Ban male circumcision. Why or why not?

Apparently some sensitivity is actually lost from the missing skin itself. In addition the head - being constantly exposed to rubbing of underwear and air and such, continues losing sensitivity for the life of the man. Additionally, the unnatural exposure to cloth/air all the time apparently makes infection by some viruses more likely.

Circumcision is absurd.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Then you did not read my explanation many post ago about how it was vestigial and the evidence why?

The links I provide also posted scientific studies and surveys showing that circumcision does not affect fertility (err virility) that it reduces the chances of infection, reduce maintenances and in some studies improves sexual performance and function.

The foreskin has the same case for it that as the appendix: in humans unlike many other mammals its size and apparent function are greatly reduces and its know to cause more problems then benefits.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, man. And surely you are aware of the existence of just as many studies proving the opposite, and others establishing all degrees of in-between conclusions.

The thing is, an adequate hygiene makes circumcision unnecesary, if the prepuce is anatomically normal. I know that because my "hooded avenger" has never given me any trouble, nor has it caused any complaints by the ladies, thank you very much. :p
 
Just as there are plenty of studies against evolution.

The majority of studies, the ones with the most evidence and scientific bases are for circumcisions.

as for the reduce need of hygiene it self can be reason enough in to warrant removal.

as for you opinion, it is a survey of 1 and that not a very statically survey. Statically surveys show that the majority of adult men that get circumcisions are pleased with the results.
 
Scientific (or psuedo-scientific perhaps more accurately) rationalizations for circumsision are new. It became popular because of mystical/religious silliness.
 
I hate to get parts of my body removed, so I´d rather keep everything, including my foreskin. Never had a problem with that.

But do what you want with your body, I don´t care.
 
Gravity,

Scientific (or psuedo-scientific perhaps more accurately) rationalizations againts circumsision are new. It became popular because of natrulist/hippy silliness.
 
WellCookedFetus said:
Just as there are plenty of studies against evolution.

The majority of studies, the ones with the most evidence and scientific bases are for circumcisions.

as for the reduce need of hygiene it self can be reason enough in to warrant removal.

as for you opinion, it is a survey of 1 and that not a very statically survey. Statically surveys show that the majority of adult men that get circumcisions are pleased with the results.
Click to expand...

Ok, whatever, I get it. You are fond of your circumcised schlong and it works fine for you, just like my uncircumcised schlong works fine for me. Let's leave it at that, shall we?
 
Who said I have a circumcised shlong? Do you know what a Circumstantial Ad Hominem? look it up.
 
It became popular because of mystical/religious silliness.
Click to expand...

Actually, circumcision makes perfect sense for those living in desert like climates. If not removed, the foreskin traps sand.
I can only imagine the effects of having sand constantly rubbing against such a sensitive organ, but I doubt it is at all "silly" to avoid them.

Further, in a warm to hot climate, it traps sweat - and most men do not have the opportunity to shower several times per day. Now I am sure there are women who find the smell of festering perspirate to be aphrodisiac, but they are in a definite minority.

Circumcision is probably less sensible in a colder climate, which is probably why men whose traditional culture is desert or tropical circumcise, and men whose traditional culture is northern and cold do not. Religion is merely their way of explaining, in the absence of anatomical reasoning, why they do or do not circumcise.

I know that because my "hooded avenger" has never given me any trouble, nor has it caused any complaints by the ladies, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

They were being polite.
As you would be, if you refrained from chattering about your member.

oh and about the head jobs you are SOOO missing out, or maybe its just that bunny is so good at them
Click to expand...

Really, nobody wants to know this.
 
Source: MedicalPost.com
Link: http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3826/14A.html
Title: "HIV linked to uncircumcized males"
Date: July 3, 2002

Chicago researchers say they've discovered a biological explanation for the observation that uncircumcised men are more likely to contract HIV: Their foreskin contains high levels of HIV target cells and co-receptors.
Click to expand...

