Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Circumcision does NOT reduce pleasure in men. Fact.
    Well I can't argue about pleasure, because as someone already said, that's subjective. But it seems pretty obvious to me that circumcision decreases sensitivity. Think of it like your fingernails, if you removedone of them now and touched the skin underneath it would be more sensitive than the rest of your skin, because it has been protected by the nail for your whole life.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Adarshster)
    Prove it. How are you so certain that it does not ?
    Well, as a circumcised man, I suppose it does, but I wasn't shagging anyone when I was pre 12 years old (I was a slow starter) so I haven't really seen the other side. I do vaguely remember that post dehoodification I found that general area felt awesome, especially putting my pants on and the like.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    I don't know of anywhere where the bible states that sex may not be performed for pleasure. Does the church ban sex between husband and wife unless it is for reproduction? Not as far as I know. If it's so plain please let me know where it is.



    But it does equate to you accepting that a parent is entitled to have their child circumcised. And isn't it reasonable to assume that if you thought circumcision was wrong you wouldn't be happy with that?



    Once again you have reiterated your assertion that the WHO and UNAIDS may have ulterior motives for recommending circumcision and that is laughable.

    You're right, your posts aren't badly worded. You clearly do mean everything you say but seem unable to understand the criticisms I have made. That is why you can repeat the same statements again as a defense for them without addressing the points I made.
    No, the Church doesn't BAN it, just like it no longer bans women from becoming preachers etc tc. But the Catholic religion still says that sex is only for reproduction- which is why they oppose using protection.

    I don't AGREE that people should be circimcised. I agree with parental consent for any surgery being performed on children. You are really trying too hard to catch me out. The two don't mean the same thing. In GENERAL parental consent is sufficient, indeed the only type of available consent. For any necessary operation it is perfectly fine. It becomes grey when the surgery isn't necessary. I don't agree with circumcision myself- i wouldn't have my kids done. But i believe a parent has the right to make that decision for their child, much like they can send their kids to private chool if they want to- even though don't support private schools. Does me saying "to each their own" about schooling equivalent to me saying i agree with private education? No. The same goes here. I gree wih parental rights over their children- i dont agree with some of the decisions parents make for their children- circumcision, sending them to religious schools, private chools, letting them eat McDonals, etc. Do you get it now? Continuing to tell me i do thus support circumcison will just make you look stupid, because i cannot make it any plainer than this.


    If my assertion is laughable, then go ahead and frigging laugh. Why are you telling me this? Its perfectly legitimate for me to have reservations about the motivations of any organisation going into Africa to do "good", because, for example, the Pope, someone we all expect to be holy and gracious and full of good intention- abused his position for his own ends. Plus, studies aren't to be taken at face value ever, least of all by people paradaing as intelligent. And i reiterate- i am not saying, nor have i said, that there WERE ulterior motives. Only that i remain sceptical of organisations who go in to help the gullibe and needy of Africa, who will take anything because they have nothing, and can be exploited very easily. Look at what Nestle did(and is probably still doing). Lots of so-called good people and good organisations go in and **** the place up. Simply saying "Oooh look, theyre going to Africa to help, how wonderful2, inquisitive minds should be looking at motives, and precedent, and checking the statistics, instead of blindly accepting them and thinking it "laughable" that no bad can ever come of any action undertaken. So go ahead, have a good old titter. Guffaw. Howl. Rock back in your chair, let the tears stream down your face. But don't tell me what i can and cannot understand, for only i know of such things.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    For the people who are using the "good for your health" argument for circumcision, do you honestly think that's the reason for the circumcisions? I think it's pretty hard to deny that the real motivation is purely religious in nature, and that the "good for your health" argument is an attempted rationalization, which just happens to be true. So if it was found that chopping off a finger, cutting off nails, chopping off parts of ears or the nose, or cutting off other appendages that don't really affect a person's daily life also reduce the threat of disease, would you support such procedures being carried out on newborns?

