Who here is circumcised?

[Weeks]

Originally Posted by Ragnarak

I assume so but tis a pretty poor joke if so

was it a spurs joke?

[Superpig #1]

So the only advantage having a foreskin is that its pleasurable. What are the disadvantages then? And what about advantages of not having the foreskin??

[Dace]

my dick*

















*ya geddit?

[Superpig #1]

Snake....

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by queball

Circumcision doesn't need to be justified; it's fairly safe, and there's no benefit to having a foreskin except "it feels good".

What do you mean it doesn't need to be justified?!! Its a surgical procedure. I would imagine you should justify a surgical procedure before performing one.

It's "fairly" safe....in quite a few circumstances they remove too much and cause serious problems. Causing scar tissue to form cutting off blood supply to the head of the penis. This also can cause severe pain.
Any surgical procedure carries risks. Those risks need to be justified.

What do you mean there is no benifit to having a foreskin? The fact that it "feels good" is one thing but it has a function. It is there for a reason. It keeps the head of the penis protected. It keeps it lubricated, soft and sensitive.

For someone who's "countering" my points you seem ill-informed.

Washing regularly can be inconvinient.

WHAT!"?!?!

So your saying that you'd reccomend the removal of foreskin just because washing your nob "can be inconvenient" ?! What planet are you ON?

The foreskin doesn't just trap superficial infections but nasty diseases depending on where you stick your willy.

That would be more of an argument against sticking your cock in nasty places rather than cutting your foreskin off so that you have less of a chance of catching a disease from a nasty whore.

Fingers are useful. And finger cancer is rarer than foreskin cancer,

HAHAhahAHahah, I'm sorry Dr.Queball, I didn't realise you were so versed on the rates of cancer.
Foreskin cancer is about as rare as cancers of the hands.

which if I understand correctly is usually caused by STDs in the same way as cervical cancer.

Again, I didn't realsise you'd passed your medical exams. It seems that would be an argument against the spread of STD's and using protection instead of just cutting off your foresking and sticking it into an infected orafice.

People defend their own ways, wow.

What I'm mad about is people defending stupid un-necessary and possibly dangerous procedures that affect men with rediculous arguments.

You've proved my point nicely on that one.

[queball]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

What do you mean it doesn't need to be justified?!! Its a surgical procedure. I would imagine you should justify a surgical procedure before performing one.

It's "fairly" safe....in quite a few circumstances they remove too much and cause serious problems. Causing scar tissue to form cutting off blood supply to the head of the penis. This also can cause severe pain.
Any surgical procedure carries risks. Those risks need to be justified.

The risks are small compared to the putative rates of cervical/penile cancer caused.

What do you mean there is no benifit to having a foreskin? The fact that it "feels good" is one thing but it has a function. It is there for a reason. It keeps the head of the penis protected. It keeps it lubricated, soft and sensitive.

I can understand that it has an evolutionary function - people are more likely to have sex if it's more fun. But the function of sex is procreation, not pleasure - pleasure is not significant. Particularly to a Christian. Guns have a function, that doesn't mean they're good. etc

For someone who's "countering" my points you seem ill-informed.

I'm not claimed I'm well-informed, I'm just claiming that you haven't shown the pro-circumsicion arguments are "ridiculous" (except by the metric of natural=good). I'm uncircumsized but I realise that's more to do with culture than science.

WHAT!"?!?!

So your saying that you'd reccomend the removal of foreskin just because washing your nob "can be inconvenient" ?! What planet are you ON?

If you're circumsized you can go for longer without washing. This could be an advantage if you are being taken hostage or playing a long session of CS for example. That's all.

That would be more of an argument against sticking your cock in nasty places rather than cutting your foreskin off so that you have less of a chance of catching a disease from a nasty whore.

It's an argument against both. I wouldn't expect parents to place unnecessary moral dangers on their children unless they were radically libertarian.

HAHAhahAHahah, I'm sorry Dr.Queball, I didn't realise you were so versed on the rates of cancer.
Foreskin cancer is about as rare as cancers of the hands.

You mentioned finger cancer. No, I wouldn't know. But fingers are far more useful than foreskin, you should be able to see that.
I'm not pretending to be a doctor. I'm saying that neither foreskin nor circumcision are obviously favoured by scientific evidence.