There's a good reason for circumcision right there. In the past, "disease control" issues depended not only on the presence of a foreskin but also poor hygiene.
_____________________

• Skelly, Andrew. "HIV linked to uncircumcized males". MedicalPost.com, July 3, 2002. See http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3826/14A.html
 
Missed this:
We criticize the Midwestern practice of cutting off a woman’s clitoris, but for some reason most of the western world doesn’t bat an eye at mutilating mens’ penises shortly after birth is just barbaric!
Click to expand...

Midwestern? Women in Illinois have their clitoris mutilated?

In any case, cutting off a vestigial membrane is hardly "mutilation". It's the equivalent of requiring women to shave off their pubic hair for sexual etiquette.

Take whatever stance you like on that, but calling it "mutilation" is silly.
 
Xev said:
In any case, cutting off a vestigial membrane is hardly "mutilation". It's the equivalent of requiring women to shave off their pubic hair for sexual etiquette.

Take whatever stance you like on that, but calling it "mutilation" is silly.
Click to expand...

No. The equivalent of shaving a woman's pubic hair would rather be shaving a man's pubic hair, you see. It's really a simple concept.

The equivalent of cutting off the prepuce over the glans would be cutting off the clitorial prepuce. Sounds like fun, doesn't it?
 
Mod Hat - Update

Mod Hat - Sensitive parts (Update 1)

Owing to recent controversies in SFOG regarding the sensitivities, oversensitivities, and insensitivities of our posters, I have deleted several posts from this topic.

While I personally think this topic merely an excuse to talk about penises, I'm going to let the conversation run for a little while longer at least. I'm finding out more about some of you than I ever wanted to know, and while I'm not going to require that clinical or socially-proper words be used, there is a pervading sensation throughout this topic that I'm standing in a room listening to children argue about wee-wees. There are some good and insightful posts, don't let me say you're all being silly. But the ethical and moral considerations are reasonably identifiable, and please don't make me wonder about justice for "victims" of circumcision.

(Actually, I just don't want to pick on anyone specifically. Just ... you know, continue to be informative as well as witty.)

:cool:
 
Last edited:
The removal of someone’s foreskin does not cause any more physical harm than some religions cause emotional harm. I have heard that circumcision reduces the incidence of cervical cancer but am unable to get clear data on that. I have never had a problem with mine and I am leery of letting anyone near the lad with a knife without an extremely good reason.
 
I have heard that circumcision reduces the incidence of cervical cancer but am unable to get clear data on that.
Click to expand...

I haven't a link offhand, but I do believe it comes back to hygiene and disease transmission. In this case, the culprit is most likely Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), better known symptomatically as "genital warts", which is a strong suspect in cervical cancer risk.

Well, okay, one link. From the Medical Post: "Circumcision may reduce risk of HPV infection" -

Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection in men and with a reduced risk of cervical cancer in women with high-risk sexual partners, a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found . . . .

. . . . The penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6%) and only in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5%). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection by an odds ratio of 0.37 . . . .

. . . . The study also found an inverse association in which monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42).

"If male circumcision is confirmed to be effective and safe in reducing the burden of penile HPV infection, it could have a significant impact on the transmission of HPV infection from men to their female partners who are at risk of cervical neoplasia," said lead study author Dr. Xavier Castellsagué in an e-mail interview.

Source: Medcial Post
Click to expand...
____________________

• Hodges, David. "Circumcision may reduce risk of HPV infection". Medical Post, v.37 i.16; April 24, 2001. See http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3716/04B.html
 
Scientific (or psuedo-scientific perhaps more accurately) rationalizations againts circumsision are new. It became popular because of natrulist/hippy silliness.
Click to expand...


So, in the perspective of human history . . . you think that circumcision is older than the re-thinking of it? Perhaps your perspective on human history is shorter than most.
 
Actually the cervical cancer rate is associated with Human Papilloma Virus, man are carriers of the variant that causes cervical cancer, and uncircumcised men could be more effective at transmitting the virus with the extra surface area, as well as god knows what could breed in the smegma.

Gravity,

Just as scientific (or well philosophical) rational for circumcision was conjured up by Sumerian philosophers over 4000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top