|
Ultimately, if children occurred in my future, I honestly wouldn't see the practicality in doing it to them. If I were a boy who'd had it done though, I wouldn't lament it.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Anyone I know who's cut, has had it dine as an adult due to a problem. I know of one person btw. |
I'm cut and honestly I like it a lot. I think it looks ALOT better(fine to disagree with me just an opinion.)
|
Quote:
edit : Thought I'd see if I could find a source to back that up. Seems there are several, some based on internet polls or others on more in-depth studies. Here's a quotation from a free article I found : Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
^^that one I'm against
|
Quote:
Being for or indifferent to one and against the other seems hypocritical to me. |
i have a lot of Muslim friends who had their foreskin removed
i haven't heard a single one complain about it, be they faithful to religion or science femaile circumcision is totally unnecessary and constitutes mutilation and its sole purpose is to prevent sexual enjoyment |
David Reimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yep, there can be some pretty horrifying consequences. But female circumsicion... There's not even an illusion of a benefit to that. It's inhumane. |
Quote:
|
not really
there seems to be some benefits to male circumcision - hygiene issues - you can say it's easy to clean, but some dudes still have lots of knob cheese there are no benefits to female circumcision |
Quote:
|
I don't even have a vagina, but reading that article Tore linked makes me feel their pain down under. Who the bloody **** thought it was a good idea to pull out a baby girl's clitoris?
|
Quote:
http://frivolousendeavour.files.word...010/08/god.jpg |
Quote:
And I completely agree, but "female circumcision" is a misnomer, especially when the goal is to reduce or eliminate sexual function of the erectile tissue. Calling it "circumcision" is a blanket propaganda tactic to have it accepted in the medical community -- almost no Western doctors will perform the procedure, which has paved the way for some nasty cases of child abuse. While there is no erectile tissue in the foreskin, the removal of part of the clitoris deprives a female of the most sensitive sexual organ of the female body, for which there is NO MEDICAL OR RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION. What I would like to know is are there any people who were sexually active prior to circumcision that can reflect on how sex changed for them? These are the only people who can have subjective knowledge of both sides of the argument (objective knowledge, in this situation, is indeterminate). |
Quote:
Female "circumcision" is never mentioned in the Qur'an. It's a practice that was established by men, for men, so that men have their consciences assured when virginity needs established. There is no religious justification for that rite whatsoever. Even most Muslims don't practice it. |
Quote:
male circumcision is just removing a useless piece of skin that sheathes the head female "circumcision" involves removing the clitoris entirely, which is a bit like cutting off the shaft of the penis 2 totally different things please do get your facts right some men have circumcision even when there's no religion involved no woman would have "circumcision" for the sake of science, unless there's cancer of the clitoris edit:- my father had circumcision because the foreskin was actually inhibiting his erectile muscles i had friends who are circumcised purely because of hygiene and feel, who are neither Muslims nor Jews, as doome guys on this board and about masturbation, it doesn't make them any less horny, in fact, my Muslim friends learn to wank earlier than me, purely because of applying soap on their penis and as it's more sensitive, masturbate at an earlier age BECAUSE of circumcision female "circumcision" is practised here, but only to the extent of taking a "nick" on their clitoris, which again, also makes the Muslim girls hornier, and is not the total mutilation practised in the fundamentalist countries can you see now how i can be indifferent about one, and against the other? |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
i have contemplated circumcision myself on this fact alone i have watched enough porn of circumcised Malay men entering Malay girls, and the girl is not any less excited about the coitus and neither was the man and the only negative thing about male circumcision that i can think of is that when during the Holocaust, many Jews were trying to pass off as gentiles and escape Nazi Germany, but their circumcised penises tipped off the SS or the Gestapo (they conducted exams on their sexual organs) |
Quote:
Take a look at what Evangelica posted f.ex : Quote:
|
I'm not sure that how porn appears qualifies as a scientific sample base for a claim.
That story a couple of pages back absolutely horrified me. I didn't know that sort of thing happened. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The facts: (1) The male foreskin is *not* just a "useless piece of skin that sheathes the head": Quote:
One variation of Type I FGM is when the female foreskin (prepuce or clitoral hood) is removed, using definitions of FGM given by the American Academy of Pediatrics: Female Genital Mutilation -- Committee on Bioethics 102 (1): 153 -- AAP Policy Different degrees and variations of genital cutting exist for both males and females. All are a human rights violation, in my opinion, when done on an underaged individual. (3) Some studies have found apparent medical benefits to female gentital mutilation. You wrote earlier that "there are no benefits to female circumcision." A Tanzanian study found that circumcised women had a significantly lower risk of HIV infection: Stallings, R. Y., and Karugendo, E. (2005) Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: For Better or For Worse, International Aids Society Conference http://ww4.aegis.org/conferences/ias...5/TuOa0401.pdf (4) Even when the exposed clitoris is cut off, in the severe form of Type I FGM, this is not as severe as cutting off a man's penis as women can still experience orgasms. The reason this is true is that FGM leaves enough of the unexposed arms of the clitoris, which run on either side of the vulva, intact for women to still achieve orgasm. See Clitoris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for structure of clitoris: the clitoral glans (what you see on the outside) is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. See Catania et al. (2007) Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C), J Sex Med, Nov;4(6):1666-78, for evidence that females whose genitals are altered by clitoral head removal can still experience orgasm: Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital M... [J Sex Med. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI None of these issues above gets rid of the underlying human rights violations when people alter children's healthy, functional genitalia. Changing children's ability to experience sexuality as they would have if they had been allowed to retain their natural bodies is wrong. People should not be pricking, cutting, ripping, crushing, or removing parts of healthy children's genitalia! Also, I feel it is extremely wrong to subject children to unnecessary and severe pain through genital cutting. * * * * * As for the question of what a man's sexual experiences might be like if he had not been circumcised as a baby: I imagine that a male who lacks his foreskin is a little like a person who has had his outer ear (the auricle) removed. He can still hear (he can have an orgasm), but he is missing some of the sensitivity (no sensitive earlobes; can't gather as much sound), and the way he moves to hear (achieve orgasm) is altered to compensate for the losses. I have read that circumcised men, in order to reach orgasm, need bigger motions, which can sometimes have negative ramifications for both the circumcised men and their partners. I want to get the full article of this, but here is an interesting abstract: Quote:
|
Do you think that female circumcision decreases likelihood of HIV, in that it decreases a woman's overall desire for sex?
