What is a foreskin like?

Um no, actually I would say YOUR women don't know what they are missing, the foreskin plays a significant part in female stimulation so your not only depriving yourself of stimulation but your partner as well. Also think about your comment, "it's not a choice most men would gladly make". You don't see something wrong with that? Why would you think it's acceptable to force something on someone that they wouldn't chose themselves.

You are missing my point, I would have made the choice to be circumcised as a baby and not to have any memory of it. As an adult I have a real aversion to anything very sharp getting to close to my stuff.

The obvious analogy is the deaf community. Would you think it was OK to deafen a perfectly normal child so it was like there parents? It like you isn't going to know anything different but it DOES make a difference. Once again there are more nerve endings in that piece of skin than in your fingertips. So let's say mum and dad burn off your fingertips so that there is a reduced feeling there, would you be OK with that? Do you think that would damage your life?

Sorry but I've never had a sensitivity issues and I like my orgasms as much as you like yours. You only think you know there's a difference in feeling. Obviously neither of us can know for sure how it feels to be the other way, but speaking for myself I'm happy with things as they are for now and wouldn't want to be uncircumcised.
 
Yep the deaf have built a whole culture around being deaf and some are quite resistant to ANY deaf people being treated with things like coclea implants because it destroys there deaf culture. Doesn't mean try aren't missing out on anything.

Lots of the links I have posted quote studies which show the loss of sensitivity and sexual problems caused MGM, not to mention the loss of stimulation for there partners caused by there lack of a foreskin. I understand why people such as yourself and mad are so resistant to this resurch. Accepting the reduction of function means that you have to confront that it was your loving parents who did this to you. For some such as mad it also means confronting what they did to there own children. Sadly this can't be fixed, some of the function can be restored through reconstructive surgery but that won't fix the nerve loss. What can be done is to educate people so this doesn't happen to ANOTHER generation
 
Ask your female partner if she would want someone to remove the cliteral hood, ask her how sensitive it is in itself AND how she would feel about having her clothes rubing against her clit all day every day. The only way the body can protect itself from this pain is by reducing the sensitivity and changing the make up of the epithelial cells.
 
Yep the deaf have built a whole culture around being deaf and some are quite resistant to ANY deaf people being treated with things like coclea implants because it destroys there deaf culture. Doesn't mean try aren't missing out on anything.

Lots of the links I have posted quote studies which show the loss of sensitivity and sexual problems caused MGM, not to mention the loss of stimulation for there partners caused by there lack of a foreskin. I understand why people such as yourself and mad are so resistant to this research. Accepting the reduction of function means that you have to confront that it was your loving parents who did this to you. For some such as mad it also means confronting what they did to there own children. Sadly this can't be fixed, some of the function can be restored through reconstructive surgery but that won't fix the nerve loss. What can be done is to educate people so this doesn't happen to ANOTHER generation

I'll agree that talking to you on this subject is a waste of both our times. Your analogies are way off base. Also, you sound like some kind of religious fanatic on this subject.
 
Yep, I am apsolutly fanatical about the right to autonomy, the right of an adult to make there own decisions about there body. It's funny, the same country where fanatics were cruising universal health care because it meant "the goverment would tell me what I can and can't do about my health" is the same country which has one of the highest rates of unconsentual "cosmetic" surgery.

People are welcome to do what ever they want to there own bodies and I even support there right to use Medicare to do it. You don't have a right to force that on another person ESPECIALLY if that innocent BABY is your own child. Personally I can't even understand the mindset that could look at there beautiful baby and sign a piece of paper to have a piece of that child cut off and that's still assuming that it's an innert procedure. Its not, there are innumerable studies showing the functions of the foreskin and the damage removing it causes. I wonder how these parents justify it in there own mind watching there child scream because a lot of US doctors don't even use anasetics. Then there are the weeks or years while the nerves in the gland itself dies off where that child will be in pain and discomfort because the nappy itself will be irritating the gland. Then there is the time when the nappy is dirty and the gland is now expose to the feacal material. How can you justify that to yourself?
 
Male Circumcision Reduces Female Pleasure
Posting Date: 01/21/2004

'Female arousal disorder' blamed on circumcised penises

A New Zealand study found that reduced female arousal and fewer female orgasms

may be linked to women having sex with circumcised male partners. Women reported

they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if their male partner had a

foreskin.

Nine out of ten women prefer having sex with intact men, the study finds.

"Presence of the movable foreskin makes a difference in foreplay, being more

text continues below
advertisement

arousing to the female," the study says. "Most likely, reported vaginal dryness

and the related clinical designation `female arousal disorder' is but a normal

female response to coitus with a man with an iatrogenically [doctor caused]

deficient penis."

The foreskin is double-layered. During intercourse, the moist and pliant

foreskin rolls past itself massaging the vagina and exciting it more than the

'dry stick' of a circumcised penis. The foreskin keeps the glans moist and soft

aiding in foreplay, insertion, and intercourse. Dry or painful sex is the number

one sexual complaint of women in the United States.

