Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1109978)

well, then show me how harmful it is

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1109978)

or men on soapboxes who have converted out of Judaism and Islam condemning circumcision

Originally Posted by Conan (Post 1110008)

In my personal view, I don't really care about the legal aspect of it. I believe parents should decide what is and isn't the best for their child. If they choose to get them vaccinated, breast or bottle feed, home or publicly educate, etc. If it doesn't appear that circumcision has any benefits, then that's something they should consider. But it's still their choice and in my mind, their right to choose what they feel will be best for their child.

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1110011)

How far do you take that though? If parents wanted to have their children's pinky toes surgically removed, would you support their right to do so?

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1110011)

How far do you take that though? If parents wanted to have their children's pinky toes surgically removed, would you support their right to do so?

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1110011)

How far do you take that though? If parents wanted to have their children's pinky toes surgically removed, would you support their right to do so?

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 1110042)

Maybe if they had a second pair, and it was done for aesthetic/functional purposes, however minor they'd be?

I'm just trying to make it a more fair comparison.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 1110042)

Maybe if they had a second pair, and it was done for aesthetic/functional purposes, however minor they'd be?

I'm just trying to make it a more fair comparison.

Originally Posted by Tuna (Post 1110047)

Why are people so passionate about this topic? Is it really that big of a difference either way? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1110050)

Why not? It's something people don't agree on that affects the lives of millions, including participants in this discussion. You can discuss it on several levels, for example on religion, ethics, medical consequences or culture.

As for how trivial it is, that depends. Perhaps most think it's trivial, but there is the occasional complication and clearly there are people who feel that circumcision has drastically reduced their sexual function.

Norwegians generally don't circumcise, but I still feel it's a very interesting subject and something that people should think and read about before they decide whether or not to have the procedure done on their own children.

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1110045)

I think you may have missed what I was getting at with that question. The point wasn't "to make a fair comparison", it was to question where the line is between what is acceptable and what isn't when it comes to parents having surgical procedures done on their children.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 1110052)

Ah, well fair enough. On a related note, is foot-binding for aesthetic/religious purposes still a fairly common practice? It's a valid example, but not culturally acceptable to us.

Originally Posted by Tuna (Post 1110047)

Why are people so passionate about this topic? Is it really that big of a difference either way? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 1110052)

Ah, well fair enough. On a related note, is foot-binding for aesthetic/religious purposes still a fairly common practice? It's a valid example, but not culturally acceptable to us.

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1110168)

is it actually "mutilation"? is it even "surgery"? it's more like extracting a tooth

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1110168)

same here - it's just a piece of skin

is it actually "mutilation"? is it even "surgery"? it's more like extracting a tooth

Originally Posted by Tuna (Post 1110051)

I'd much rather have my foreskin gone than my pinky toe for what its worth

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1110216)

No offense, but talking foreskins, do you know what you're missing? Obviously, the fact that it's hard to remember what it was like to have a foreskin before you ever really got sexually active is someting that contributes to making the issue seem trivial. When I write "you" here, I don't mean you specifically, but people who were circumcised at a young age. I feel like my foreskin does a lot for me sexually which is why I'd keep it over my pinky.

Originally Posted by Tuna (Post 1110219)

Well enlighten me, I don't do a lot of studying of cocks ;)

I've seen in porn guys use the foreskin to rub up and down the shaft, guess it just glides smoother then your hand solely on the shaft?

Originally Posted by Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (CIRP)

Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction

The human foreskin is highly innervated,5 21 29 and vascularized29 sensitive erogenous tissue.6 29 It plays an important role in normal human sexual response and is necessary for normal copulatory behavior.40 An understanding of this role is now emerging in the scientific literature. Removal of the foreskin (circumcision) interferes with normal sexual function.

This page brings together, in one place, scattered material relevant to the study of the role of the foreskin in human sexuality, and the dysfunction caused by its amputation.

