Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[Kittamaru]

circumcision affects glans. i am not circumcised, my glans is highly sensitive than yours. in the porn movies the actors have circumcised penises, they keep on pounding women.
if they had uncircumcised wand, they would have torn their frenulum. this mindless pounding of women have deep impact on men who do the same, and then keep on thinking why women leave them.
it is a religious 'lie', to turn you away from sex and make of you a 'produtctive' societal member.
the deep shock, you wont remember, everything has effects.
skin can be regrown too, you should try and then have sex, it will feel different. intercourse time will increase.
circumcision has effect on pleasure, not on love.

I dare say you haven't any idea about the sensitivity of my penis... and if you do, then I fear a quick chat with the police may be in order.
Additionally, sex is plenty stimulating, for both my wife and I... and is most certainly not a "mindless pounding"; guys that mindlessly plug away into a girl and wonder why neither is being satisfied... well, the issue isn't necessarily with their equipment, it's how they are using it.

Or if they are worried about cleanliness, they can like.. oooohh, I don't know.. wash themselves properly.

Neither of my sons are circumcised and neither was my husband. I taught my sons how to clean themselves and their father explained it all to them in detail. It's a daily part of their shower routine and we have never had a problem in that regard and they don't even think about it.

It isn't very common here and hospitals refuse to do them unless it is medically necessary to, such as the glands are restrictive or too tight when the baby is born and he isn't able to urinate (which they thought my son had and within about 1 minute, did this massive wee and the doctors declared it was all fine). It is an unnecessary surgical procedure and like all medical and surgical procedures, have their own inherent dangers. Infection and loss of sensation, and permanent scarring the least of the concerns. Some children have even lost the tips of their penis and even their penis in accidents, because it is all so small. If my sons decide they want to be circumcised when they are adults, that will be their choice. And frankly, I rather they have that choice than have that choice taken away from them when they were babies.

And as i said, I can understand wishing to leave that choice to them - however, making it illegal seems a bit silly to me. I'd rather keep it legal and have it done by doctors that know what they are doing, rather than making it illegal and having people getting it done by shady people in a box truck behind WalMart.

As for the cleanliness bit - no doubt you can keep an uncircumcised penis just as clean as a circumcised one (perhaps more so, due to the increase of natural oils and protection that the foreskin offers).

I am somewhat confused about one thing, though... from this article here

Circumcision: medical pros and cons facts

• Inability to retract the foreskin fully at birth is not a medical reason for acircumcision.
• Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the foreskin to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
• Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis).
• Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
• Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
• Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexualpartners.
• Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
• There is still no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.

The issue of circumcision is as controversial as it ever has been. There are well-known religious, social, and medical reasons to recommend circumcision; however, most major medical societies have taken an "impartial" view of the procedure, neither recommending nor renouncing the practice.


What has been the medical view of circumcision?
In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that a majority of males in the United States are circumcised. This number varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a large decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future, and there is significant pressure for the AAP and ACOG to reconsider their positions.

Okay... possible decrease in UTI I can kind of understand - though I would imagine that has more to do with people simply not cleaning themselves properly more than anything.

Lower risk of cancer in the penis and cervix of sexual partners... how?

 

[Kittamaru]

Well, a quick search:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

In the United States, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding human papilloma virus (HPV) infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Although infant circumcision can lower the risk of penile cancer, based on the risk of this cancer in the US, it would take over 900 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer in this country.

Genital hygiene
Perhaps the most important factor in preventing penile cancer in uncircumcised men is good genital hygiene. Uncircumcised men need to retract the foreskin and clean the entire penis. If the foreskin is constricted and difficult to retract, a doctor may be able to prescribe a cream or ointment that can be applied to the foreskin to make it easier to do so. If this doesn't work the doctor may cut the skin of the foreskin in a procedure called a dorsal slit to make retraction easier.

So... again, as with UTI issues, it seems it is more an issue with Hygiene than the circumcision itself.

Lower risk of STD/HIV... what? Why should a flap of skin matter in this?