    (Original post by Zoecb)
    Circumcision does NOT reduce pleasure in men. Fact.
    And you know this how? You know any men who were circumcised after having sex?

    http://www.coloradonocirc.org/sexual.php
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    For the people who are using the "good for your health" argument for circumcision, do you honestly think that's the reason for the circumcisions? I think it's pretty hard to deny that the real motivation is purely religious in nature, and that the "good for your health" argument is an attempted rationalization, which just happens to be true. So if it was found that chopping off a finger, cutting off nails, chopping off parts of ears or the nose, or cutting off other appendages that don't really affect a person's daily life also reduce the threat of disease, would you support such procedures being carried out on newborns?
    YES! Attempted rationalisation- only found out to be true very recently in comparison to how long circumcision has been practised. They must be thanking their lucky stars it wasn't discovered that circumcision increaes the risk of cancer by 90% or something...

    While we're at it, shall we chop off all breasts of girls, to reduce the risk of breast cancer? We have powdered milk nowadays anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    No, the Church doesn't BAN it, just like it no longer bans women from becoming preachers etc tc. But the Catholic religion still says that sex is only for reproduction- which is why they oppose using protection.
    You're making an illogical jump. Saying that semen should not be wasted and that sex should always be able to lead to pregnancy is not the same as saying that pleasure should be removed as much as possible from sex. Your assertion that religions want to circumcise to reduce the pleasure from sex is based on the assumption that religions want this. But the fact that they want sex to be able to lead to pregnancy does not equate to wanting to remove pleasure from the sex that is had.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I don't AGREE that people should be circimcised. I agree with parental consent for any surgery being performed on children. You are really trying too hard to catch me out. The two don't mean the same thing. In GENERAL parental consent is sufficient, indeed the only type of available consent. For any necessary operation it is perfectly fine. It becomes grey when the surgery isn't necessary. I don't agree with circumcision myself- i wouldn't have my kids done. But i believe a parent has the right to make that decision for their child, much like they can send their kids to private chool if they want to- even though don't support private schools. Does me saying "to each their own" about schooling equivalent to me saying i agree with private education? No. The same goes here. I gree wih parental rights over their children- i dont agree with some of the decisions parents make for their children- circumcision, sending them to religious schools, private chools, letting them eat McDonals, etc. Do you get it now? Continuing to tell me i do thus support circumcison will just make you look stupid, because i cannot make it any plainer than this.

    So if you said that it was OK for parents to give their kids heroine that would not be an admission that heroine is not an inherently wrong this. This debate is whether circumcision is right or wrong (i.e. whether it should ever be allowed or not) not on whether you would circumcise yourself or your kids. If you are accepting the right of parents to circumcise their children you are accepting that circumcision is not wrong. Much like if you accepted the right of parents to give their kids heroine you must also be accepting that kids taking heroine is not wrong.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    If my assertion is laughable, then go ahead and frigging laugh. Why are you telling me this? Its perfectly legitimate for me to have reservations about the motivations of any organisation going into Africa to do "good", because, for example, the Pope, someone we all expect to be holy and gracious and full of good intention- abused his position for his own ends. Plus, studies aren't to be taken at face value ever, least of all by people paradaing as intelligent. And i reiterate- i am not saying, nor have i said, that there WERE ulterior motives. Only that i remain sceptical of organisations who go in to help the gullibe and needy of Africa, who will take anything because they have nothing, and can be exploited very easily. Look at what Nestle did(and is probably still doing). Lots of so-called good people and good organisations go in and **** the place up. Simply saying "Oooh look, theyre going to Africa to help, how wonderful2, inquisitive minds should be looking at motives, and precedent, and checking the statistics, instead of blindly accepting them and thinking it "laughable" that no bad can ever come of any action undertaken. So go ahead, have a good old titter. Guffaw. Howl. Rock back in your chair, let the tears stream down your face. But don't tell me what i can and cannot understand, for only i know of such things.
    To say that a statement is laughable is to indicate that it is not reasonable. Your assertion that the WHO or UNAIDS has some sinister ulterior motive is incredible and therefore can be described as laughable. And as for suggesting that the Pope is supposed to be full of "good intentions" is naive. He is the head of the Catholic church and his job is therefore to spread the message of the Catholic church. His "good intentions" will always be to do what he thinks is best and his views are based on Catholocism.