Summary of the literature

Protection. The foreskin in the adult male either partially or completely covers the glans penis.40 The foreskin protects the glans penis from friction and from dryness.28 The foreskin maintains the sub-preputial space in a state of wetness with prostatic, vesicular and urethral secretions.17 The glans penis is covered with mucosa, not skin, so the wetness is essential for optimum health. There may be a correlation between wetness and sensitivity. Removal of the prepuce by circumcision results in a change in the appearance of the glans penis. The color tends to change from a red-purple to a light pink in caucausians and the texture changes from a glossy finish to a matte finish and becomes dull rather than shiny. Some believe that the epithelium of the glans thickens after removal of the foreskin to provide additional layers of protection and that this keratinization deadens sensation.10 Morgan (1965) said, "Removal of the prepuce exposes the glans to foreign stimuli which dull these special receptors.11 Bigelow (1994) observed that improvement in glanular sensitivity is the most frequently reported outcome of foreskin restoration.26 Pertot (1994) reports that the glans becomes softer after foreskin restoration.27 These older papers do not recognize the sensitivity of the foreskin itself.

Some doctors who are associated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University have carried out measurements of glanular sensitivity in both circumcised and intact males.53 54 Bleustein et al. (2003) claimed to measure overall penile sensitivity, but their methodology made that impossible. Even though the high innervation,6 21 29 40 the sensitivity,12 39 51 and the erogenous nature,6 of the foreskin had been reported previously, the foreskin inexplicably was not tested. The foreskin was held back out of the way53 54 and the contribution of the foreskin to overall penile sensitivity was not determined. Their studies reported little difference in glanular sensitivity between circumcised and intact males.53 54 If that is the case, then the decrease in penile sensitivity after circumcision and the increase noted after foreskin restoration must lie elsewhere.57 The most likely location is in the foreskin.57 Denniston reported loss of sexual pleasure in a survey of males circumcised in adulthood.61 The most recent study finds that the intact penis is about four times more sensitive than the circumcised penis.67

Mechanical function. The foreskin provides mechanical functions to facilitate intromission and penetration. Several authorities observe that the penis enters the vagina without friction as the foreskin unfolds.4 9 10 11 Taves (2002) reported that excision of the foreskin by circumcision increases the force required to penetrate by ten-fold.51 Shen et al. reported 43.1 percent of men cirumcised as adults experience difficult penetration.59 After penetration, the foreskin provides a gliding action that greatly reduces friction,4 9 11 15 41 49and vaginal dryness.27 40 50 55

Elasticity. The foreskin has a layer of smooth muscle tissue called the peripenic muscle,1 which is part of the dartos muscle.1 39 The contraction and expansion of the muscle fibers in this layer give the foreskin great elasticity and are important in erogenous sensation. Lakshmanan & Prakash report a "mosaic of muscle tissues and elastic fibres" contained between the two layers of the foreskin, which keep the foreskin snugly against in the glans penis in a close fit.15 The muscle fibres must stretch to allow the foreskin to retract over the glans and contract again when the foreskin returns to its normal forward position. The expansion and contraction of the muscle fibres during coitus allows the foreskin to stretch. The stretching deformes the Meissner corpuscles and produces sensation.68 The nerve bundles run alongside the dartos muscle.40 The stretching puts tension on the nerve endings contained within the foreskin. The nerve endings deform and generate pleasurable erotic sensations to the central nervous system and inputs to the autonomic nervous system, which plays a role in controlling erection and ejaculation.57 68 Taylor (2003) reports preliminary evidence that stretching of the foreskin produces contractions associated with ejaculation.58 Taylor reports that the ridged band of the foreskin is reflexogenic and produces contractions that result in ejaculation.68

Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 21 The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 36 51 Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 9 10 11 12 18 28 31 38 57 59 62 63 64

