You don't mutilate your daughters - why do you mutilate your sons ? (Discussion concerning human se

The thread is too harrowing to read thru entirely, and respond to any one trauma in particular. Edged in my mind is the quantum physics conundrum. Where does the removed piece of matter wind up, and for what purposes? Male or female?

Then you reed up sometime on some classic luvmaking styles and wow the difference really stands out!

Mom's throw away everything in the end, but some things you never even knew about!

reply to post by stumason

Surely, with all the extra flaps, holes and juices, the womans area is much more prone to infection.

Yeah, & nevermind the bits you can see, what about the bits inside? I'm thinking particularly of that spongy tissue against the front of the vaginal canal that is completely made of millions of tiny wrinkles, constantly soaked in mucous & at full body temperature (unlike male genitalia which is usually about 2 degrees cooler). If that isn't the absolute perfect place for bacteria to grow, I dont know what is.
Still, here we are. Millions of years have gone by & somehow these bacteria haven't managed to wipe us out yet. I think that those of you who are mad hung up on the concept of "hygiene" have been watching too many TV ads. Our bodies are completely covered in & colonised by billions of the little bastards. There's absolutely nothing we can do about that, but fortunately it doesn't matter because, in almost all cases, they dont do us any harm unless we already have a compromised immune system.

reply to post by pscysm

I'm glad I got the snip, I haven't been deprived any pleasure, god given or otherwise.

Perhaps you haven't read the thread, so I'll ask you also, how do you know what pleasure you might have had if you were intact?
You have absolutely no frame of reference to make that assertion.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Regarding function tho, how old are you?

33.

It seems alot of Brits aren't circumcised, I guess it's alot like oral hygiene there.

Anyway, I can't understand how so many people pick and choose when they believe the medical community is out to help people, and when they're just out to "mutilate" to make a buck. It's all about personal opinions first, facts second it seems.

Here's a site that provides links to peer reviewed literature, speaking of the health benefits of circumcision...

www.circinfo.net...

The information reviewed herein is the most extensive and accurate in the world. Listed are ~1,000 references. Most can be found by the reader in any medical library or internet referencing service, such as PubMed. The message they convey is quite clear. Unfortunately, the topic of circumcision has been made unnecessarily controversial because of emotive propaganda and opinions placed on the internet by extremist anti-circumcision organizations.

*snip*

The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.

(bold mine)

It's not just about nob-cheese, or whatever clever euro slang you choose to throw around. Although I admit it's pretty humorous.

star and flag

nature has her way of surprizing is constantly and medical sciences have changed their minds on alot of issiues over alot of subjects all the time

i ask everybody if they really know what a foreskin does?
i dont mean the medical or spiritual reason
yes there is another reason

what if the foreskin can be used latter in life in skin grafts or cells for activation and use with imune problems
the cells in wisdom teeth are capable of acting like stem cells and when triggered and released they can repair organs
we pull out wisdom teeth all the time without realizing that they store our genetic code in a unique way for repair latter on now i ask you about the foreskin what could be learned in ten years time ?

what if your foreskin is like your stomach ?

your stomach has nerve endings and there is speculation the cells act like a brain (sort of) capable of feelings (sounds weird) but from the pit of my stomach is a phrase used alot subconciously

imagine if you will all our cells are alive and have a way of comunicating with each other like a colony with cell phones
we dont know if removing healthy cells cause the ones that remain to react

never say a foreskin is usless because doctors will descover new things all the time and that flap of skin has many many purposes we know nothing about

to the women
imagine if with medical procedures in the future could turn the cells from the foreskin that you had cut off into a new heart?
but by throwing it in the bin you have condemed them to death

this is a drastic example for a reason we cannot say boys or men dont need it because
1.we dont know what it does fully
2.we dont know what removing it does (mentally as well)
3.if it was really preferable woundnt women have breed it out of us by now

to the men
if your circumsized i feel for your loss even if you dont know the difference
you can grow it back
anytime i hear the social stigma argument i cringe that people will heard themselfs (to fit in)
is you sons sexual health (mental) really ok if he cannot learn to self stimulate in a natural way (in their own time)
just because you canot remeber what it felt like doesnt mean it hasnt effect you

to everyone
all the resons given become obsolete when you decide to teach mutual apreciation of our bodies to our childern
and if your worried about cleanlyness the secreations under the foreskin are for health reasons
teach your childeren to use a condom and how to clean properly

i challenge anyone to self mutilate before forcing your social ideas onto babies
ignorince of how abusive this is is no excuse to abuse

males and females are the most advanced in terms of genetics and evolution they have ever been who are we to think we can do a better job then eons of breeding?

XPLODING mad

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
You have absolutely no frame of reference to make that assertion.

