Circumcision
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Psyk
Not among babies it doesn't. Because they don't have sex (or at least they really shouldn't be).
Anyway, it isn't anywhere near as effective as using a condom. Which are pretty easy to get in western countries.
Anyway, it isn't anywhere near as effective as using a condom. Which are pretty easy to get in western countries.
Thats true condoms do come in quite handy there, but again not 100% efficacy. I guess a person who's had it done to themselves at a reasonable age would be able to give a proper informed judgement on the matter
Original post by rolldeep786
You can't procreate without a penis mate, or does it work okay for you?
If you have testicles sperm could be extracted for insemination.
I am just saying that cutting parts off the body because it reduces the risk of HIV is pretty stupid. At what point do you stop?
Original post by rolldeep786
Thats true condoms do come in quite handy there, but again not 100% efficacy. I guess a person who's had it done to themselves at a reasonable age would be able to give a proper informed judgement on the matter
Exactly. Protection against STIs is a valid reason to get circumcised (as long as it's only intended as an extra bit of protection, clearly it shouldn't replace actual safe sex), but as it's only relevant to people old enough to be having sex, there's no reason for others to make that decision for them.
Original post by snozzle
If you have testicles sperm could be extracted for insemination.
I am just saying that cutting parts off the body because it reduces the risk of HIV is pretty stupid. At what point do you stop?
I am just saying that cutting parts off the body because it reduces the risk of HIV is pretty stupid. At what point do you stop?
think how expensive that would be?
I do get your point, obviously i was saying it does prove beneficial so if a person or parent decides to do it to themself or for their son then whats the problem? at the end of the day it is that parents child, should they decide for him to be circumsized on what ever ground be it religious or non religious that is there choice right.
Original post by Psyk
Exactly. Protection against STIs is a valid reason to get circumcised (as long as it's only intended as an extra bit of protection, clearly it shouldn't replace actual safe sex), but as it's only relevant to people old enough to be having sex, there's no reason for others to make that decision for them.
If it is a part of a persons religious belief then why not make that decision on behalf of their son?...they (parents) will be making decisions for him on other matters to whilst he's growing up so why not this.
OP, if you consider that male circumcision is a part of the Jewish and Islamic faith; if you were to ban it, then people would just go to another country where you might not have the same strict safety involved, and you may indeed see a guy who has no real idea of what he's doing
Original post by rolldeep786
If it is a part of a persons religious belief then why not make that decision on behalf of their son?...they (parents) will be making decisions for him on other matters to whilst he's growing up so why not this.
Can't be bothered to explain it again. Look at my previous posts in this thread. It is different to other decisions parents make for their children.
TBH, I don't think many of those who were circumcised (like me) care much, or some (like me) prefer it.
While I understand the reason why people see it as a horrible thing, I don't. Personally, I see it as something like cutting off an "extra" finger at birth, which some people do do when there isn't much bone or flesh. Likewise, you could argue that they parents should just "wait until the child is an adult" to make the decision, and that the presence of an extra finger/piece of flesh won't affect their lifestyle, but most would take the advice to get it cut anyway
While I understand the reason why people see it as a horrible thing, I don't. Personally, I see it as something like cutting off an "extra" finger at birth, which some people do do when there isn't much bone or flesh. Likewise, you could argue that they parents should just "wait until the child is an adult" to make the decision, and that the presence of an extra finger/piece of flesh won't affect their lifestyle, but most would take the advice to get it cut anyway
Original post by Psyk
Can't be bothered to explain it again. Look at my previous posts in this thread. It is different to other decisions parents make for their children.
Forget that, if you don't want it done to your kid. OKAY.
But if someone else wants it done to THEIR kid, whats your problem?
Original post by FrigidSymphony
Complete red herring.
Not going to lie, but I just had a but of laugh
.Better luck next time, bro.
Original post by rolldeep786
Forget that, if you don't want it done to your kid. OKAY.
But if someone else wants it done to THEIR kid, whats your problem?
But if someone else wants it done to THEIR kid, whats your problem?
Because I believe there are certain rights all people should have, one being a right to decide what's done to your body (unless there is a clear medical need for it). Would you use that logic for other situations? Just because it doesn't affect me personally it doesn't mean I can't believe it's wrong to do it. You wouldn't use that logic for female genital mutilation would you? I realise that's on a whole different scale to male circumcision in terms of the damage done, but even so they both violate the principle of consent.
Perhaps a better comparison would be tattoos. What would you think if someone wanted to give their baby a tattoo? Or a piercing? It doesn't affect you, it's their child. So why should you have a problem with it? Maybe you don't.