|
Quote:
First, correlation =/= causation; don't try to establish baseline similarities between FGM and HIV incidence. How many partners do you think devout Muslim women have in their lifetimes? See what the incidence of HIV is in married Muslim women vs. unmarried. There's your cause. Second, you really must be confused if you think that about circumcised men. The glans is the most sensitive part of the penis, you aren't aware that its increased exposure amounts to more unusual forms of stimulation? There are more accessible ways to bring circumcised men to climax than uncircumcised, I imagine. |
I'm confused, I thought the foreskin retracts during erections so that it doesn't even come into play during sex? :confused:
|
Quote:
Foreskin Curriculum Quote:
Quote:
However, I have read that this change may be due not to increased sensitivity of the circumcised penis, but rather to social reasons and decreased sensitivity caused by loss of the foreskin. Yes, correlation does not equal causation. The Tanzanian study of women looked at a variety of factors, including number of partners, and found that women who had experienced female genital mutilation still had lower HIV infection rates even when the number of sex partners was taken into account. You seem to be assuming that only devout Muslim women are circumcised and that marriage status causes different HIV rates among Muslim women. You state this as fact. What is your source? The point in this discussion of female genital mutilation (FGM), though, was to show that proponents of FGM have their arguments in favor of it and will use claims of reduced HIV rates and improved hygiene to argue that genital cutting of girls should be allowed, ignoring the human rights violations of children and the less invasive ways to achieve the same effects of improved health. Supporters of male genital cutting do the same thing. One example is that U.S. proponents of circumcision of baby boys cite as support the reduced HIV rate among African men who have been circumcised as adults, even though the effects of circumcision of men should not be assumed to be the same as the effects of circumcision on infants, since an infant's foreskin structure is very different than that of an adult's, the procedures differ, and the rates of complications and risks differ, as well. Quote:
|
I get the feeling we're both agreeing on this anyway, but I don't think less risk of HIV (which can easily be controlled by sensible people anyway) is enough to justify mutilating a woman's vagina. Sometimes words can be misleading, but I think that the word mutilation perfectly sums up what these people are doing to baby girls.
|
Quote:
You might be interested to hear that in 2010 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommended that U.S. doctors be allowed to perform a ceremonial pin prick of the clitoris of baby girls: Group Backs Ritual The reason for the proposal: the AAP hoped that allowing doctors to prick the clitoris of baby girls, leading to bleeding, would pacify and prevent parents from sending the girls overseas where they'd be subjected to far worse. The resulting outcry forced the AAP to rescind their recommendation. Any type of female genital mutilation has been illegal in the U.S. since 1996. Unfortunately, not so many voices are raised to protect little boys from genital cutting. I am amazed how many medical professionals are willing to violate the "Do No Harm" dictum. |
Really, they impose a full ban on female but don't even limit male? That seems a bit odd. It's obvious that even though male circumcision has many issues it's still not as harmful, but I fully agree that it shouldn't ever, ever be performed on young boys unless there's an emergency that calls for it and nothing else.
Just to add the closest I have to personal experience, I know a boy who was circumcised just a couple of weeks ago. I didn't pry in to why (I'm amazed he even told me really) but I think it was something medical. If it wasn't, he was sixteen so capable of making a decision himself. |
The whole "it looks better" arguement is bullshit. A cock is a fucking cock.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The whole 'better health' issue is a load of cobblers. A huge percentage of men in the U.K are not circumcised and that is what nature has given us so you work with that and don't alter it until you feel that it IS an issue.
STD percentages have not really used this argument as a case for or against cleanliness at least not over here. An uncut penis does look more attractive visually yet a lot of sensitivity seems to be lost when uncut and may lead to desensitisation of the glans. Having foreskin does lend itself very well to friction and extra stimulus regarding opposite forces when having intercourse and even the most lazy of the male species WILL keep himself clean both for physical and aesthetic reasons. Circumcision has it's benefits but for frig's sake, let your kid's decide what they want to do with their bodies. Enforcing any sort of will upon children is a detriment 9 times out of ten and performing surgery unnecessarily to appeal to your own sensibility is selfish and ignorant. By all means support your children and guide them in future choices but to take away a body part (no matter how insignificant at the time) in order to appease a religion or doctrine is going against everything that a parent should aspire to. |
Quote:
|
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:53 AM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.