    I would suggest that you calm down and regain some rationality and lose the emotions but that would probably make you more angry.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    YES! Attempted rationalisation- only found out to be true very recently in comparison to how long circumcision has been practised. They must be thanking their lucky stars it wasn't discovered that circumcision increaes the risk of cancer by 90% or something...

    While we're at it, shall we chop off all breasts of girls, to reduce the risk of breast cancer? We have powdered milk nowadays anyway.
    Then.. what would be the point of women?


    (That double entendre would have been better if you said chopping of penii for impotence or something. Shame on you cottonmouth.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    You're making an illogical jump. Saying that semen should not be wasted and that sex should always be able to lead to pregnancy is not the same as saying that pleasure should be removed as much as possible from sex. Your assertion that religions want to circumcise to reduce the pleasure from sex is based on the assumption that religions want this. But the fact that they want sex to be able to lead to pregnancy does not equate to wanting to remove pleasure from the sex that is had.




    So if you said that it was OK for parents to give their kids heroine that would not be an admission that heroine is not an inherently wrong this. This debate is whether circumcision is right or wrong (i.e. whether it should ever be allowed or not) not on whether you would circumcise yourself or your kids. If you are accepting the right of parents to circumcise their children you are accepting that circumcision is not wrong. Much like if you accepted the right of parents to give their kids heroine you must also be accepting that kids taking heroine is not wrong.



    To say that a statement is laughable is to indicate that it is not reasonable. Your assertion that the WHO or UNAIDS has some sinister ulterior motive is incredible and therefore can be described as laughable. And as for suggesting that the Pope is supposed to be full of "good intentions" is naive. He is the head of the Catholic church and his job is therefore to spread the message of the Catholic church. His "good intentions" will always be to do what he thinks is best and his views are based on Catholocism.

    I would suggest that you calm down and regain some rationality and lose the emotions but that would probably make you more angry.

    Not an illogical jump. They say sex should ONLY BE FOR REPRODUCTION. Note the word ONLY. Not to enjoy yourself, to have babies.

    And i'm being as clear as i can possibly be. I don't agree with circumcision. I do agree that parental consent for operations is suitable. People who can make informed consent can do, in my opinion, anything they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But kids are deemed not to be able to make informed consent in anything, meaning parents take the role of consentors. This is logical, or there would be noone to consent to anything for children. I don't believe in circumcision. Some parents do. Parents have the right to choose it for their kids- BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CONSENTORS. But that doesn't mean it is right to circumcise. It doesn't mean i agree with it. It merely means that i agree that in all cases where a chld cannot give consent, a parent should be able to di it. This covers even things i don't agree with.Like private schooling.

    YES. I do accept the right of a parent to circumcise a child. Howvever, i think the practice is wrong, for my own reasons. But they don't- and i'm not an authoritarian. I am not a dictator. I don't want a ban on everything i disagree with. How can you not see these very simple points? I don't think i will even bother to say it again.

    And the heroin analogy is ubbish. You might as well have said "If yo accept the right of a parent to shoot their child in the head..." I don't accept that. Its against the law. Heroin is a dangerous drug that is against the law. Legal surgical practices cannot be put on a par with harming your child- with the intent to do something illegal to it.

    And no i'm not naive about the Pope. People tend to be naive about the Pope, religion, Christianity, etc though, don't they? I'm glad you agre religious people, religions, don't act in the best interests of moality, but only in te intersts of their own beliefs. So they can lose the high ground they rest upon right now.


    To "regain" rationality, you would have to lose it first, i'm afraid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by decola)
    Then.. what would be the point of women?


    (That double entendre would have been better if you said chopping of penii for impotence or something. Shame on you cottonmouth.)
    I never had an entendre in my head, you dirty little boy!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by contauri)
    Well I can't argue about pleasure, because as someone already said, that's subjective. But it seems pretty obvious to me that circumcision decreases sensitivity. Think of it like your fingernails, if you removedone of them now and touched the skin underneath it would be more sensitive than the rest of your skin, because it has been protected by the nail for your whole life.
    By that 'logic', surely the most 'sensitive' guy of all would be a recently circumcised one???

