This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Revision circumcision
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- Circumcision or not
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Circumcision Fetish
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
- Penis head sensitive to touch when erect
- I love my circumcision
- After circumcision glans very sensitive?/Scared
- Very sensitive after circumcision; How do I shower?
circumcision
Scroll to see replies
More nerve endings to make contact with the woman's body. Esp + during oral.
bored_stiff
Its not the same. Removing the foreskin increases sexual pleasure as it exposes the nerve endings in the head immediately.
No it doesn't. It exposes the head to continual rubbing against one's undergarments, thus reducing sensitivity over a sustained period.
An uncircumcised penis is protected by the foreskin and consequently more receptive to the sensations experienced during sexual activity.
more adventurous
Cutting off a boy's foreskin is comparable to cutting off a girl's clitoral hood, since they are analogous body parts.
If both these procedures are done under the exact same conditions (regarding hygiene, anesthetic, etc.), then they are morally equal, yes?
Who here would approve of parents cutting off their daughters' clitoral hoods at birth, for no medical reason?
If both these procedures are done under the exact same conditions (regarding hygiene, anesthetic, etc.), then they are morally equal, yes?
Who here would approve of parents cutting off their daughters' clitoral hoods at birth, for no medical reason?
I think we've been here before...they would seem to be morally equal, but what I was arguing is that procedures done to the clitoris can dramatically reduce sexual pleasure to nothing whereas male circumcision, while I'm clearly against it, doesn't have such a serious impact. I am not saying that male circumcision is justified in any way, but that although the body parts are analogous, the result isn't the same.
To the most recent posts, I thought it was posted earlier that the exposed head would (I'm not an expert on this) sort of become less sensitive, so that pain wasn't caused by...trouser legs and so on.
bored_stiff
More nerve endings to make contact with the woman's body. Esp + during oral.
You realise that foreskins retract, don't you? Therefore, the same amount of surface area will be making contact with the woman's body.
If you have no foreskin, then after years of your unprotected 'head' rubbing against the inside of your pants, the nerves will deaden. If you have a protective covering over your penis, then the nerves will remain as sensitive as they were originally.
Doctors have argued both I guess.
more adventurous
You realise that foreskins retract, don't you? Therefore, the same amount of surface area will be making contact with the woman's body.
If you have no foreskin, then after years of your unprotected 'head' rubbing against the inside of your pants, the nerves will deaden. If you have a protective covering over your penis, then the nerves will remain as sensitive as they were originally.
If you have no foreskin, then after years of your unprotected 'head' rubbing against the inside of your pants, the nerves will deaden. If you have a protective covering over your penis, then the nerves will remain as sensitive as they were originally.
That's what I meant to say, only articulated more clearly. Thanks
psycho
haha ...
actually it differs depends on your gender .. for the muslim guys, it's usually at the age of pubicty (more or less around 12-14) .. while the girls are usually after they're born. Not sure about the exact time. It's a MUST for muslim to be circumcised by the way ..
actually it differs depends on your gender .. for the muslim guys, it's usually at the age of pubicty (more or less around 12-14) .. while the girls are usually after they're born. Not sure about the exact time. It's a MUST for muslim to be circumcised by the way ..
Girl circumsion is illegal (although still practiced in radical familys-it shouldnt be )
And a boy in Islam can be circumsiced when he is born, people hardly ever leave it till the teens.
sssh
I think we've been here before...they would seem to be morally equal, but what I was arguing is that procedures done to the clitoris can dramatically reduce sexual pleasure to nothing whereas male circumcision, while I'm clearly against it, doesn't have such a serious impact. I am not saying that male circumcision is justified in any way, but that although the body parts are analogous, the result isn't the same.
I was just providing an analogous body part, so that people could make an accurate judgment whether male and female circumcision are morally equal. Obviously if you're comparing two totally different procedures, it's not a fair comparison.