Again, I didn't realsise you'd passed your medical exams. It seems that would be an argument against the spread of STD's and using protection instead of just cutting off your foresking and sticking it into an infected orafice.

.

[IncubusGod]

But, since you say that circumcision is not supported by scientific evidence, then why is it still carried out in cases that have nothing to do with religion? That's what I'm against.

I can't understand why you would say that a foreskin is not "supported by scientific evidence". It's not a procedure. It's not something you have a choice about having from birth. It serves a purpose, I don't see why something that has no real tangible benifits, apart from reducing risks of certain problems that can be solved with washing, is accepted.

Watching a documentary on the Discovery Channel recently, doctors researching this said that there was just as much chance a man will suffer a tear of the foreskin/problem resulting in having to have it removed (1 in 1000) as complications in the proceduse resulting in damage to the penis (1 in 1000).

Since the damage is irreversable but you can always remove the foreskin later, they said it was an unnecessary and pointless procedure and would not reccomend it to anyone if not necessary.

They also cast doubt on the supposed "benifts" of circumcision saying all the points (as outlined in the thread) about hygine, STD's etc can all be solved by washing and care. After all, a non surgical solution would always be preferable.

The fingers thing, yeah fingers are more useful but that was just a comparison. What about your appendix? Shouldn't that be removed to prevent "possible" problems later? There are dangers yes, alot. It'd be stupid to do that, so why risk removing the foreskin? I was just pointing out the stupidity of the arguement that lists the benifit of removing a foreskin as prevent foreskin cancer.

Bascially you've not mentioned one thing that has coherently argued for circumcision apart from habit. Which seems dumb.

[Inferno]

Circumcision is done because of social, family and religious reasons. Lets not enter the medical side of it.

[IncubusGod]

Well why is mutilation of boys permitted for social, family and religious reasons? When such an outcry exists worldwide about female "circumcision" (although much worse it stil is mutilation of the sex organs of young children for religious and social reasons).

Most of the time these "medical reasons" are brought up to justify this practice, and these reasons have no real bearing on reality.

So the question remains, why is it permitted?

[queball]

Removing an appendix is still far more dangerous than snipping off a bit of skin.

Damage to the penis is a bit unspecific, http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_risks.html (edit: this seems to be a pro-snip page) says the main problem is bleeding. I'd like to know how many people are left badly off, with a significantly disgusting penis as judged by potential partners, or something like that.

As suggested in this thread, parents individually might favour circumcision out of wanting to fit in, or just not see any reason to go against cultural norms. The distinguishing feature of most controversial issues like this is absense of evidence. Circumcision isn't random so controlled experiments can't really be done. But the health benefits seem physically plausible. I don't think traditions (habits) are dumb.

[*donkie*]

Originally Posted by queball

But the function of sex is procreation, not pleasure - pleasure is not significant. Particularly to a Christian.

err.... ¬_¬

[queball]

Originally Posted by *donkie*

err.... ¬_¬

In theory.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

I don't think traditions (habits) are dumb.

thats cos ur dumb lol

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

Well why is mutilation of boys permitted for social, family and religious reasons? When such an outcry exists worldwide about female "circumcision" (although much worse it stil is mutilation of the sex organs of young children for religious and social reasons).

Hey, I'm circumcised and I'm no less of a man than you are. I am fine and I dont see myself as mutilated since I dont remember the pain (circumcised 3 weeks after birth).

WHO CARES ABOUT FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? THEY HAVE A RECOGNISED WORLD WIDE WOMENS RIGHTS ORGANISATION TO PROTECT THEM!

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

thats cos ur dumb lol

Heh

[IncubusGod]

You really aren't getting the comparison thing. I know removing an appendix is more dangerous, I know fingers are more useful. I'm just pointing out how rediculous removing a healthy functioning part of the body, because it might possible one day have a problem, is.

Yes bleeding is the main problem. A young boy bled to death here in Ireland recently after a circumcision went wrong. But cutting part of the head of the penis occurs too, meaning that scar tissue forms cutting off blood supply and causing painful errections in adult life.

Traditions that do not cause harm are fine. If a tradition is carried out where the body of a young baby is mutilated, without questioning the reasons, then something is wrong.

