And just to add, the anti-circ sites have LOADS of lies on them
And the pro ones dont????????????
If you're happy with the way you are then what's the problem!?
I disagree with you. I can provide info that says I'm right you can do the same.
I would never ever remove a part of my babies anatomy for any other reason than a valid health issue.
When they are an adult if they want to do something about it then so be it.
I dont feel there is a necessity nor is it my decision to make!
That's just my point though- I can not find any scientific evidence that supports uncircumcision as opposed to circumcision. Show me the evidence animal lover- you said you could provide it.
Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: Dick sanitation
[quote="mensagirl"]
Quote:
to remove the foreskin on babies for no reason other than tradition/aesthetics is no less brutal than circumcising a girl. The skin is there for a reason.
Oh, please! There's enough intelligence here to figure out that there's no equating FGM (female genital mutilation) with infant male circumcision, which takes but an instant, and is all mended after two weeks. The purpose of FGM is oppression of women. The purpose of male circumcision is a clean, healthy dick, allowing men to enjoy disease-free sex well into old age. Old ladies, in case you weren't aware, have an acute interest in the good health their husbands' dicks. You're not helping anyone, especially old ladies, by agitating against this simple health measure.
Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: stuff
I'll repeat myself from an earlier post.
Clearly 'circumcision' (I prefer the term, sexual mutilation) is completely unethical. Informed consent for any surgery requires that the person to be operated on is old enough to provide such consent. So adults, of course, ought to be able to choose this. For babies, on the other hand, this is child abuse.
This particular surgery severs 2/3 of the nerves to the penis, which leads to easily-measured less sensitivity of the penis (and this has been published in medical literature, such as a recent article in the N.E. J. Med. on this subject). The end result for older men is measureably higher impotence.
For babies, it is true that most recover without complications (except for reduced sensation). For those that do suffer complications (usually infections, which sometimes lead to amputation of the penis, occasionally death of the infant), what are you going to say? Whoops? On top of this, this U.S. does not have any formal mechanism in place for tracking and compiling circumcision complications - so accurate nation-wide numbers can only be estimated.
And for those on this thread that say where is the literature? - the answer is in your own writing. You discount all of the anti-circumcision websites, organizations and liturature, and then say where is the literature? WTF? It is trivial to find scientific literature references from pro or anti circumcision websites, and then go to any university library to get these papers, look up their refences, etc. For anyone, M.D. or otherwise, to say that the literature offers a clear STD ot STI advantage is grossly misleading. Even a casual review of the literature on this subject reveals stunningly weak statistics, particlularly in the area of addressing confounding factors. But then, statistics are generally not a strong suit of M.D.s, who are neither statisticians nor scienticists.
Indeed, the history of circumcision in the U.S. is higly instructive. An M.D.,
Dr. Kellogg (of cornflakes fame), introduced large-scale circumcision to the U.S. specifically to DISCOURAGE masturbation, because it was known even then (over a hundred years ago) that cicumcision severed approximately 2/3 of the nerves to the penis and (it was hoped) the reduced sensation would lead to less "bad activity" by male youth. That is, circumcision in the U.S. got its start as an explicit anti-male sexuality "public health" measure. Of course, this has not stopped masturation in the U.S. or anywhere else. And ever since, some M.D.s have been making up other B.S. arguments to rationalize circumcision.
The good news is that mainstream medicine is slowly converging to the obvious. Both EU and U.S. medical associations now expressly recommend against routine, non-necessary circumcision. Sooner or later, it will be banned. In the mean-time, people who choose to force this sexual mutilation on their sons have no-one to blame when their sons reach adulthood and demand an explanation. No one to blame but themselves, because the information is easily available, and no Western public health entities still recommends routine circumcision.
Oh, please! There's enough intelligence here to figure out that there's no equating FGM (female genital mutilation) with infant male circumcision, which takes but an instant, and is all mended after two weeks. The purpose of FGM is oppression of women. The purpose of male circumcision is a clean, healthy dick, allowing men to enjoy disease-free sex well into old age. Old ladies, in case you weren't aware, have an acute interest in the good health their husbands' dicks. You're not helping anyone, especially old ladies, by agitating against this simple health measure.
For the love of God!
You can't do too much for those with an under developed brain.
Oh, please! There's enough intelligence here to figure out that there's no equating FGM (female genital mutilation) with infant male circumcision, which takes but an instant, and is all mended after two weeks. The purpose of FGM is oppression of women. The purpose of male circumcision is a clean, healthy dick, allowing men to enjoy disease-free sex well into old age. Old ladies, in case you weren't aware, have an acute interest in the good health their husbands' dicks. You're not helping anyone, especially old ladies, by agitating against this simple health measure.
For the love of God!
You can't do too much for those with an under developed brain.
Not sure if they're all the same, but the usual suspects always hi-jack threads such as these....complete with the "guests".
I too am like Mr. Thick. Cut at 40. Sex was different, actually better because of the differing sensations. Trust me, there is no loss in sensation. Not sure where the 2/3's sensation loss idea comes from - utter nonsense.
now just to confuse things - there is another variant on the theme of cut / uncut - I am uncut - but since very early teens have always preferred my foreskin pulled back - as if I was 'cut'. This made me less sensitive in the 'head' part of my prick - and i was definitely able to go for longer during sex.
my m8s wife commented that she had never seen this 'foreskin arrangement ' before ! (I sunbathe nude around their pool at their villa when we go to them for holiday in Gran Canaria). My wife not to pleased that i do the nude swimming / sunbathing at their villa with m8s wife around
You can't do too much for those with an under developed brain.
Why do I have this suspicion that these different posters are actually the same (underdeveloped) person?
I have no fear of saying anything to you. I only post in my member account.
You are a troll. I don't believe one word you say is true - and if it is - you are one seriously f*cked up person.
The English are uncircumcised and the English are healthy. Our women are happy too. We have a fraction of STD cases the US has and a fraction of cervical cancer. I wonder why?
Go and get circumcised Emily. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. No big deal huh? You smell rotten down there. It's the decent thing. I bet you are old too. A man must tell a female to clean her grotty areas right?
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