Reading your post again, I'm not sure if you understood mine. I'm not talking about doing anything to the clitoris, just the clitoral hood. Removing the clitoral hood should, theoretically, have the same effect on sexual pleasure as removing the foreskin.
more adventurous
I was just providing an analogous body part, so that people could make an accurate judgment whether male and female circumcision are morally equal. Obviously if you're comparing two totally different procedures, it's not a fair comparison.
Reading your post again, I'm not sure if you understood mine. I'm not talking about doing anything to the clitoris, just the clitoral hood. Removing the clitoral hood should, theoretically, have the same effect on sexual pleasure as removing the foreskin.
Reading your post again, I'm not sure if you understood mine. I'm not talking about doing anything to the clitoris, just the clitoral hood. Removing the clitoral hood should, theoretically, have the same effect on sexual pleasure as removing the foreskin.
Oops, I did register "clitoral hood" while I was writing, but I did seem to forget. To be honest, I don't really know about nerve endings in the clitoral hood so I'll have to go on what you tell me. I'd always assumed that there wasn't much there.. So possibly you're right, they're analogous. It's just that there are so many different variations on female circumcision that are practised in less developed parts of the world (Jesus, that thing about sewing up the vagina makes me angry on so many levels) that it is difficult to just pick up on one.
JacquesNoir
That was my point. Although they are both HORRIFIC and BARBARIC. Why would people who believe in God's Design want to mess with it? Are they saying God was drunk when he made foreskins? Can Supreme Beings GET drunk? What do they get drunk on?
etc etc. Its all BS IMO. Leave babies alone. You sadistic ass wipes. The human body is perfectly adapted, and that encompasses the foreskin. LEAVE IT ALONE. Some people are just never satisfied.
etc etc. Its all BS IMO. Leave babies alone. You sadistic ass wipes. The human body is perfectly adapted, and that encompasses the foreskin. LEAVE IT ALONE. Some people are just never satisfied.
erm, it's actually written in the bible that all boys should be circumsized.
cutandpasteandtwisty
No it doesn't. It exposes the head to continual rubbing against one's undergarments, thus reducing sensitivity over a sustained period.
An uncircumcised penis is protected by the foreskin and consequently more receptive to the sensations experienced during sexual activity.
An uncircumcised penis is protected by the foreskin and consequently more receptive to the sensations experienced during sexual activity.
Apparently the benefit of this is that the reduced sensitivity means the guy can last longer during sex so it's more pleasurable for the woman. And also for the purposes of hygiene - and by that, I'm not implying that uncircumcised men are unclean - I'm just stating an obvious fact that it's easier to keep it clean if it's circumcised.
sisalto
erm, it's actually written in the bible that all boys should be circumsized.
I'm guessing it's in the Old Testament though, which is why Jews do it but Christians don't.
Tufts
yup. cheese.
By cheese, do you mean smegma?
Tufts
Yup. Ickly stuff.
Unless you're peckish in the middle of the night. In which case, its pretty good on crackers.
Unless you're peckish in the middle of the night. In which case, its pretty good on crackers.
Ever tried it mixed with sour cream and chives?
ApeXaviour
Uh-huh... 
I take it you didn't read much of this thread because now you just look ill-informed. I point you to my reply 4 posts up, noteably this bit:
Many many people have it done to their child for rational completely non-religious reasons too you realise?
I take it you didn't read much of this thread because now you just look ill-informed. I point you to my reply 4 posts up, noteably this bit:
Many many people have it done to their child for rational completely non-religious reasons too you realise?
African tribes mutilate womens genitals for 'rational' reasons as well.
The only rational reason for taking that decision. is medical reasons which are resulting in a detriment to a persons health. circumcision for alleged prevention of this that or the other is just fallacy.
Males evolved to have foreskin for a reason. Notably to prevent bacterial infection. considering as someone else said the foreskin retracts to become part of the middle of the penis, any other arguments other than for the aforementioned medical reasons are null.
It should be banned... and parents who do it to their children are commiting abuse.
I must say that I am shocked that you even talk about female "circumcision" as something that can be morally justified
"What is the age, the procedure used and the side effects?
The age the procedure is carried out varies from just after birth to some time during the first pregnancy, but most cases occur between the ages of four and eight. Most times this procedure is done with out the care of medically trained people, due to poverty and lack of medical facilities. The use of anesthesia is rare. The girl is held down by older women to prevent the girl from moving around. The instruments used by the mid-wife will vary and could include any of the following items; broken glass, a tin lid, razor blades, knives, scissors or any other sharp object. These items usually are not sterilized before or after usage. Once the genital area for removal is gone, the child is stitched up and her legs are bound for up to 40 days.
This procedure can cause various side effects on the girls which can include death. Some of the results of this procedure are serious infections, HIV, abscesses and small benign tumors, hemorrhages, shock, clitoral cysts. The long term effects may also include kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression, various urinary tract infections, various gynecological and obstetric problems.
In order to have sexual intercourse the women have to be opened up in some fashion and in some cases cutting is necessary. After child birth some women are re-infibulated to make them (tight) for their husbands."
I am aware that the practice of only taking away the hood exists (and even there the dangers are much higher: If a small mistake is made, the girl can lose a lot of blood). But:
"In Africa 85% of FGM cases consist of Clitoridectomy and 15% of cases consist of Infibulation. In some cases only the hood is removed."
That leaves less than one percent for the practice that is not likely to cause the girl any harm. Even talking about this practice in such a way is immoral in my opinion as it ignores the real issue about female genital mutilation.
"What is the age, the procedure used and the side effects?
The age the procedure is carried out varies from just after birth to some time during the first pregnancy, but most cases occur between the ages of four and eight. Most times this procedure is done with out the care of medically trained people, due to poverty and lack of medical facilities. The use of anesthesia is rare. The girl is held down by older women to prevent the girl from moving around. The instruments used by the mid-wife will vary and could include any of the following items; broken glass, a tin lid, razor blades, knives, scissors or any other sharp object. These items usually are not sterilized before or after usage. Once the genital area for removal is gone, the child is stitched up and her legs are bound for up to 40 days.
This procedure can cause various side effects on the girls which can include death. Some of the results of this procedure are serious infections, HIV, abscesses and small benign tumors, hemorrhages, shock, clitoral cysts. The long term effects may also include kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression, various urinary tract infections, various gynecological and obstetric problems.
In order to have sexual intercourse the women have to be opened up in some fashion and in some cases cutting is necessary. After child birth some women are re-infibulated to make them (tight) for their husbands."
I am aware that the practice of only taking away the hood exists (and even there the dangers are much higher: If a small mistake is made, the girl can lose a lot of blood). But:
"In Africa 85% of FGM cases consist of Clitoridectomy and 15% of cases consist of Infibulation. In some cases only the hood is removed."
That leaves less than one percent for the practice that is not likely to cause the girl any harm. Even talking about this practice in such a way is immoral in my opinion as it ignores the real issue about female genital mutilation.
cutandpasteandtwisty
Yep and both equally wrong (assuming no medical reason).
If I had a child with my current boyfriend, and it was a boy, I would have him circumcised as a baby because my bf and his grandad had phimosis and my bf had to have a circumcision when he was about 10, not pleasant. His dad probably had it as well but his dad (my bfs grandad) had him circumcised at birth (because of his phimosis) so we don't know. But if it was another guy, I would consider not doing it.
Related discussions
- Revision circumcision
- Circumcision
- Prefer circumcised or not circumcised?
- Circumcision
- Boyfriend needs circumcision
- I have anxiety about getting circumcision
- Frenulectomy
- My boyfriend's ****
- girls prefer circumcised or uncircumcised man?
- Advice for tight foreskin sufferers (phimosis)
- Circumcision or not
- Bleeding a week after circumcision
- Circumcision Fetish
- Sex and masturbation after adult cirumcision
- I think I have a frenulum breve?
- Can you have sex without pulling back the foreskin?
- Penis head sensitive to touch when erect
- I love my circumcision
- After circumcision glans very sensitive?/Scared
- Very sensitive after circumcision; How do I shower?