This is what I'm finding on it:

Relying on the latest technology that make sequencing the genes of organisms faster and more accessible, Lance Price of the Translational Genomics Research institute (TGen) and his colleagues conducted a detailed genetic analysis of the microbial inhabitants of the penis among a group of Ugandan men who provided samples before circumcision and again a year later.

While the men showed similar communities of microbes before the operation, 12 months later, the circumcised men harbored dramatically fewer bacteria that survive in low oxygen conditions. They also had 81% less bacteria overall compared to the uncircumcised men, and that could have a dramatic effect on the men’s ability to fight off infections like HIV, says Price. Previous studies showed that circumcised men lowered their risk of transmitting HIV by as much as 50%, making the operation an important tool in preventing infection with the virus. Why? A high burden of bacteria could disrupt the ability of specialized immune cells known as Langerhans cells to activate immune defenses. Normally, Langerhans are responsible for grabbing invading microbes like bacteria or viruses and presenting them to immune cells for training, to prime the body to recognize and react against the pathogens. But when the bacterial load increases, as it does in the uncircumcised penile environment, inflammatory reactions increase and these cells actually start to infect healthy cells with the offending microbe rather than merely present them.

That may be why uncircumcised men are more likely to transmit HIV than men without the foreskin, says Price, since the Langerhans cells could be feeding HIV directly to healthy cells. His group is also investigating how changes in the levels of cytokines, which are the signaling molecules that immune cells use to communicate with each other, might be influenced by bacterial populations.

I'm... not entirely sure on this. Again, it seems like it comes down more to an issue with personal hygiene than it does with the circumcision itself (or lack thereof).

So... I dunno - Bells, if you want and feel it is warranted, I wouldn't mind your husband and/or sons' inputs on this - I would imagine that the only real difference in hygiene is the need to simply pull back the foreskin and wash the area therein, correct?

If so... then why is such a big deal being made about this? I fear I already know the answer (pressure from religious groups combined with poorly designed/implemented "scientific studies"), though I hope I am wrong.

EDIT - Good GRIEF this 10k character limit is annoying...

 

[madethesame]

circumcision is related to Abrahmic traditions.
they lived in desert where the flying sand stuck on their wand. they did not had water to clean their wand, which would cause many diseases.
so as last resort they started this practice.

Well, a quick search:



So... again, as with UTI issues, it seems it is more an issue with Hygiene than the circumcision itself.

Lower risk of STD/HIV... what? Why should a flap of skin matter in this?

This is what I'm finding on it:



I'm... not entirely sure on this. Again, it seems like it comes down more to an issue with personal hygiene than it does with the circumcision itself (or lack thereof).

So... I dunno - Bells, if you want and feel it is warranted, I wouldn't mind your husband and/or sons' inputs on this - I would imagine that the only real difference in hygiene is the need to simply pull back the foreskin and wash the area therein, correct?

If so... then why is such a big deal being made about this? I fear I already know the answer (pressure from religious groups combined with poorly designed/implemented "scientific studies"), though I hope I am wrong.

EDIT - Good GRIEF this 10k character limit is annoying...

cicumcision affects sexual pleasures of both men and women.

 

[wellwisher]

Liberals are messed up. You can kill the unborn but don't harm the foreskin.

 

[Kittamaru]

cicumcision affects sexual pleasures of both men and women.

You keep claiming to know more about my (and others) sexual pleasure than I do about my own... do you have any actual facts to back that up?

 

[madethesame]

circumcised penis is unable to hold vaginal fluids. during intercourse, this fluid leaks, which makes sex irritable for women.

You keep claiming to know more about my (and others) sexual pleasure than I do about my own... do you have any actual facts to back that up?

ofcouse. you can grow your foreskin back and enjoy the sensations.

most people have no idea that sex is to be done for minimum one hour. circumcised penis is not capable, as vaginal fluids flow down.

 

[Kittamaru]

circumcised penis is unable to hold vaginal fluids. during intercourse, this fluid leaks, which makes sex irritable for women.

