This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Circumcision Fetish
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Revision circumcision
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
- Circumcision or not
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Very sensitive after circumcision; How do I shower?
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Using lube the first time
- Do girls actually like giving head.........?
Circumcise me?
Scroll to see replies
Elipsis
Mate if this was true we would all be getting circumcised as a form of vacination against penis cancer.
what?? vaccination??
Helenia
I'm not quite sure why you're posting anonymously for that one. The practice of female circumcision itself is indeed incorrectly named - perhaps that's why it's less condemned than it ought to be.
I wasn't aware that female circumcision was occasionally done for medical reasons, but is this anywhere near as common for medical need for male circumcisions?
I wasn't aware that female circumcision was occasionally done for medical reasons, but is this anywhere near as common for medical need for male circumcisions?
The anonymous is mainly because I should really be working and thought I might feel less compelled to reply if nobody knew who I was. As you can see, it's working a treat!
To answer your question, probably not, simply because the male version is more important from a "functional" perspective. If a guy's foreskin is too tight, which is probably the most common problem, it's likely to cause pain and may stop him being able to have sex. If a woman's hood is too tight/long/covering then she'll still be able to have sex, just with less sensation. Actually, if you look it up, a woman can get just about every "problem" given as a reason for male circumcision, including adhesion and smegma buildup.
) , its basically the same thing.
My Dad's circumcised for religious reasons. Not being quite so religious himself, he always said that if my sister and I were boys then it would be up to us to make the decision when we were old enough, which IMO is a better idea*. Then again, this is possibly a lot to do with the fact that my Mum is against it (well, with the exception of medical reasons presumably) and also isn't Jewish, which probably affected his opinion and also means that we wouldn't have actually been Jewish anyway. However, from the same conversation (no, I don't remember how it arose!) I don't think he's against it or that it had affected him in any negative way. I think he just wanted us to have the choice. Obviously though, it's not an issue :P
*I could understand why some Orthodox Jews (or Muslims) wouldn't want to give their sons a choice- in the words of Tevye, it's tradition, and it would probably feel wrong for them not to have their sons circumcised.
*I could understand why some Orthodox Jews (or Muslims) wouldn't want to give their sons a choice- in the words of Tevye, it's tradition, and it would probably feel wrong for them not to have their sons circumcised.
El Scotto
*in relation to circumsised penis being less likely to contract aids/std etc*
You must of really found some propoganda website there....
you dont seriously believe this one do you?
saying someone is more likely to get an STD or HIV due to what their bits look like is just as ridiculous as saying someone is more or less likely to get STD or HIVS because of what tattoos they have.
*in relation to circumsised penis being less likely to contract aids/std etc*
You must of really found some propoganda website there....
you dont seriously believe this one do you?
saying someone is more likely to get an STD or HIV due to what their bits look like is just as ridiculous as saying someone is more or less likely to get STD or HIVS because of what tattoos they have.
erm, i read a research project on that, and its true.
also, your logic is moronic.
Casey
be it out of their own choice or not.
Why is it ok if it isn't their choice?!
If there was a tradition for people to remove the appendix from people, lop off their ear lobes or take off their little toes... is that something a parent should be ok to decide to do to their baby?
Your body, your choice. Explicitly yours. No other person should be able to control any aspect of what you do with your body or do things to it without your consent.
It's a slippery slope if there ever was one...
The BMA (british medical association) have found that there is no reason for it unless there is an immediate or re-acurring medical issue... The rubbish about girls getting cerviocal cancer has been dispelled.. the original study suggested women having sex with a guy with a foreskin caused women to get cervical cancer, the proof presenetd was the fact that Jewish women rarely got it incomparrision to non-religious women.. this was DISPROVED some time later,
upon investigation it turns out that teh Jews suffered less due to their culture where most of the women chose not to have sex before marriage there for jewish women were only sleeping with 1 or 2 men thorugh out their whole life which massivley reduces the change of getting cervical cancer,
so they wernt not suffering due to their males being circed, they suffered less due to their culture which dis-couraged random sex with random guys.. where as the non-religious women tended to have more unprotected sex with a LOT more men increasing the chance of cervical cancer...
anyway, my original point was the BMA (british medical assosciation) have said that there is no reason to circumcise unless there is an immediate or recurrung medical condition, as the benefits of circumcising arent worth it. and as for the guy that said ciced guys dont get penile cancer.. ACTUALLY something like 37% of penile cancer sufferers have no foreskin, haveing it removed decreaes the risk by a tiny amount, in the same way switching to 100% organic food reduces your chance of cancer by a tiny amount.. this is becasue without the forskin the penis has lost 1/4 of its skin surface area, therefore if there is less penis area to get cancer the risks are obviously reduced..