[Radical Edward]

no, female circumcision is barbaric. so is male circumcision really.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Inferno

Hey, I'm circumcised and I'm no less of a man than you are. I am fine and I dont see myself as mutilated since I dont remember the pain (circumcised 3 weeks after birth).

WHO CARES ABOUT FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? THEY HAVE A RECOGNISED WORLD WIDE WOMENS RIGHTS ORGANISATION TO PROTECT THEM!

I never called you less of a man. I'm not pitying you or anything.


And yes, us as men has no rights to complain about anything like this. Clearly only womens issues matter.


(Does anyone else get this impression in general about health matters in the world? Men's health doesn't really matter. There's breast cancer initiatives, free cervical cancer screenings, womens health and their "explotiation" in other parts of the world is pushed, with male issues being largely ignored?)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

A young boy bled to death here in Ireland recently after a circumcision went wrong.

That's not exactly valid justification. The operation was performed by some random guy in some random house. I severely doubt the odds of a baby dying due to loss of blood when the operation is performed properly in a sanitised hospital are very high. I'm never quite too sure about qbll, but I imagine he wasn't advocating all of us going out into the jungle and leaping across a fire before the witchdoctors lop our foreskin off with a rusty piece of barbed wire. After that all that'd hardly fit with the "improved" health theory.

[queball]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

You really aren't getting the comparison thing. I know removing an appendix is more dangerous, I know fingers are more useful. I'm just pointing out how rediculous removing a healthy functioning part of the body, because it might possible one day have a problem, is.

Prevention versus cure is all about the percentages, from a risk prevention point of view.

Yes bleeding is the main problem. A young boy bled to death here in Ireland recently after a circumcision went wrong. But cutting part of the head of the penis occurs too, meaning that scar tissue forms cutting off blood supply and causing painful errections in adult life.

Well, to use a logic similar to yours earlier, that's an argument against dodgy circumcisors rather than against circumcision.

Traditions that do not cause harm are fine. If a tradition is carried out where the body of a young baby is mutilated, without questioning the reasons, then something is wrong.

Sure - the rabbi or whoever should probably be sacked. Well, that's one view.

[IncubusGod]

I know the circumcision where the baby died was performed outside of a hospital and wouldn't happen there, but again, it is still relevant. It happened because of the tradition of their religion. The baby wouldn't be dead now if they hadn't had him circumcised.

How many children suffer painful problems due to cicrumcisons? Accoring to the doctor doing the research on the Discovery Channel it was 1 in 1000. So thats 1 in 1000 of every child circumcised in the world. Thats a lot of suffering men.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

I know the circumcision where the baby died was performed outside of a hospital and wouldn't happen there, but again, it is still relevant. It happened because of the tradition of their religion. The baby wouldn't be dead now if they hadn't had him circumcised.

Utterly disagree. Your argument is similar to blaming the parents for conceiving the child because without that event he could not have died. The reason that child is dead is because a circumcision was carried out incorrectly. If you died because you ate a diseased candy bar we would not blame chocolate for your death. Rather the faulty product in question, and those responsible for it, are to blame.

[IncubusGod]

If you eat a candy bar that is diseased then ofc it's not the candys dault. However if eating a candy bar could cause death by its very nature then you have to question wether its worth eating it.

The procedure carries risks, such as blood loss. Even if the procedure is carried out correctly, health issues with the child can cause excessive bleeding or damage to the penis.

Its the procedure itself that carries these risks, hence, is it worth the risk for no clear gain?

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Utterly disagree. Your argument is similar to blaming the parents for conceiving the child because without that event he could not have died. The reason that child is dead is because a circumcision was carried out incorrectly. If you died because you ate a diseased candy bar we would not blame chocolate for your death. Rather the faulty product in question, and those responsible for it, are to blame.

But these problems will happen as long as circumcision is part of the false consciousness of the poor and ignorant. While the middle class may have the money and knowledge to perform surgery correctly, most people don't. Alluding to the practitioner's moral liability is simply bourgeois legitimation and hiding your head in the sand while religious leaders perform horrendous acts without medical training.