Uh huh... in that case:

1) KY Jelly (or any number of other lubricants on the market) are available for those women whom suffer from insufficient vaginal lubrication
2) It's been our experience (my wife and I) that this is untrue, or at least not an issue for us. I would think this has more to do with the size of the organs in question, overall lubrication of the vagina itself, and what is being done during intercourse. My wife and I have had several lovemaking sessions lasting in excess of 45 minutes to an hour (and we do not use any sort of lubrication) and I can safely say this - her "drying out" was never a factor in ending our playtime... more often than not, it was our own physical stamina

ofcouse. you can grow your foreskin back and enjoy the sensations.

most people have no idea that sex is to be done for minimum one hour. circumcised penis is not capable, as vaginal fluids flow down.

Right... I can say quite safely that I don't have to keep trimming my penis, so foreskin growing back doesn't seem to be something that's going on, at least for me.

I also was not aware that there was a "minimum" time limit for sex - can you please explain who established this rule, by what means, and for what reason?

 

[madethesame]

Uh huh... in that case:

1) KY Jelly (or any number of other lubricants on the market) are available for those women whom suffer from insufficient vaginal lubrication
2) It's been our experience (my wife and I) that this is untrue, or at least not an issue for us. I would think this has more to do with the size of the organs in question, overall lubrication of the vagina itself, and what is being done during intercourse. My wife and I have had several lovemaking sessions lasting in excess of 45 minutes to an hour (and we do not use any sort of lubrication) and I can safely say this - her "drying out" was never a factor in ending our playtime... more often than not, it was our own physical stamina

this jelly wont do anything other than making sex slippery.
( i am bad in english, in not writing any personal remarks okay cheers )
i have written atleast one hour exlcuding any foreplay. http://www.whale.to/a/howe_b.html
read this full. it is important.

 

[Kittamaru]

this jelly wont do anything other than making sex slippery.
( i am bad in english, in not writing any personal remarks okay cheers )
i have written atleast one hour exlcuding any foreplay. http://www.whale.to/a/howe_b.html
read this full. it is important.

This is your post here:

Extracts" Heaven and Earth have their opening and closing. Yin and Yang develop from each other. Mankind is created through the union of Yin and Yang and embodies the sequence of the seasons and elements. If one abstains too much from sexual union, then one's Spirit will not develop; since the harmonious interchange of Yin and Yang energies will have ceased. Through regular practice of Healing Love, it is possible to derive great benefit to one's health from the enjoyment of the senses, through sexual intercourse ". - Yi Shen Fang

These fundamental errors mean that modern sexology has not realized that sperm is the source of erectile power. It is not the nerve endings at the penis head, nor the blood supply that creates the power to erect the penis. A continual loss of sperm through repeated ejaculation in every act of sex, brings about a hormonal deficiency crisis in every male. This faulty way of loving robs the entire biological mechanism of the body of hormones, vitamins, minerals and enzymes, which are vital to erectile power and potency; and the physical and emotional health of the individual.

The casual complacency displayed by doctors when they talk in term; of 'how many times a man can make love in one session', etc., clearly shows that they are ignorant of the higher function of sperm, which is to generate and store sexual energy - orgasm energy.

Sexual Chi Gung - (Chi means Vital Energy, Gung means skill gained through knowledge and practice), is little known in the West; although it comes from the same source as Acupuncture and Tai Chi Chuan, which have become increasingly popular and are of Taoist origin. Tao is not a religion or a ritualistic moral code. Tao, or more correctly ... Tao Te Ching, is a natural science which studies the transformation of energy in nature and the universal laws that govern it. It can be translated as 'The Way of Nature and the nature of It's Power'.

Ironically, the current communist regime in China has all but destroyed knowledge of the Taoist bedroom Arts, by forbidding the circulation of Pillow Books.

