a thought) and were also less likely to contract certain venereal diseases. The pediatric surgeon said exactly the same thing.
You obviously haven't and this is painfully evident from the way you started off by making an idiotic, teenage comment, and then got on the defensive by vomiting garbage. "Babies don't feel any pain", etc. Do you see what you're doing now? Are you so small a person that you can't even consider conceding a point? So now you're saying it's OK to find circumcised women "sexy". There's no getting through to you. I know you (as any sane person) must find female circumcision disgusting and offensive (though we should all feel the same about male circumcision) and you just can't bear to let me have a point, can you? This is getting pathetic. Ah ha! So this is where it comes from. The fact that you would split up with this person because sex was an "unpleasant experience" suggests that there was something else going on. We're now getting to your motives. So what was it about this man/boy that you found so unattractive? No sane woman would split with a man for his penis, like no sane man would split with a woman for her vagina. Was he bad to you? Did he treat you poorly? Did/do you hate him? Because of one poor experience with an uncircumcised man (which probably had nothing to do with foreskin, anyway), you've decided to write off all uncircumcised men as "dirty". Well very mature of you. You need to separate your petty adolescent angst from a sensible discussion. I've been dealing with facts, and you've been motivated by petty, personal grievances. Very unpleasant news, but this is not relevant to this discussion. Less women are circumcised than men. Even that wasn't the point. I made the point that you seemed to be deeming male circumcision as "OK" because some women in the world, who have absolutely nothing to do with these babies are being mutilated. One has nothing to do with the other. I'll thank you not to bring FGM back into this discussion. A violation is a violation. Weak. It's a fact that women do produce more smegma than men. And as johnschlong pointed out, smegma is a much demonized, misunderstood substance that is actually beneficial. You should apologise. It does affect me and all of us with sense/feeling, because it is another senseless atrocity being perpetrated by the ignorant that could easily be prevented with a little education. Though having said that, I've given you a pretty good education here, and you're just refusing to hear it. Laws should be made. Remember when you corrected my spelling? It's an athlete. Weak. Here, you said: And there you have it. An apology, please? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I take it you didn't watch the video I linked to? Here it is again: http://www.intact.ca/vidintro.htm. Please watch this and then get back to me. Otherwise, refrain from spewing any more of your garbage. Uh huh... That DOES NOT HAPPEN. The foreskin IS NOT MEANT to retract, and with many people, often doesn't until puberty. Foreskin does NOT grow over the urethra. If it had been a birth defect, your brother would have been holding his piss in for FOUR YEARS. Your brother was probably spraying when he pissed (as women do), so instead of sitting him on the toilet, or teaching him to aim the damn thing, your parents thought it best just to circumcise him instead. Tell them they did a good job. As johnschlong, a qualified fellow pointed out - The foreskin is there to prevent urinary tract infections. UTIs are far less common in, say, France (uncircumcised) than in say, America (circumcised). The pro-Circumcision movement does like to lie about this a great deal, though. You won't find a serious doctor to back those fetishists up. I don't know what came over me. Dreadfully sorry. Change your mind of what? You think (though you haven't said if you've had any) that "cut" dicks are more "aesthetically pleasing". If you think that, there's nothing I can do. However, I will list the functions of foreskin anyway. Some of them: (some important, some not-so-important) - Erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles - Acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation - Prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse) - Stimulates partner's genitalia, giving erotic pleasure - Supplies skin to cover the shaft in erection and prevent tightness - Stores pheromones and releases them on arousal - Stores and releases natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid) - Provides a seal against the vaginal wall to contain semen - Prevents the glans becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist - Protects the thin-skinned glans against injury - Protects the nerves of the glans, retaining their erotic function - In infancy, protects the urethra against contamination, meatal stenosis, and UTIs - Provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the glans - Pigmented, it protects the unpigmented glans against sunburn - Vascular (rich in blood vessels that bring heat to the tissues), it protects the less vascular glans against frostbite Here's an excellent site with diagrams for sexual function: http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm
I'm getting tired of having to educate you idiots. DQ VEG: Good. What do you mean "trouble". Please elaborate on that. Do you mean it was spraying? Ballooning? That doesn't make sense. The foreskin (unless you insisted on pulling it back) is already sealed down. It can only "adhere" to something if it has been torn back, and the raw wounded part comes into contact with something else. You should have left his penis alone. Absolute nonsense. First of all, this isn't even a real problem. Second of all, and if it were, he could have just expanded the opening. There was absolutely no sense in a complete amputation. Wonderful! Then perhaps you should consider that your doctor (almost certainly circumcised) was biased, and not being professional? And here's pretty good evidence of that. No serious doctor would call another's (valid) opinions "crazy". It's terrifying that you let this man near your son. Nonsense. - America (circumcised) has the highest rate of penile cancer IN THE WORLD. Japan (uncircumcised) has one of the lowest IN THE WORLD. - More boys lose their penis or die of a botched circumcision than would EVER GET CANCER OF THE PENIS IN THE FIRST PLACE - America (circumcised) has the highest STD rate in the developed world. When are people going to get this? Circumcision will only reduce penile cancer in that there is LESS PENIS THERE. We do not remove healthy breast tissue because of the potental development of cancer, do we? That is insane. And these people are health professionals? Talk about ETHNOCENTRISM. Find a doctor in Europe who goes along with that. You won't. You were lied to, and went along with it because you wanted to believe them.