Imaging I remove half a females breast tissue.. she now had 50% less chance of getting breast cancer... same principle.... oohh I know how I could stop you ever getting a headache...guess how *chop*
Circumcision is NO GOOD as a preventitive measure say the BMA, it's only routinely done in America because it sthe cultural norm and it makes the doctors ALOT fo money per year...
and please no more links to silly websites for every pro circ website I can find another anti-circ, so posting URL's is pointless, and you will find that the majority of the sites are VERY bias either due to authors culture, religion or own bad experience.
TSR gets a circumcision post every other week, /me wishes they would stop.
upon investigation it turns out that teh Jews suffered less due to their culture where most of the women chose not to have sex before marriage there for jewish women were only sleeping with 1 or 2 men thorugh out their whole life which massivley reduces the change of getting cervical cancer,
so they wernt not suffering due to their males being circed, they suffered less due to their culture which dis-couraged random sex with random guys.. where as the non-religious women tended to have more unprotected sex with a LOT more men increasing the chance of cervical cancer...
anyway, my original point was the BMA (british medical assosciation) have said that there is no reason to circumcise unless there is an immediate or recurrung medical condition, as the benefits of circumcising arent worth it. and as for the guy that said ciced guys dont get penile cancer.. ACTUALLY something like 37% of penile cancer sufferers have no foreskin, haveing it removed decreaes the risk by a tiny amount, in the same way switching to 100% organic food reduces your chance of cancer by a tiny amount.. this is becasue without the forskin the penis has lost 1/4 of its skin surface area, therefore if there is less penis area to get cancer the risks are obviously reduced..
Imaging I remove half a females breast tissue.. she now had 50% less chance of getting breast cancer... same principle.... oohh I know how I could stop you ever getting a headache...guess how *chop*
Circumcision is NO GOOD as a preventitive measure say the BMA, it's only routinely done in America because it sthe cultural norm and it makes the doctors ALOT fo money per year...
and please no more links to silly websites for every pro circ website I can find another anti-circ, so posting URL's is pointless, and you will find that the majority of the sites are VERY bias either due to authors culture, religion or own bad experience.
TSR gets a circumcision post every other week, /me wishes they would stop.
President_Ben
Why is it ok if it isn't their choice?!
If there was a tradition for people to remove the appendix from people, lop off their ear lobes or take off their little toes... is that something a parent should be ok to decide to do to their baby?
Your body, your choice. Explicitly yours. No other person should be able to control any aspect of what you do with your body or do things to it without your consent.
It's a slippery slope if there ever was one...
If there was a tradition for people to remove the appendix from people, lop off their ear lobes or take off their little toes... is that something a parent should be ok to decide to do to their baby?
Your body, your choice. Explicitly yours. No other person should be able to control any aspect of what you do with your body or do things to it without your consent.
It's a slippery slope if there ever was one...
Sorry - don't think I was clear. By that I meant whether they choose to or, or whether they have to have it done for medical reasons, etc
.The BMA (british medical association) have found that there is no reason for it unless there is an immediate or re-acurring medical issue... The rubbish about girls getting cerviocal cancer has been dispelled.. the original study suggested women having sex with a guy with a foreskin caused women to get cervical cancer, the proof presenetd was the fact that Jewish women rarely got it incomparrision to non-religious women.. this was DISPROVED some time later,
upon investigation it turns out that teh Jews suffered less due to their culture where most of the women chose not to have sex before marriage there for jewish women were only sleeping with 1 or 2 men thorugh out their whole life which massivley reduces the change of getting cervical cancer,
so they wernt not suffering due to their males being circed, they suffered less due to their culture which dis-couraged random sex with random guys.. where as the non-religious women tended to have more unprotected sex with a LOT more men increasing the chance of cervical cancer...
anyway, my original point was the BMA (british medical assosciation) have said that there is no reason to circumcise unless there is an immediate or recurrung medical condition, as the benefits of circumcising arent worth it. and as for the guy that said ciced guys dont get penile cancer.. ACTUALLY something like 37% of penile cancer sufferers have no foreskin, haveing it removed decreaes the risk by a tiny amount, in the same way switching to 100% organic food reduces your chance of cancer by a tiny amount.. this is becasue without the forskin the penis has lost 1/4 of its skin surface area, therefore if there is less penis area to get cancer the risks are obviously reduced..
Imaging I remove half a females breast tissue.. she now had 50% less chance of getting breast cancer... same principle.... oohh I know how I could stop you ever getting a headache...guess how *chop*
Circumcision is NO GOOD as a preventitive measure say the BMA, it's only routinely done in America because it sthe cultural norm and it makes the doctors ALOT fo money per year...
and please no more links to silly websites for every pro circ website I can find another anti-circ, so posting URL's is pointless, and you will find that the majority of the sites are VERY bias either due to authors culture, religion or own bad experience.
TSR gets a circumcision post every other week, /me wishes they would stop.
upon investigation it turns out that teh Jews suffered less due to their culture where most of the women chose not to have sex before marriage there for jewish women were only sleeping with 1 or 2 men thorugh out their whole life which massivley reduces the change of getting cervical cancer,
so they wernt not suffering due to their males being circed, they suffered less due to their culture which dis-couraged random sex with random guys.. where as the non-religious women tended to have more unprotected sex with a LOT more men increasing the chance of cervical cancer...
anyway, my original point was the BMA (british medical assosciation) have said that there is no reason to circumcise unless there is an immediate or recurrung medical condition, as the benefits of circumcising arent worth it. and as for the guy that said ciced guys dont get penile cancer.. ACTUALLY something like 37% of penile cancer sufferers have no foreskin, haveing it removed decreaes the risk by a tiny amount, in the same way switching to 100% organic food reduces your chance of cancer by a tiny amount.. this is becasue without the forskin the penis has lost 1/4 of its skin surface area, therefore if there is less penis area to get cancer the risks are obviously reduced..
Imaging I remove half a females breast tissue.. she now had 50% less chance of getting breast cancer... same principle.... oohh I know how I could stop you ever getting a headache...guess how *chop*
Circumcision is NO GOOD as a preventitive measure say the BMA, it's only routinely done in America because it sthe cultural norm and it makes the doctors ALOT fo money per year...
and please no more links to silly websites for every pro circ website I can find another anti-circ, so posting URL's is pointless, and you will find that the majority of the sites are VERY bias either due to authors culture, religion or own bad experience.
TSR gets a circumcision post every other week, /me wishes they would stop.
Also you are takin away the gliding motion that the loose foreskin provides which is part of the mechanics of sex, instead of having a loose skin to glide, you have very rigid hard glands scraping in your vagina.
Also due to the lost gliding motion circed men tend to thrust harder and deeper, and used more elongated strokes than their uncircumcised counterparts. The majority of the respondents (to the survey i just copied from) preferred sex with uncircumcised males. Because of teh lack of foreskin there is no skin to bunch up at the opening of the vagina and keep the natural lubrication in citing greater displacement of vaginal secretions and resulting vaginal dryness, increased friction, and physical discomfort during intercourse with men that are circumcised.
*quick note penile cancer affects one in one million men (rare) circumcision makes almost no difference in the ease of cantracting this according to the BMA
and to the moron that said the foreskin has no function, I'm sure he knows far better than the guys at the BMS and world health organisation.. Afetrall its not as if they ar ethe leading experts in the medical world... oh wait.. they are..
The foreskin has several functions not to mention the thousands of nerve endings it contains.. google the "mechanics of sex" to see one of its functions.
Anonymous
Also you are takin away the gliding motion that the loose foreskin provides which is part of the mechanics of sex, instead of having a loose skin to glide, you have very rigid hard glands scraping in your vagina.
Also due to the lost gliding motion circed men tend to thrust harder and deeper, and used more elongated strokes than their uncircumcised counterparts. The majority of the respondents (to the survey i just copied from) preferred sex with uncircumcised males. Because of teh lack of foreskin there is no skin to bunch up at the opening of the vagina and keep the natural lubrication in citing greater displacement of vaginal secretions and resulting vaginal dryness, increased friction, and physical discomfort during intercourse with men that are circumcised.
*quick note penile cancer affects one in one million men (rare) circumcision makes almost no difference in the ease of cantracting this according to the BMA
and to the moron that said the foreskin has no function, I'm sure he knows far better than the guys at the BMS and world health organisation.. Afetrall its not as if they ar ethe leading experts in the medical world... oh wait.. they are..
The foreskin has several functions not to mention the thousands of nerve endings it contains.. google the "mechanics of sex" to see one of its functions.
Also due to the lost gliding motion circed men tend to thrust harder and deeper, and used more elongated strokes than their uncircumcised counterparts. The majority of the respondents (to the survey i just copied from) preferred sex with uncircumcised males. Because of teh lack of foreskin there is no skin to bunch up at the opening of the vagina and keep the natural lubrication in citing greater displacement of vaginal secretions and resulting vaginal dryness, increased friction, and physical discomfort during intercourse with men that are circumcised.
*quick note penile cancer affects one in one million men (rare) circumcision makes almost no difference in the ease of cantracting this according to the BMA
and to the moron that said the foreskin has no function, I'm sure he knows far better than the guys at the BMS and world health organisation.. Afetrall its not as if they ar ethe leading experts in the medical world... oh wait.. they are..
The foreskin has several functions not to mention the thousands of nerve endings it contains.. google the "mechanics of sex" to see one of its functions.
Hmmm I dont know how much I agree with this... surely the same 'gliding motion' is lost when using a condom?
mangomaz
Hmmm I dont know how much I agree with this... surely the same 'gliding motion' is lost when using a condom?
Yes but a condom is very smooth and has lots of lube onit so the gliding motion isnt really needed for that.. what about masturbation??? it would be tight, would you have to use lube for that too?
anyway, there is no need for a circumcision unless a medical reason dicates, having doesnt make it cleaner or a lesser chance of giving or getting a disease, as the other person said the BMA and world health organisation agree with this.
even the american medical assosciation agree, but for them its about the money, they make millions circumcising even thought it has no benefit, reagardless of what random bias or cultural influenced people say.
I think we should let this topic die, I've seen loads like it here.
I'm not circumcised. My foreskin is ever so slightly tight but it doesnt stop me having sex or cause me any pain...Still though I would like to loosen it up and am looking to get some hydrocortisone to help with that.
I would never get circumcised since I would lose a lot of the sensation I get from my foreskin and its VERY painful in recovery. You get a hardon and all the stitches burst out...ouch.
I would never get circumcised since I would lose a lot of the sensation I get from my foreskin and its VERY painful in recovery. You get a hardon and all the stitches burst out...ouch.
mangomaz
Hmmm I dont know how much I agree with this... surely the same 'gliding motion' is lost when using a condom?
To an extent it is, but a condom is not a natural part of the mechanics of sex, unlike the foreskin - it forms a sort of "sleeve within a sleeve" design which is really rather clever. Cutting the foreskin off (or indeed using a condom, to a lesser extent) reduces it to a far cruder "rigid object in a hole".
Anonymous
To an extent it is, but a condom is not a natural part of the mechanics of sex, unlike the foreskin - it forms a sort of "sleeve within a sleeve" design which is really rather clever. Cutting the foreskin off (or indeed using a condom, to a lesser extent) reduces it to a far cruder "rigid object in a hole".
Cant argue with that
this reminds of the many other circ posts that all came to teh same conclusion NOT MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY CARE, the only people that do are the ones that have some bias bull pumped into their head ..
/topic die
Related discussions
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Circumcision Fetish
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Revision circumcision
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
- Circumcision or not
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Very sensitive after circumcision; How do I shower?
- Phimosis/frenulum breve - sex with condom possible?
- Using lube the first time
- Do girls actually like giving head.........?