Since the 'flood of the red tide' in 1949, Mao Tse Tung's communist rule in Beijing violently and fundamentally reconstitutionalized the Chinese sexual mentality; and tragically resurrected the 'Beast' of sexual suffering. Ironically, the current communist regime in China has all but destroyed knowledge of the Taoist bedroom Arts, by forbidding the circulation of Pillow Books. The highly practical, no-nonsense Sex Manuals such as the 'Classic of the Plain Girl', which were part of every married couples bedroom, have been replaced by an officially sanctioned booklet, sedatively entitled 'Information on Sex'. It contains puerile dictatorial propaganda such as: "People should not; commence intercourse until the age of 25. After marriage, couples may indulge in intercourse once or twice a week for the first few months. Later, as familiarity and age increase, sexual desire declines and one should have intercourse no more than 2 or 3 tines per month. The best remedy for suppressing sexual desire is abstinence and correct political thinking".! These sexually repressive doctrines have not been without serious consequences. Sexual discord between me: and women has led to problems of marital violence, frigidity, impotence, homosexuality and other disturbing social phenomena, which were rarely heard of in China prior to 1949.

Every organ pays heavy tribute to the glands that produce the sexual seed energy. The reproductive glands receive the essential elements of sexual energy from the blood. The blood withdraws the precious vitality of the life-force (Chi) from the organs and glands of the body, including the bone marrow, spinal fluid and brain. In a scientifically literal sense, sperm originates from the pituitary and pineal glands in the brain. Semen derives some of it's essential nutrients from the cerebro-spinal fluid. This is why constant sperm loss causes backache.- Not many people know that! Backache in women is often caused by orgiastic congestion, through lack of lengthy bouts of deeply fulfilling penetrative sex. Clitoral orientated orgasm gives temporary relief, but is accompanied by loss of sexual energy because it is a short-lived outward flowing orgasm; not a long lasting inward flowing total body orgasm, ( not orgasmic genital gratification).

"When a man of noble character
Hears about the Tao of Love and Sex,
He does his best to put it into practice.
When a man of ordinary capacity
hears about it, he is in two minds about it.
When a man of low character
Hears about the Tao of Love and Sex,
He laughs out loud about it..."

...

...

I honestly don't know how to respond to that. The sperm do not "generate and store sexual energy" - they have no method of doing so. Sperm are single cells containing 23 Chromosomes, which joins the Egg, also containing 23 Chromosomes - until those two merge, you do not have a living "entity" per say. While yes, creating sperm takes up a fairly decent amount of resources from the body, there is nothing to suggest that they "store energy" that is then sent to the brain and body during arousal.

It sounds like someone took a book on meridians, qi, and the bioelectric energy of the body and decided to mash them together with the kama sutra... in other words, terrible terrible pseudo science that has no basis in observable fact.

 

[madethesame]

This is your post here:



...

...

I honestly don't know how to respond to that. The sperm do not "generate and store sexual energy" - they have no method of doing so. Sperm are single cells containing 23 Chromosomes, which joins the Egg, also containing 23 Chromosomes - until those two merge, you do not have a living "entity" per say. While yes, creating sperm takes up a fairly decent amount of resources from the body, there is nothing to suggest that they "store energy" that is then sent to the brain and body during arousal.

It sounds like someone took a book on meridians, qi, and the bioelectric energy of the body and decided to mash them together with the kama sutra... in other words, terrible terrible pseudo science that has no basis in observable fact.

pls read all. i am here to explain. you will undertand then only and expeience is important. dont forget to try the skills .​

 

[Kittamaru]

I did read - as I said, the "science" in that article is horrendous. The transfer of energy they are referring to is not a transfer so much as it is the increase of oxytocin and other hormones in both partners. Arousal results in increased heart rate, respiration, and metabolic rate. Blood vessels dilate, adrenaline surges through the body, hormone levels shoot way up, and in general your body goes into "overdrive". A good round of sex, preceeded by a proper bit of foreplay and making out before hand, can blast over 500 calories in a two hour period depending on intensity, and has an "afterburn" period (the recovery of your muscles, during which more calories are used) that can last upwards of an hour or more. Not to mention it can be a full cardiovascular experience (again, this is assuming you do more than stick it in and pump around like a horny pogo stick)

It isn't that you are transferring energy... you are quite literally giving each other a full bore cardiovascular workout and setting the body into "burn" mode.