www.nocirc.org I have nothing to say that you can't read at that website, or any of a hundred other ones out there. If a doctor wanted to cut something off my baby, I'd be getting a second opinion before making any decision. If I had a son, I'd let him decide whether to be circumsized for himself when he became of an age to make such decisions. There is no sound medical justification for routine newborn circumcision, but if a grown man chooses circ for religious reasons, that is his choice to make, not mine. as far as appearances and sensation goes, an uncut penis is far and away more attractive to me, and it does feel better (without a condom) because circ'd penises (penii?) lack the natural lubrication and the skin is too tight to move properly. My DH is cut, FWIW, and I love him anyway. It's not his fault his parents had him mutilated for no good reason.
You see? 37 years old? Wisdom. The snotty teenage girls should shut up. mamaboogie, you have my respect. Use it wisely.
Seamus, until you show me a photocopied image of your doctorate... get rid of your superiority complex and admit that PEOPLE WILL NOT ALL THINK LIKE YOU
An excellent comeback. I am dealing with facts, you are wrong, you don't like it. Consider this another victory of ol' Seamus.
Whoopee, your oh so superior intelligence sparks fear in my soul... HA you're just a sad, pathetic little boy.
*ahem* a little late there mister, not to mention the fact that its already been mentioned at least twice.
In my ancestory, the vikings, women, unlike what hollywood wants you to think, were often worshipped and seen as very wise beings... And that thought stuck with me, generally On topic, I don't see why everyone has to argue about this... there are advantages and disadvantages to both... Circumcision originates from a time when hygine was on an absolute low, people were circumcised to better be able to keep their penis clean, so of course it's easier to keep clean for the circumcised people... But for those of us that keep a certain hygene and shower regularly, keeping an uncircumcised penis clean is really no biggie... I'm not gonna say what's right and wrong here, I'm uncircumcised and I like it... In Denmark there are hardly any circumcised people tho... The only thing I wanna say is that I think a person should have the right to chose... I was born in to christianity and was taught to believe that I should be confirmed... Now I'm old enough to know what I want and I'm quitting the church, as I sit here I'm glad I have no visible marks of being christian so I can be my own person, I think everyone should have that choice...
Give up on Pool Shark. The human race is doomed. Not true. Jews circumcise because of a covenant with their god. Muslims circumcise because Mohammad was born circumcised (and their imaginary hygeine crap), and Americans circumcise because of Victorian quackery. There are the documents left the prove it - they wanted to stop masturbation, and they wanted males to associate their penis with pain. The Victorians are reknowned for their sexual repression. Ever heard of women's "hysteria"? You see. Agreed.
^^no uncut guy would wanna stick there dick in such a opinionated bitches pussy anyway. Jesus Christ its a dick, there all fucking dicks. If we were argueing about size mabye i would care, but we aint.
lot of crappily educated folks out there... particularly like the poor info on FGM... most common forms bein a lot less invasive than male circ.
What a breath of fresh air, someone with some real experience coming from the other side. I'm sorry to hear about the trouble with your son. I wonder what the statistics on the cancer of the penis are. That is just one study only?
Well, I haven't done a lot of my own personal research on the subject, but I had read about the study quite a while before my son was born. I imagine I could contact his old pediatrician and get more info about it. I'm sure more than one study has been done-this particular study was done a number of years back at Meharry University Medical School. If I find the book that references that study I'll let you know.
You morons are getting me incredibly angry. Isn't it funny how American dicks work differently from dicks everywhere else in the world. NOWHERE outside of the U.S. are penile cancer and circumcision mentioned in the same damn sentence. Did it ever occur to you idiots that perhaps these doctors have been mislead? Perhaps that "study" DQ refers to was a crock of shit? Not "perhaps", but DEFINITELY. More boys DIE or LOSE THEIR PENIS AS A RESULT OF A BOTCHED CIRCUMCISION than ever get cancer of the penis anyway! America, a mostly circumcised nation, HAS THE HIGHEST RATE OF PENILE CANCER IN THE WORLD! What of this are you failing to understand? Circumcision and penile cancer. One has nothing to do with the other. Japan has one of the lowest circumcision rates in the world, and also one of the lowest rates of penile and cervical cancer. Surely that puts and end to it? Stop being so fucking stupid.