And what frame of reference do you have to make the assertion that you enjoy sex more than if you had been circumcised? Besides of course the super interesting story about your lady that gives such a great beejer, she nearly kills you?

reply to post by XPLodER


So, I assume you don't cut your hair, or your nails then either? You just let everything go as nature intended, or do you pick and choose which cells are okay to sever in order to try and make some profound statement? The foreskin probably did have a purpose when mankind was evolving, but now, we wear clothing which protects our genitals. Humans also do not eat what we evolved to eat (well, most of you don't anyway), grains, dairy, etc. were not meant to be consumed, and they lower your immunities and allow bacteria and illnesses to thrive while your immune systems attack your own body. Back when humans hunted and gathered their food, instead of farming and animal husbandry, they were not prone to the infections men are today. The foreskin is now a useless breeding ground to kick of nasty bacterial infections.

Originally posted by 27jd
The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.

All of the above, utter garbage! Where is the evidence?

Protects against HIV and other STD's? Really? Why are STD's so prevalent in the US then?

Cancer? What evidence is this based on, as cancer rates in the US are amongst the highest in the world.

Here is some euro-slang for that passage. Total bollocks.

The little oral hygiene swipe was uncalled for as well, let's not start bandying stereotypes around now, we know how upset you Americans get when you have the piss taken out of you.

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
reply to post by Binder

 

"Wow, so following this logic it's the right thing to mutilate the genitalia of 8 year old girls, to commit genocide against a people, and to rape entire cities so long as pro can be argued along with the cons. This is the logic of NAMBLA and other abusers."

< Purposefully inflamatory statement using a stretched, and twisted paraphrasing of only one element of the logic I used in my original statement. If it's design was not to evoke strong emotion what was it? Setting the stage for the next statement. Dun, dundun!

"This is the most disgusting post I have ever read in my entire life. "

< Hyperbole in it's purest form. Note use of terms "most", "ever", and "entire life."

ETA: You also create the same problem by telling everyone to listen to your POV because you marginalize everyone's beliefs by calling them hyperbole. There is a word for that.... Hypocrite.

< Note use of label "hypocrite" = personal attack.

Side note. My whole point is NOT to marginalize anyones beliefs. I never called anyones beliefs hyperbole. I called the use of hyperbolic words in the english language hyperbole. When over used to make a statement yes they reduce your credibility. I haven't told anyone "Hey listen to my point of view, I'm right." My position in a nut shell is "Make, and own your own decision, and don't be swayed by others emotions, and views. Research the facts, and base your decision on that." - informed consent that's it. If you have a problem with informed consent you have a really big problem.

Emotion is always a factor in decisions, and some decisions should be made based on them, and some decisions shouldn't. Most decisions require a delicate balance between the two. I am still purplexed as to what possible beef you could have with me. The guy taking the neutral stance? Do you find neutrality offensive? Kind of like Zap Brannigan from Futurama wanting to kill all the neutronians because they are so darned neutral. Your argument to me sounds like "How dare you speak of mutual acceptance, and calm logical thought. Get your butt on a fence, and throw eggs at the stupid people over there. Because it's the right thing to do."

Anything to eventually get angst aimed back at the Jews. I wonder if Hitler mentioned circumcision as a slight against them?

Well, I'm a Brit. Like the vast majority of my male friends I wasn't circumcised. We're now all in our 40's. None of us has had any of the dread diseases mentioned in this thread. So the only issue remaining is hygiene ... and I don't know anyone who doesn't take a shower at least once a day.

And, funnily enough, we brush our teeth too. Some of us even floss. So we can put the stereotypes to bed.

If guys want to be circumcised I say let them make that choice themselves. Seems an odd thing to do, to remove part of your body, it's obviously been given to us for a good reason. But it's up to him ... not his parents.

reply to post by Binder


Thanks for conceding,

To answer your question it is the moral relativism in the post that I find disgusting.

reply to post by AdAbsurdum


If you want to interpret that as a concession, I guess you are welcome. I said nothing different than my original statement perhaps you are just now catching my meaning. Moral relativism? How is being a proponent of peoples right to make their own decisons in life, aka freedom, moral relativism. The whole point is, loose the agenda, moral relativism very much has an agenda.

Clotting is highest in the human body at 8 days after birth.

I have the benefit of seeing this from the other perspective. I was not circumcised. The result was tramatic. The foreskin grows onto the glans of the penis. At the age of four, I had to have four adults hold my arms and legs down so the doctor could cut the foreskin away from the glans. It hurt for a week. No anesthetic. Given a choice, I would rather have been circumcized at 8 days than butchered at 4 years old. I remember it.

reply to post by Binder

Perhaps a good basis for a study. Test the sensitivity of the skin below the glans of a circumsized man... etc.