 

[madethesame]

I did read - as I said, the "science" in that article is horrendous. The transfer of energy they are referring to is not a transfer so much as it is the increase of oxytocin and other hormones in both partners. Arousal results in increased heart rate, respiration, and metabolic rate. Blood vessels dilate, adrenaline surges through the body, hormone levels shoot way up, and in general your body goes into "overdrive". A good round of sex, preceeded by a proper bit of foreplay and making out before hand, can blast over 500 calories in a two hour period depending on intensity, and has an "afterburn" period (the recovery of your muscles, during which more calories are used) that can last upwards of an hour or more. Not to mention it can be a full cardiovascular experience (again, this is assuming you do more than stick it in and pump around like a horny pogo stick)

It isn't that you are transferring energy... you are quite literally giving each other a full bore cardiovascular workout and setting the body into "burn" mode.

no i am not refering to it. i dont care what science is written.
it was practised by all ancient kings, this will help you to see my point of having uncircumcised penis.
do one thing forget all the science you have learnt, just for reading these pages. keep on reading till end.
this book is not focusing on pleasures but orgasm. you have to try the techniques yourself to know.

their

Uh huh... in that case:

1) KY Jelly (or any number of other lubricants on the market) are available for those women whom suffer from insufficient vaginal lubrication
2) It's been our experience (my wife and I) that this is untrue, or at least not an issue for us. I would think this has more to do with the size of the organs in question, overall lubrication of the vagina itself, and what is being done during intercourse. My wife and I have had several lovemaking sessions lasting in excess of 45 minutes to an hour (and we do not use any sort of lubrication) and I can safely say this - her "drying out" was never a factor in ending our playtime... more often than not, it was our own physical stamina



Right... I can say quite safely that I don't have to keep trimming my penis, so foreskin growing back doesn't seem to be something that's going on, at least for me.

I also was not aware that there was a "minimum" time limit for sex - can you please explain who established this rule, by what means, and for what reason?

time limit defined by doctors is wrong. they wont accept until they see the effects. the day they see effects they will take u-turn on their stance on satisfactory sex.
doctors think that ejacuation in men, is normal phenomena after recreational sex but ejacuating fequently is unhealthy.

 

[Kittamaru]

no i am not refering to it. i dont care what science is written.

And here we come to the crux of the issue... you don't care about science, you don't care about fact; you care about something mystical and supernatural. That's fine - if you believe in it, that's great; don't try to force it on others.

it was practised by all ancient kings, this will help you to see my point of having uncircumcised penis.

So was Opium and Cocaine... that doesn't mean we should all start doing those.

do one thing forget all the science you have learnt, just for reading these pages. keep on reading till end.

Already did read it all - it is mumbo jumbo with no credible basis in fact. And I rather like my science thank you - it's what has provided the medications and procedures that keep me healthy and have allowed me to overcome some of the inadequacies of my body (such as acid reflux)

this book is not focusing on pleasures but orgasm. you have to try the techniques yourself to know.

My wife and I are quite capable of reaching orgasm, including knowing how to prolong and delay when it happens so that we can keep going if we choose. We know each others little triggers and delight in teasing each other with them. In general, I try my best to ensure she is satisfied (which can mean she has several orgasms sometimes) before I let myself go - after all, women can experience multiple orgasms far more easily than men (who tend to be one shot wonders, though that isn't always the case).

time limit defined by doctors is wrong. they wont accept until they see the effects. the day they see effects they will take u-turn on their stance on satisfactory sex.
doctors think that ejacuation in men, is normal phenomena after recreational sex but ejacuating fequently is unhealthy.

1) There is no "time limit" established by any credible doctors that I am aware of...
2) ejaculation in men IS normal after sexual arousal - it's a part of the procreation process
3) Regarding "ejaculating too much":

Male ejaculate is rather high in zinc and other nutrients - in theory, you can, in fact, ejaculate away these nutrients if your diet is not sufficient enough to replenish them. You can also ejaculate "too often" in the sense that your body has not had time to replenish the ammo, so to speak - this has no real ill effect besides a somewhat 'unsatisfactory' experience; obviously, taking it to the extreme, if you masturbate/ejaculate several times an hour, you could quite possibly cause damage to the organ(s), but this is less from any effect of the act of ejaculation and more from the fact that you are going at it far too much and putting a lot of strain on your body to keep up.