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent.59

Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32 O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) report more premature ejaculation in circumcised male partners.41 The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation. Masood et al. report that circumcision is more likely to worsen premature ejaculation than improve it.64 The Australian Study of Health and Relationships found that "26% of circumcised men but 22% of uncircumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year."65 Kim & Pang (2006) reported decreased ejaculation latency time in circumcised men but the decrease was not considered statistically significant.66

Inability to ejaculate or delayed ejaculation. While some circumcised males may suffer from a tendency toward premature ejaculation, others find that they have great difficulty in ejaculating.50 The nerves in the foreskin and ridged band are stimulated by stretching,18 57 amongst other movements. If those nerves are not present, Money (1983) argues that excision of these stretch receptors by circumcision may make ejaculation take longer.18. Some circumcised males may have to resort to prolonged and aggressive thrusting to achieve orgasm.40 49 Shen et al. (2004) reported that 32.6 percent of the men in his study reported prolonged intercourse after circumcision.59 Senkul et al. (2004) reported an appreciable increase in ejaculatory latency time (time to ejaculate).60 Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) reported that circumcised males have more difficulty with ejaculation and orgasm.63 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that circumcised men have more difficulty with masturbation.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 65 percent of circumcised men in their study reported increased ejaculation time in their study.69

Loss of sexual pleasure. Denniston reported that some circumcised men would not have the operation again because of loss of sexual pleasure.61 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of mastubatory pleasure after circumcision as compared with 8 percent that experienced increased pleasure and 8 percent reported improved sexual life, but 20 percent reported worsened sexual life.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 16 percent of the men in their study reported a better sex life after circumcision but 35 percent reported a worsened sex life.69

Sexual behaviour. The alteration to the sexual organ causes many circumcised males to change their sexual behavior. Foley reported that circumcised males are more likely to masturbate.10 Hooykaas et al. (1991) reported that immigrant (mostly circumcised) males have a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior with prostitutes as compared with Dutch (mostly normal intact) males.23 The U. S. National Health and Social Life Survey found that circumcised males have a "more elaborated" set of sexual practices, including more masturbation, and more heterosexual oral sex.30 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (2000) reported that circumcised males were more likely to report having a homosexual partner and more likely to have partners from abroad as compared with normal intact males.56 Circumcised men are significantly less likely to use condoms.38 50 Many men in the Solinis and Yiannaki study reported decreased sex life after circumcision.69

Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner.8 16 The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.41 45 55 Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner.24 28 62 The unnatural dryness may make coitus painful and result in abrasions.28 41 50 The vaginal dryness may be mistakenly attributed to female arousal disorder.55 62 O'Hara & O'Hara report that the female partner is less likely to experience orgasm when the foreskin is not present and more likely to experience orgasm or even multiple orgasms when the foreskin is present.41 Solinis & Yiannaki found that 46 percent of men in their study reported a worsened sex life for their partner while 33 percent reported that that their partner's sex life had improved.69

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1110236)

huh? I'm uncircumcised

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1110239)

I'm aware of that, but you seem to persist in your belief that circumcision has little to no relevance on sexual function. I think you're underestimating the consequences.

Originally Posted by Batty (Post 1111011)

No skin off my nose

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1111036)

Nope, just skin off your penis.

Originally Posted by conan (Post 1114717)

zing!

Originally Posted by Conan (Post 1114717)

Zing!

Originally Posted by Dirty_ (Post 1116965)

I'll have my child circumcised. No real reason other than I am circumcised and enjoy not having the extra skin hanging off my cock.

Originally Posted by Dirty_ (Post 1116965)

I'll have my child circumcised. No real reason other than I am circumcised and enjoy not having the extra skin hanging off my cock.

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1107951)

I agree with you on all these points, Tore.

Why non-therapeutic genital cutting of male children is accepted in the U.S.: I think because people often follow entrenched customs without thinking to question them. They assume there is justification. They assume that medical benefits outweigh the risks and harms caused when people cut off healthy, functional parts of a child's penis.