"During intercourse, the skin of an intact penis slides up and down the shaft,

stimulating the glans and the nerves of the inner and outer foreskin. On the

outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin with

more skin remaining inside the vagina than is the case with the circumcised

penis. This `valve' mechanism is thought to retain the natural lubrication

provided by the female because the bunched up skin acts to block the lubrication

escaping from the vagina, which results in dryness."

About 70% of American men alive today are circumcised. About 60% of U.S. baby

boys are circumcised each year. It is illegal to circumcise girls in the United

States.

-end-

International Coalition for Genital Integrity www.icgi.org

Contact: Dan Bollinger 765-497-0150 dan.bollinger@icgi.org
Full article at: http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/bensley1/
 
I'm more a Jewish family, and circumcision is the one thing they decided to observe, not the holidays or going to a synagogue, just that. It's fucked. It should be illegal without a person's consent, and they must be 18.
 
I agree completely.

Routine surgeo-religious genital mutilation of infants is flat out wrong and abusive. It is a permanent statement of ownership over another human being without their consent with no good purpose or rational reason. :(

Male circumcision cannot be seriously said to be "genital mutilation"....

You apparently do not understand the term "genital mutilation". :shrug:

I did not lose sensitivity and at age 61 still suffer pain and discomfort every day from the genital mutilation that was done to me when I was a baby in the name of a religion that I do not believe in or participate in.

Thanks loads for your lack of compassion. :mad:
 
Basically the question isn't wether this is anti Semitic because it's not but rather why don't you support autonomy, the right to decide what happens to your body? Let's say that it was a cultural practice to cut off the little finger of your left hand. Now there would be some loss of function but in general it would probably have little noticeable effect on the child's life and they would learn to adapt, so should that be allowed to be carried out on children to young to give informed consent? My ethics classes would say definitely not because it's a procedure without medical need performed in the absences of informed consent by the person its performed on. Parents should only be able to consent to a medically nessary procedure

What would your ethics classes say about a campaign against a harmless procedure that decreases chances of contraction of STDs or other diseases, making use of hysterical scare-tactics?
 
It's not harmless, it removes a significant portion of your sex organ. It's original purpose was likely to reduce sexual pleasure, because the Jews had hang-ups about sex. As far as STD's the benefit is erased if you are a normal person that showers and practices safe sex.
 
It is also a well known fact that the majority of women like it uncut. ;)

No, that's just something you're pulling out of your ass. It's not universal, but the most common is to prefer circumcised.


Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century

Abstract
Circumcision of males represents a surgical “vaccine“ against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain-free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals. BioEssays 29:1147–1158, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


pr0.1976.38.2.485.fp.png_v03


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Female_preferences_and_response
 
So you don't understand the concept of consent then? If a person wishes to alter there body thats compleatly fine but it's up to them to make that choice, not there parents.

Oh, the irony of "choice", and how it coincides with what fundies find to be the only right thing to do...

[science 2.0] Like AIDS? Then You Will Love The Anti-Circumcision Movement In San Francisco

Want to cloud a health and privacy issue? Label it "male genital mutilation" and wage an expensive marketing campaign to get it outlawed.

If you have no taste for irony, do not consider the fact that San Francisco, which practically has "women have the right to choose" in the city charter, would look odd telling women that the right to choose only applies to making babies dead and not giving them a circumcision [...]

http://www.science20.com/cool-links...anticircumcision_movement_san_francisco-76949




That's somewhat like posting a series of links to anti-vax and creationist sites, or their strategy of bulk-posting links as if they were all corroborating that evolution is a fraud.

There's no evidence for general harm or malfunction on male circumcision to either side (male or female), the evidence favor health benefits. It's simply not like jews were all sexually disfunctional or even less satisfied. Zero evidence for that, sorry. It's simply reality.
 
Correct, your rights end at your body. After the baby is born, you can't be allowed to mutilate it.
 
What about painfully perforating their flesh and infecting them for life with viruses and chemical substances? That's also horrible, inhumane....
 
It's not harmless, it removes a significant portion of your sex organ. It's original purpose was likely to reduce sexual pleasure, because the Jews had hang-ups about sex. As far as STD's the benefit is erased if you are a normal person that showers and practices safe sex.

Wrong, no one needs condoms. Sexually transmitted diseases can be totally controlled by decent, moral behavior, just like Mother Theresa said. AIDS is just a punishment given by God against fornicators. Condoms and circumcision are just ways to cheat God, making baby Jesus cry.
 
You mean vaccines that are beneficial without which they might die of horrible diseases?
 
Wrong, no one needs condoms. Sexually transmitted diseases can be totally controlled by decent, moral behavior, just like Mother Theresa said. AIDS is just a punishment given by God against fornicators. Condoms and circumcision are just ways to cheat God, making baby Jesus cry.

OK, so you're being sarcastic now?
 
Back
Top