[LHC]

I honestly don't believe that people peel back their foreskin, or give themselves an erection to clean their penis. It is a lot easier to clean your dick without foreskin i bet.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by LHC

I honestly don't believe that people peel back their foreskin, or give themselves an erection to clean their penis. It is a lot easier to clean your dick without foreskin i bet.

Heh.

I cannot believe you just posted that.


I really cant.

OFC we do. Dumbass. Well if you don't, god help whoever has to go near that thing.

Plus you can have an errection and have your foreskin still cover the head of your penis you know. It doesn't go back automatically. It's not a retracting roof or something.

[Ninja_spammer]

Essentially it is mainly cosmetic and unnescessary surgery that may or may not have minor long term benefits being carried out upon someone unable to consent to the procedure.

To do this simply on a whim is wrong and doctors should strongly discourage it until the child is of an age of consent when the child can understand the potential loss of sensitivity in the glans and possible erectile problems that can occur.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

If you eat a candy bar that is diseased then ofc it's not the candys dault. However if eating a candy bar could cause death by its very nature then you have to question wether its worth eating it.

I don't think anyone claims circumcision can cause death when carried out correctly. Even you seemed to have restrained yourself to mere physical damage.

The procedure carries risks, such as blood loss. Even if the procedure is carried out correctly, health issues with the child can cause excessive bleeding or damage to the penis.

Its the procedure itself that carries these risks, hence, is it worth the risk for no clear gain?

Personally I feel this would be very much for the parents to decide, assuming they are fully aware of both the pros and the cons.


PS It all comes back to marx doesn't it qbll

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Personally I feel this would be very much for the parents to decide, assuming they are fully aware of both the pros and the cons.

Well yeah but that's only true as most people are willing to concede it doesn't do much harm.

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally Posted by IncubusGod

This was in another one of those womens mags, my m8's gf is addicted to Cosmo and whatever other vile magazine clones it has spawned.

Well what can you expect from a magazine that says in bold
"Demand that he respects you for who you are. Your body is beautiful. Your personality make you who you are. If he can't accpet these then you should leave him."

Then goes on to give you tips on how to change your man's annoying habits.

Then gives advice that you should have your children cicrumcised for cosmetic reasons.

The subject of womens magazines being a big pile of utter shite deserves a whole thread of its own although I have to say I agree with you. (It's your personality not the way you look that should make a man love you... next page... lose 20 stone in 3 days to get the man of your dreams... next page... The Joys of Being Single... next page... how to find your ideal man at your local supermarket... next page... the perfect man doesn't really exist... next page.. how to turn the average joe into your dream date.... and so on.... MAKE YOUR ****ING MINDS UP YOU STUPID BITCHES (Oh wait I'm not allowed to think that - Cosmo didn't tell me to )

Anyway - to the point of the thread. I really really REALLY don't see the actual point in circumcision. The whole cleanliness thing as far as I'm concerned is ridiculous. As I have already said it's not that hard to wash - is it?! Also I find it hard to accept the religious argument. On the whole I have a problem with young children being forced in to any kind of religious practice without being given the chance to decide for themselves. But whereas at the age of 10/14/16 a child can decide to stop attending church or whatever, he can't decide to grow his foreskin back.

[Vermillion]

I am not religious, I am snipped, and I have never expressed on my own part, nor recieved any complaints from women.

Were it not for threads like this one I doubt I would ever really have thought about it much. Of the women I have been with, the vast majority never commented at all, one said she much preferred it in her experience, and one (a youngish one) said she had never 'had' a circumcised penis, and preferred it because it looked less like a worm.

So, I'm happy.

[Leshy]

In recent news: Half the Planetarion GD forum has their penis circumsized after sexual rolemodel Vermillion admits to having been scrotally adjusted.

[Inferno]

There was a time in history when people would laugh at the idea of having a bath once a week.

One day people would also find it sick not to have circumcision.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Inferno

One day people would also find it sick not to have circumcision.

i think this depends from where you are.

here in germany it is very uncommon to be cirumcised, as in the US it is very common.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Inferno

There was a time in history when people would laugh at the idea of having a bath once a week.

One day people would also find it sick not to have circumcision.

You should have that submitted to the Imperial Museum of Great Truths in London

[Dace]

In this thread Queball* is wrong.





















*and Inferno

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Superpig #1

Snake....

a hooded spitting snake