Ejaculation during sex is perfectly healthy and will not harm your body.

 

[madethesame]

And here we come to the crux of the issue... you don't care about science, you don't care about fact; you care about something mystical and supernatural. That's fine - if you believe in it, that's great; don't try to force it on others.


So was Opium and Cocaine... that doesn't mean we should all start doing those.


Already did read it all - it is mumbo jumbo with no credible basis in fact. And I rather like my science thank you - it's what has provided the medications and procedures that keep me healthy and have allowed me to overcome some of the inadequacies of my body (such as acid reflux)


My wife and I are quite capable of reaching orgasm, including knowing how to prolong and delay when it happens so that we can keep going if we choose. We know each others little triggers and delight in teasing each other with them. In general, I try my best to ensure she is satisfied (which can mean she has several orgasms sometimes) before I let myself go - after all, women can experience multiple orgasms far more easily than men (who tend to be one shot wonders, though that isn't always the case).

several orgasms are result of wrong sex. orgasm should be only one, deeper than fragment orgasms.

And here we come to the crux of the issue... you don't care about science, you don't care about fact; you care about something mystical and supernatural. That's fine - if you believe in it, that's great; don't try to force it on others.


So was Opium and Cocaine... that doesn't mean we should all start doing those.


Already did read it all - it is mumbo jumbo with no credible basis in fact. And I rather like my science thank you - it's what has provided the medications and procedures that keep me healthy and have allowed me to overcome some of the inadequacies of my body (such as acid reflux)


My wife and I are quite capable of reaching orgasm, including knowing how to prolong and delay when it happens so that we can keep going if we choose. We know each others little triggers and delight in teasing each other with them. In general, I try my best to ensure she is satisfied (which can mean she has several orgasms sometimes) before I let myself go - after all, women can experience multiple orgasms far more easily than men (who tend to be one shot wonders, though that isn't always the case).



1) There is no "time limit" established by any credible doctors that I am aware of...
2) ejaculation in men IS normal after sexual arousal - it's a part of the procreation process
3) Regarding "ejaculating too much":

Male ejaculate is rather high in zinc and other nutrients - in theory, you can, in fact, ejaculate away these nutrients if your diet is not sufficient enough to replenish them. You can also ejaculate "too often" in the sense that your body has not had time to replenish the ammo, so to speak - this has no real ill effect besides a somewhat 'unsatisfactory' experience; obviously, taking it to the extreme, if you masturbate/ejaculate several times an hour, you could quite possibly cause damage to the organ(s), but this is less from any effect of the act of ejaculation and more from the fact that you are going at it far too much and putting a lot of strain on your body to keep up.

Ejaculation during sex is perfectly healthy and will not harm your body.

what is orgasm according to you ?

 

[Kittamaru]

several orgasms are result of wrong sex. orgasm should be only one, deeper than fragment orgasms.

According to what evidence/science/proof/study?

what is orgasm according to you ?

The generally accepted definition is, from Merriam Webster:

: intense or paroxysmal excitement; especially: an explosive discharge of neuromuscular tensions at the height of sexual arousal that is usually accompanied by the ejaculation of semen in the male and by vaginal contractions in the female

 

[madethesame]

they confuse orgasm with pleasure. this pleasure is never satisfactory, so not a orgasm.
frequent ejacuation of semen is unhealthy act, this is the reason you use physical power to sustain longer intercourse.
i won't tell you what it is. I wont ruin your fun of searching orgasm , chances are that you already know. or ask your wife.
i have experienced it without any external help.

 

[Kittamaru]

they confuse orgasm with pleasure. this pleasure is never satisfactory, so not a orgasm.
frequent ejacuation of semen is unhealthy act, this is the reason you use physical power to sustain longer intercourse.
i won't tell you what it is. I wont ruin your fun of searching orgasm , chances are that you already know. or ask your wife.
i have experienced it without any external help.

So you contend that the accepted definition is wrong?

 

[madethesame]

So you contend that the accepted definition is wrong?

yes.

 

[Kittamaru]

yes.