Also, most people don't seem to know anything about the foreskin and its functions, or think to ask why human males like other mammals have foreskins. I suspect it is probably easier for people to destroy a child's body part when they don't know how the foreskin functions or know of its benefits. They aren't used to the appearance of a boy or man's intact penis and think it is weird or gross.

I am very troubled that people so easily cut off a healthy part of children's genitalia. Circumcision is an obvious human rights violation, in my opinion. When people do this to a girl's foreskin (the clitoral hood), it is called genital mutilation, but when you call male circumcision what it is...genital mutilation...supporters can't handle the reality of what they are doing to children. They come up with all sorts of rationales to avoid the obvious and to dismiss the damage of what they are doing to kids.

As someone whose writing I like very much ;) once said:

*******

"You were my parents and you should have been protecting me.
Instead you had them slice and violate my body.
You shouldn’t torture little children’s sexuality.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"You claim you had some sort of justification
for perpetrating genital mutilation.
You claim that circumcision improves hygiene,
but you don’t cut off children’s body parts to keep them clean!

"You claim you wanted to protect me from HIV,
but how to do that best is teach the rules of ABC:
abstinence, be faithful, and ensure consistent condom use.
You don’t stop STIs by perpetrating child abuse!

"You claim you did it for your culture or religion.
What kind of culture turns abuse into tradition?
You say your god tells you to cut your helpless offspring.
You shouldn’t make a child’s torture be an offering.

"Mutilating genitals of little girls is wrong, you cry,
but when it is a little boy, you turn your blind eye.
You had no right to make your violent incision.
What happens to my body should be my decision!

"You pinned a little child down. You cut his penis by force.
Yet you acknowledge no wrongdoing. You feel no remorse.
You violated my genital integrity.
You had no right to harm the most private part of me.

"Fondle little children and you’ll spend your life in jail.
Why can you cut their foreskin off if they are male?!
There is no rationale, no justification.
You perpetrated genital mutilation."

*******

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1145745)

I am anti-lint, hence my voting for circumcision.

Originally Posted by Farfisa (Post 1147558)

What, you don't like cheese?

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1150768)

I (and many others) believe circumcision to mostly be a way to reduce masturbation which is something people were very afraid of in the olden days.

Originally Posted by crukster (Post 1150900)

Well that doesn't work. Jerked myself all day before I was cut and jerk myself all day still afterwards.

If anything it reduces sensitivity so you can jerk for longer.

Originally Posted by The Masturbation Taboo and the Rise of Routine Male Circumcision: A Review of the Historiography

There is increasing scholarly interest in the history of routine male circumcision in Anglophone countries, but much disagreement as to whether prevention of masturbation was an important part of this development. A review of the historiography of both the masturbation phobia and the rise of routine circumcision shows that it has been widely accepted since the 1950s that discouraging masturbation was a major reason why doctors, educationists and childcare experts sought to introduce circumcision of both boys and girls in the later nineteenth century, a campaign which was successful in the former case, unsuccessful in the latter—an outcome which still colours popular concepts about what constitutes genital mutilation. Mainstream pediatric and child care manuals continued to assert the value of circumcision as a disincentive to masturbation right up until the 1950s. The importance of the original link between masturbation and circumcision was rediscovered at the same time, when belief in the harmful effects of the former was declining, and as medical historians began to investigate the origin, course and effects of the onanism scare during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

Originally Posted by A Surgical Temptation - The demonization of the foreskin & the rise of circumcision in Britain

More convincing on this point is Ornella Moscucci, who shows that circumcision was increasingly recommended as a cure for male masturbation from the 1850s onward. She points out that part of this process was the demonization of the foreskin as a source of nervous and physical disease and agrees with Hyam that circumcision was central to the late Victorian redefinition of manliness in terms of self-restraint and cleanliness. "Widely blieved to dampen sexual desire, circumcision was seen positively as a means of both promoting chastity and physical health."