Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1108332)

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

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam (Post 1108329)

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).

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1108343)

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)

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1107958)

About urinary tract infections:
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the absolute risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most ~ 1%) (1999 Circumcision Policy Statement), and UTIs are usually successfully treated with antibiotics.

Thom, why should people cut off part of children's genitalia simply because parents may fail to teach children proper hygiene, especially when urinary tract infections are treatable and the harm caused by urinary tract infections is much less than the permanent damage caused by circumcision? Perhaps if parents were threatened with the loss of part of their genitalia, they'd do a better job teaching their kids about proper hygiene! :p:

About sexually transmitted diseases:
Studies in the U.S. have found that intact males do not have an increased risk of STD infection, including HIV (Laument, E.O., et al. (1997) JAMA, 277:1052-1057 and Thomas, AG, et al. (2004) International AIDS Society).

I think you are referring to recent studies of African men who were circumcised in their late teens and adulthood. Although three studies in Africa found that men had approximately a 50% reduced risk of HIV infection in the year following circumcision, over 1% of the circumcised men still became infected with HIV (Bailey, R.C., et al. (2007) Lancet, 369: 943-656). One out of 100 circumcised men still got HIV in just one year!!!

Rather than circumcising babies, who are not sexually active, parents who fear that their child may contract a sexually transmitted disease can teach him about the most effective STD prevention techniques: abstinence, safer sex (which includes consistent use of condoms, fidelity to one's partner, and reduction in the number of partners), and genital hygiene (retracting the foreskin and washing and drying the penis shaft daily and after sexual activity).

About cancer of the penis:
The American Medical Association states that since penile cancer is so rare (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 men) and occurs late in life, circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified. One of the rarest cancers, penile cancer is even less common than male breast cancer! Known penile cancer risk factors are smoking cigarettes and having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners.

If adults (18 years old and older) want to be circumcised, that is their right, but in my opinion newborn and older children should have a legal right to their intact, healthy bodies. Newborn and older kids should be allowed to grow up intact so that as adults they can decide for themselves if they wish to undergo cutting of their most private of body parts.


That's a really good question.

The organization Doctors Opposing Circumcision writes that "if we circumcise 100,000 boys we allegedly prevent 900 transient, curable UTIs (urinary tract infections) and one penile cancer case, in an 80-year-old (American Cancer Society Statistics). We have also caused between 1,000 complications (1 percent, AAP statistics) or 5,000 to 7,000 complications (5 to 7 percent, British Urology Statistics), including hundreds of permanent, sexually cripping, botched circumcisions and at least one death. The STD studies are murky and inconclusive and do not suggest prophylaxis worth even the immediate risk, let alone the lifetime losses."

Also consider the functions of the foreskin that are lost to the child forever due to circumcision. The foreskin has protective, sensory, and sexual functions. A baby boy's intact foreskin, which is almost always fused to the glans at birth much like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed, protects it from urine and fecal matter during the diaper stage, contains numerous erogenous, fine-touch sensory receptors similar to those in the lips, and matures into a natural sliding and gliding mechanism that enables non-abrasive sexual activity.

Three of the most sensitive areas of the natural, intact penis are (1) the specialized foreskin structure called the "ridged band," (2) the tip of the foreskin, and (3) the frenulum, which attaches the foreskin to the glans, all of which are removed by circumcision. A recent study found that "five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis," which is the circumcision scar on the ventral side (Sorrells, M.L., et al. (2007) Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis, BJU International, 99: 864 - 869).

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1108332)

look, man, do you even know what procedures are involved?

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?

Originally Posted by Janszoon (Post 1108328)

This guy, or so they say:

http://frivolousendeavour.files.word...010/08/god.jpg

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam (Post 1108330)

Nope.

Originally Posted by Il Duce (Post 1108332)

look, man, do you even know what procedures are involved?

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

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1108365)

(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

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.