Various people have already posted links to studies of penile tissue in this thread. I agree tho that a comprehensive study including various age groups would be helpful in understanding this issue. However, so far, what we do know is that the foreskin contains a whole load of different types of nerve receptors, many of which are specifically for erotic pleasure.
From my own experience I can say this with absolute confidence: the inside of the foreskin is at least as sensitive to pressure as the glans. It is slightly more sensitive to heat & way more sensitive to touch.
How can I be certain? Because I have a tattoo from the base of my penis to the tip of my foreskin. I expected it to really hurt, but, surprisingly enough, I've got ink elsewhere that hurt far more. Now, I can promise you that if it was on the inside of my foreskin, there is absolutely no way on earth I could have sat still for it, even if I was drugged up to the eyeballs!
I understand what you're saying about the possibility of the nervous pathways being reorganised so that perhaps a cut man has the same sensitivity in the remaining exterior skin of the shaft, but this is surely not possible, or they'd never be able to walk about for constantly being powerfully sexually stimulated... until such time as the nerves became desensitised.
Thing is that just because someone can have an orgasm & ejaculate doesn't mean that they can derive the same degree of pleasure from the prior sensations, or that their experience of orgasm is as intense as another person's.
There is also the issue of sensory feedback & how that can be used to improve the experience for both partners.

Originally posted by Binder
If you want to interpret that as a concession, I guess you are welcome.

I said nothing different than my original statement perhaps you are just now catching my meaning.

I was spot on about your logic. You admitted that I was right.

Moral relativism?

How is being a proponent of peoples right to make their own decisons in life, aka freedom, moral relativism. The whole point is, loose the agenda, moral relativism very much has an agenda.

Yes, moral relativism.

This is my argument...

No one should have the right to sexually mutilate another human being with out that persons consent outside of a valid (Read: Life saving, extremity saving) reason.

...as posted on the first page.

The claim that others are correct in their position because they they think it to be correct is an attempt to justify their actions when I argue they are reprehensible. So, you can't ride the fence here. You are either for genital mutilation without consent or against it.

But, since you are all about freedom to consent, surely you will agree with my position. Depending on your answer here it will either prove you are hypocrite or I'll have to retract an earlier statement.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
Perhaps you haven't read the thread, so I'll ask you also, how do you know what pleasure you might have had if you were intact?
You have absolutely no frame of reference to make that assertion.

I was taught that the orgasm was caused by release of tension in the pelvic floor muscles (could be the wrong name or muscle, but around there), so stimulation, although pleasurable is input into the main show.

As to frame of reference, I know my bodies limits for pleasure and have had it exceeded it on several occassions.
You can jump off you soap box now.

Gee I find it soooo ironic that a women has bought this up, not to mentioned the thread title. The only thing any women can say about this, is its not my issue, its the right of the father to decide if he wants his son circumcised or not, end of story, women should never have a say in this matter. And if the man isn't around for unforeseen circumstances go seek a MANS advice

Is it mutilation, choked on my wheat bix hearing that, Please op tell me where the hell I remembered getting my foreskin cut off,

I have had women say to me it takes away the sensation, Oh really how the hell would you know, ironic that that a women should say this because they want a man to last longer talk about shooting ya self in the foot

Aboriginal people of Australia have practiced this for tens of thousands years along with many other indigenous cultures around the globe

I suggest that women keep out of men's business and worry about their own down stairs department, after all it is a fact that men who aren't circumcised are the ones that effect women when it comes to sexually transmitted diseases. especially Chlamydia that causes cervical cancer

Wally proudly a helmet head and mine works just fine

It IS mutilation in it's definition.
It IS a strange practice that Caucasians are brainwashed to "fit in".
It IS taking away sensitivity which is a real crime for parents to make a decision like that for their child

Sad practice and really a scary thought to see so many westerners follow Jewish indoctrination.

reply to post by Bunken Drum


First of all thank you for the well thought out, and intelligent reply. Secondly how do you know that I don't walk around being powerfully erotically stimulated all the time? (I don't, but how do you know?!) You make a very cogent, and logical argument for retaining the foreskin. It is this type of discussion that is valuable, and enjoyable on ATS. From personal observation(I see more penises in my profession than any call girl.:wow as long as a guy maintains the tool it never rusts. Unfortunately you would be surprised how many guys don't. I will say however my sampling is probably skewed because I see a high proportion of people who don't typically take care of themselves in general. The sleek willy is a much lower maintenance appendage if you plan to just let yourself go. If you intend to do proper maintenance, and it really isn't much, then au naturale is the way to go. I can't, and wouldn't argue about sensual experience. As you are correct that neither set has the frame of referrence to refute, or confirm either way.

As far as suggestion of a study. I was noticing the lack of testing on tissue other than the glans being compare in the afore mentioned study. It would be interesting to see a similar study performed addressing that lack of gathered data. Almost makes one wonder if it was left out of the results intentionally?