What you're asking is why should I care what other people do to their kids. My point is that clearly there are cases where it's quite understandable to be concerned about what other people do to their children. Now this is relatively minor compared to all the horrible things some people do to their children, but I still think people should have the right to make decisions like this for themselves. I don't see why it should be the parents' place to make it for them.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Indieboohoo
That video was disturbing like the majority said doing that to a baby is not good unless it's for medical reasons.
Everyone has the right to decide to change their body if they choose too when they are old enough.
But IMO only for shallow reasons I think circumcised looks better, but i blame that more on the fact I watch way too much porn.
But you can always pull back the foreskin so it's not like it's not in there.
When I saw the thread I just thought of Gareth Thomas saying "It's like having a blanket on or blanket off"
Everyone has the right to decide to change their body if they choose too when they are old enough.
But IMO only for shallow reasons I think circumcised looks better, but i blame that more on the fact I watch way too much porn.
But you can always pull back the foreskin so it's not like it's not in there.
When I saw the thread I just thought of Gareth Thomas saying "It's like having a blanket on or blanket off"
This why I sometimes worry about the extent porn. Image saturation can have a very bad effect. Lots of male teenagers have never seen pubic hair and think that breasts are supposed to look like speedbumps; equally, you rarely see a uncircumcised penis in mainstream, Hollywood pornography. I just don't think it's sending out the right signals.
I bet I would have been disagreeing with myself when I was 17, hah!
Original post by FrigidSymphony
Would you like to chop your clitoris off? Keeps your vagina cleaner, you know. Can't be all bad!
not a very good argument.. that would be like chopping the whole penis off...
i don't know enough about it to form an opinion, but the only person i know who openly spoke about it doesn't resent his parents (he's a jew so he obvs got the uncircumsised comments throughout school)
Original post by Doctor.
Removing the clit would be similar to chopping your entire penis off, how old are you, 12?... If you've not noticed, removing the foreskin doesn't damage the part where neurones run though...Hence you still have full sensation. Whereas removing the clit would completely destroy sensitive part.
I don't see any disadvantage of removing the foreskin tbh. There is a possible advantage in terms of STD protection.
Maybe you should crack an anatomy book open sometime?
I don't see any disadvantage of removing the foreskin tbh. There is a possible advantage in terms of STD protection.
Maybe you should crack an anatomy book open sometime?
not sure why you were negged when chopping off the clitoris WOULD be like chopping off the penis...
Original post by FrigidSymphony
1) It would be similar to removing the foreskin. Chopping off a dick would be similar to carving out your entire vagina, thank you very much.
no, sorry, but you're wrong... cutting off the clitoris is NOTHING like cutting off the foreskin. are you insane?
(edited 12 years ago)
Um guys. At risk of sounding stupid - How exactly does it reduce risk of STDs?
Surely they are transferred through the exchange of fluids, and not mysteriously bundled in by the caped scary man that is the foreskin.
Surely they are transferred through the exchange of fluids, and not mysteriously bundled in by the caped scary man that is the foreskin.
Original post by FrigidSymphony
1) It would be similar to removing the foreskin. Chopping off a dick would be similar to carving out your entire vagina, thank you very much.
2) Removing the foreskin does indeed reduce sensitivity. Having the glans out and uncovered all the time plays its share, as does the fact that the foreskin (as any uncircumcised fella will tell you) has its fair share of nerves.
3) Well now, what's to stop me from using the same argument against you? You don't really need a clit now, do you, given that you can just as well orgasm internally. Or anally, for that matter.
2) Removing the foreskin does indeed reduce sensitivity. Having the glans out and uncovered all the time plays its share, as does the fact that the foreskin (as any uncircumcised fella will tell you) has its fair share of nerves.
3) Well now, what's to stop me from using the same argument against you? You don't really need a clit now, do you, given that you can just as well orgasm internally. Or anally, for that matter.
The clitoris alone can give a woman an orgasm while the foreskin on a penis cannot, it just increases sensitivity. Therefore they're uncomparable.
Original post by ash_1221
hey guys, i have a tight foreskin. I cannot ever see the head of my penis even when not errect. Im a virgin and I wonder will I have pain during sex. Also i ejaculate very quickly, is this linked to the tight foreskin? Nothing online seems to address this link. Thanks
I have the exact same problem. Im 16 and i masturbate regulary but i ejaculate quickly and i cannot see the head of my penis as the foreskin is tight. This condition is called phimosis and is quite rare.
(edited 12 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