    The sensitive bit is the glans (that's the name of the bit I'm talking about isn't it? I can picture it, anyway) which is exposed when the penis is erect anyway. The thing about the foreskin is that it's unnecessary. How can you tell? Because when the penis is actually going to do something useful, it gets out of the way. Even IT knows when it's not wanted, lol. Unless of course there is something wrong with it. Yet another set of problems solved by not having one.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Not an illogical jump. They say sex should ONLY BE FOR REPRODUCTION. Note the word ONLY. Not to enjoy yourself, to have babies.

    And i'm being as clear as i can possibly be. I don't agree with circumcision. I do agree that parental consent for operations is suitable. People who can make informed consent can do, in my opinion, anything they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. But kids are deemed not to be able to make informed consent in anything, meaning parents take the role of consentors. This is logical, or there would be noone to consent to anything for children. I don't believe in circumcision. Some parents do. Parents have the right to choose it for their kids- BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CONSENTORS. But that doesn't mean it is right to circumcise. It doesn't mean i agree with it. It merely means that i agree that in all cases where a chld cannot give consent, a parent should be able to di it. This covers even things i don't agree with.Like private schooling.

    YES. I do accept the right of a parent to circumcise a child. Howvever, i think the practice is wrong, for my own reasons. But they don't- and i'm not an authoritarian. I am not a dictator. I don't want a ban on everything i disagree with. How can you not see these very simple points? I don't think i will even bother to say it again.

    And the heroin analogy is ubbish. You might as well have said "If yo accept the right of a parent to shoot their child in the head..." I don't accept that. Its against the law. Heroin is a dangerous drug that is against the law. Legal surgical practices cannot be put on a par with harming your child- with the intent to do something illegal to it.

    And no i'm not naive about the Pope. People tend to be naive about the Pope, religion, Christianity, etc though, don't they? I'm glad you agre religious people, religions, don't act in the best interests of moality, but only in te intersts of their own beliefs. So they can lose the high ground they rest upon right now.


    To "regain" rationality, you would have to lose it first, i'm afraid.
    How about you answer this simple question then: If you could, would you make circumcision illegal?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zoecb)
    By that 'logic', surely the most 'sensitive' guy of all would be a recently circumcised one???

    The sensitive bit is the glans (that's the name of the bit I'm talking about isn't it? I can picture it, anyway) which is exposed when the penis is erect anyway. The thing about the foreskin is that it's unnecessary. How can you tell? Because when the penis is actually going to do something useful, it gets out of the way. Even IT knows when it's not wanted, lol. Unless of course there is something wrong with it. Yet another set of problems solved by not having one.
    See, you just don't get it. It doesn't help that you're female, but nevermind that just for now.

    Firstly, I'd like to remind you that the glans isn't necessarily uncovered when the foreskin is erect.
    Secondly, the reduced sensitivity is because in circumcised men, the glans is always exposed, and over time becomes less sensitive. In uncircumcised men, the glans isn't exposed all the time and therefore retains its sensitivity.

    And yes, a guy who's just been circumcised will probably be very sensitive in that area. But it'll reduce over time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Coincidentally, if cutting off a girl's labia would reduce her chance of getting an STD, should we go around cutting off everyone's labia?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Coincidentally, if cutting off a girl's labia would reduce her chance of getting an STD, should we go around cutting off everyone's labia?
    no, only girls'