Sounds like you have a paper to write and get peer-reviewed then.

 

[Bells]

And as i said, I can understand wishing to leave that choice to them - however, making it illegal seems a bit silly to me. I'd rather keep it legal and have it done by doctors that know what they are doing, rather than making it illegal and having people getting it done by shady people in a box truck behind WalMart.

I do think it is a cultural thing and one based on how the penis looks (religious reasons aside of course).

I've heard of men in the US having their son's circumcised so that their penis look the same. I'm sorry, but I don't personally see that as a valid reason. It would be akin to having a baby girl's nipples 'done' to look like her mother's, for example, or plastic surgery to her vagina so that it matched her mother's. And in Australia, cosmetic circumcision of baby boys or male infants is banned in public hospitals and quite a few private hospitals as well.

From a religious standpoint, there are inherent dangers in how that is performed in certain religious ceremonies.

As for the cleanliness bit - no doubt you can keep an uncircumcised penis just as clean as a circumcised one (perhaps more so, due to the increase of natural oils and protection that the foreskin offers).

I am somewhat confused about one thing, though... from this article here



Okay... possible decrease in UTI I can kind of understand - though I would imagine that has more to do with people simply not cleaning themselves properly more than anything.

Lower risk of cancer in the penis and cervix of sexual partners... how?

My sons have never had a UTI. Until their foreskin can be retracted naturally and without force, there is no reason to retract it. If you try to force it, it can actually damage a child's foreskin. In short, they do not have to retract it for years. If they wash normally, that is all that is needed.

As for lowering the risk of cancer to the penis. Some claim that the foreskin can become cancerous, so they argue that removing it reduces the risk of that form of cancer. I am yet to see anyone argue that baby girls should have their ovaries removed and their cervix removed for a similar reason. You're not going to hear it because it would be an insane reason.

But in the case of penile cancer and increasing the risk of cervical cancer in women if they have unprotected sex with an uncircumcised male, one of the factors in penile cancer is hygiene. And if you do not wash yourself properly and wash away the smegma, it can irritate the foreskin, which can lead to cancerous growth. Again, hygiene. Then you have issues which are medical where the foreskin cannot retract properly and becomes inflamed and also injuries to the skin or soft tissue around the penis can increase the risk of penile cancer.

As for cervical cancer, the washing can increase the risk of HPV.

I'm... not entirely sure on this. Again, it seems like it comes down more to an issue with personal hygiene than it does with the circumcision itself (or lack thereof).

So... I dunno - Bells, if you want and feel it is warranted, I wouldn't mind your husband and/or sons' inputs on this - I would imagine that the only real difference in hygiene is the need to simply pull back the foreskin and wash the area therein, correct?

My ex-husband is not here, obviously. But yes, it comes down a lot to hygiene. Once the boy is old enough and able to retract his foreskin easily, then he can be taught to wash it with water.. Before then, just washing externally is all that is needed and trying to retract the foreskin too soon can actually cause permanent damage and inflammation.
But penile cancer is very rare in developed countries. But in 3rd world countries, the rate is higher. It's still rare, but it is higher than in developed countries. And also, because of the lack of protection while having sex, especially in 3rd world countries, circumcision is also touted as being helpful in preventing the spread of HIV - as it reduces the chance of contracting it from unsafe sexual practices according to some studies conducted in some countries in Africa... And this is where the waters become even murkier..

If so... then why is such a big deal being made about this? I fear I already know the answer (pressure from religious groups combined with poorly designed/implemented "scientific studies"), though I hope I am wrong.

It's become a big deal because of some studies that were conducted about 10 years or so ago, which ended up recommending that males in some African countries be circumcised to reduce the spread of HIV.

In countries where access to water to wash, in developing countries for example, where being able to clean one's genitals properly may not be possible, male circumcision is touted as being necessary and encouraged to prevent a multitude of problems.

The studies that were conducted were themselves flawed and exceptionally unethical and frankly, endangered men and women alike. There was an article written in 2011, which discussed the African HIV studies and the claims that circumcision reduced HIV spread and it goes through and details every flaw in the studies themselves and it is an astounding read: http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf