Circumcision

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Classical Liberal

Original post by tehFrance

I feel fine.

Well that is nice, but that does not legitimize mutilating babies.

Reply 21

Brutal Honesty

Original post by tehFrance

The baby will never remember the pain and it is only a day or two which can be managed by pain killers.

Do you endorse baby-rape then?

Reply 22

tehFrance

Original post by Brutal Honesty

Do you endorse baby-rape then?

It isn't rape.

Reply 23

Brutal Honesty

Original post by tehFrance

It isn't rape.

But the baby will never remember the pain and it is only a day or two which can be managed by pain killers.

Reply 24

Stressworthy

Not even just babies - kids too so they remember it! I remember I wasn't comfortable with the idea when my parents wanted my brother to be circumcised (he's quite a lot younger), but then it wasn't up to me. Having said that, my parents are doctors so I knew it'd be safe - for them, it's just the norm and my dad's convinced it's more hygienic etc. I guess it's just one of those things, but my brother had absolutely no choice thinking it was just for the best ... which you do at that age when your parents tell you something! I just hope it doesn't affect him in the long run.

Reply 25

the bear

when i had it done they let me keep it as a souvenir. i use it as a teacosy

Reply 26

Classical Liberal

Original post by Multitalented me

The main point is that it's not absolutely necessary! Well unless you think like my deeply religious parents :s-smilie:

Funny joke.

Deeply religious people thinking, my sides are splitting.

Reply 27

iwantcurlyhairtoo

I've thought about getting it done, but I think I'd miss my beige anorak.

Reply 28

QwentyJ

I could understand in severe cases of phimosis, but any other reason is just spurious. You can't operate on an adult without his permission so why the hell does is this done to babies who don't have that luxury? I'd like to think everyone can be afforded a choice in life.

Reply 29

Speider

My boyfriend was circumcised when he was a kid due to some tropical infection (he grew up in Malaya). I have to say from the female perspective, it's a lot more hygienic than uncircumcised. For one the foreskin doesn't get full of fluff from clothing! But that said, without a medical reason or a conscious adult decision, I can't see a reason for it

Reply 30

Dux_Helvetica

Without a medical reason the practice is useless and barbaric. We have evolved to have a foreskin for a reason - to protect the otherwise-exposed phallus.

Reply 31

QwentyJ

Original post by Speider

I think even that's contentious! The problem is research and statistics done into circumcision tends to be very biased from both camps and/or flawed. So there isn't a real answer either way in the current world.

Reply 32

joey11223

Going to be blunt here...I can't imagine it being as pleasurable without foreskin. The thing they say about it having all the nerve endings, designed to be pulled over the glands etc, is obviously correct. Simply speaking I can't see how it would feel the same without the foreskin being present. I suppose the lack of sensation has a pro of lasting longer when a condom isn't being used, though obviously there are more factors to consider, premature ejaculation isn't exactly a foreskin issue.

Reply 33

Snagprophet

Original post by hippieglitter

Well, while it isn't strictly necessary the bible claims that God told Abraham to do it to his son Isaac and Jews have done it as a religious ceremony ever since. A lot of Americans think it is a matter of hygiene although anyone who has grasped the concept of washing is more than capable of keeping their genitals clean.

Maybe it was God's helpful hint that because Abraham's son's foreskin was malformed it had to come off? Health risk becomes a fecking ceremony how backwards.

Reply 34

cl_steele

whilst i believe its somewhat of an invasion of privacy it must be said that it does apparently pertain to several health benefits be it hygine or 'apprantly' reducing the chances of catching aids

Reply 35

Psyk

Original post by cl_steele

whilst i believe its somewhat of an invasion of privacy it must be said that it does apparently pertain to several health benefits be it hygine or 'apprantly' reducing the chances of catching aids

How often do babies get aids from having sex?

Reply 36

Psyk

Original post by tehFrance

I don't see the problem? people that are uncircumcised complain that we get no choice and that it is wrong but quite frankly compared to having foreskin I reckon I prefer being circumcised.

Also I don't have to go through hoops to last longer.

Do you realise that lasting too long can be a problem too?

I don't think there's anything wrong with being circumcised. As you say there are some potential benefits when it comes to having sex. But that should be your choice, not your parents'. It's pretty weird for a parent to think about how long their child will last in bed or how good their penis will look. But really they are just (poor) justifications for removing a person's choice whether or not to have a foreskin, not the actual reason for it.

Reply 37

Retrodiction

Original post by tehFrance

No, you just had to have a chunk of your penis hacked off.

Reply 38

Clare~Bear

It does seem a bit pointless and unecessarily stressful to do it on every male child but sometimes it's done for medical reasons if a guy has a tight one and it's sore.

I saw Robin Hood, Men in Tights the other day. It's funny when the Rabbi tells the merry men that the ladies love it but doesn't explain what it is and they all want one and one guy asks for two! :teehee:

and then he explains what it is and shows the device he does it with. Their faces > :eek4:

Reply 39

Ann Widdecombe

It is barbaric to mutilate a child's genitals like this. Thankfully, it isn't as widespread here in the United Kingdom as it is in the United States of America. The main perpetrators are Moslems.