    (sorry, couldn't resist)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    How about you answer this simple question then: If you could, would you make circumcision illegal?
    Maybe i would, maybe not. I would have to weigh the fact that people can follow religious practices, and it is a historical religious practice which doesn't cause long-term harm, if they wish to, against the fact that it is does hurt a baby, it is unecessary, and there are numerous cases where people want their bits back, and even go through corrective surgery to create a fold again. I'd prefer that circumcision was performed out of necessity, not the random wants of parents. Permanently depriving a person of a part of their body with no reason other than a belief- a belief that the child may not come to hold himself- i feel is terribly wrong. But again, i'm not an autocrat, i'm not into banning things i disagree with, and there is no big harm in the process. Its a tough question, that i can't answer right now. I will only categorically state that any son of mine will keep his foreskin unless it has to come off.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Maybe i would, maybe not. I would have to weigh the fact that people can follow religious practices, and it is a historical religious practice which doesn't cause long-term harm, if they wish to, against the fact that it is does hurt a baby, it is unecessary, and there are numerous cases where people want their bits back, and even go through corrective surgery to create a fold again. I'd prefer that circumcision was performed out of necessity, not the random wants of parents. Permanently depriving a person of a part of their body with no reason other than a belief- a belief that the child may not come to hold himself- i feel is terribly wrong. But again, i'm not an autocrat, i'm not into banning things i disagree with, and there is no big harm in the process. Its a tough question, that i can't answer right now. I will only categorically state that any son of mine will keep his foreskin unless it has to come off.
    So you will at least admit that you do not think circumcision is morally reprehensible like female circumcision is?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So you will at least admit that you do not think circumcision is morally reprehensible like female circumcision is?
    I think it is cruel, nasty, and unecessary. But there is a huge chasm between it and the female variety, which doesn't even hide the fact that it is about reducing pleasure, and seriously damages health and the essence of being a woman. It isn't called genital mutilation for nothing. This doesn't make the male kind glow with light, though.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arsenalrulz)
    I've found that there is a lot of ignorance surrounding circumcision. Many people seem to think that it involves chopping off a part of the penis - at school I've heard people make fun of Jews for being circumcised.
    Personally, as a circumcised individual, I can say that there is nothing wrong with sensitivity. Think about it- if sensitivity was decreased, then circumcised people would not be able to reach orgasm.
    Plus, circumcised peni look better than uncircumcised ones, judging from certain (educational) videos I have seen, and they are easier to clean.
    Sensitivity is decreased. You can actually walk across the room with your glans rubbing your underwear and be fine. If I tried to do that, I'd only be able to walk a few feet before the stimulation became completely intolerable. Circumcised people spend their whole lives with their glans rubbing on their undergarments day in and day out without going through the ceiling. There definitely has to be some loss in sensation for this to be possible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    And you can call bull all you want, but simply stating that a circumcised guy is always going to be safer, based on studies and stats doesn't make you right. Using a condom and being clean, you pretty much won't get STD's, whether your foreskin has been lopped off or not.
    Nice way to beat my rebuttal by ignoring the stats. A smart guy who uses condoms and is cut will ALWAYS be safer then a guy with foreskin. But I do agree with the fact that both of them have incredibly low chances of getting STDs. It just that the circumcised guys chances are even lower.


    And yes, duh, of course my evidence was subjective and anecdotal. One guy who said he experiences less pelasure now than he did before. One better than folk who cannot compare, on account of not losing their virginity at birth and remembering how much pleasure they got out of it.
    Every heard of psychosomatic illness? Your friend probably has it.
    No, i wasn't wrong. Studies i have read had were dubious. The study you are referring to..fair enough. Sounds a little better, although the results are still dubious. What did they do exactly? Ask them to come back in 5 years to see whether they got HIV? How many were gay/straight? What parts of the world were these people from? Did they merely ask whether they had HIV and then add up the amount who were circumcised afterwards, totally missing out possible causation? I'd like to see the work behind stats.
    Obviously not :rolleyes: . Sending your guinea pigs out to the fields and only coming back at the end to get answers is not a credible test. There would be to much variables. Ask your self this. If the UN did a sloppy test. Wouldn't they face backlash over it? Scientific fraud and false claims always end up in backlash. Obviously someone sitting in there nice comfy chair and chilling on TSR is aware of these problems. Problems which have alluded the best brains.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    As to whether male circumcision is right or wrong, that is a personal decision. One would suppose that if a woman decided she wanted to be circumcised she'd be allowed to, no different than if she wanted her breasts removed.
    I was under the impression that it's illegal for any British citizen to perform the procedure, whether in the UK or abroad? (Under the FGM Act of 2003)

    Obviously I'm sure there are underhand ways and means of doing these things, but no it isn't 'allowed' - consent or not.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 24, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.