"Lying"? I didn't say that. I have no "hatred" of people who are cut, I am one of them. What I do have difficulty with is people who justify forced genital cutting of children with their own prejudices, based usually on very limited sexual experience. You yourself said it was based on one person you dated.
Circumcision of children is always justified by flimsy and prejudiced excuses such as you revealed.
@webserfin So you are judging all intact men on one sexual experience? Sounds like you came to that experience with some pre-judgment and baggage of your own.
I know this is the YouTube community and it is a long-shot but please, I have been mutilated and I will never know what it feels like to be a complete man again, I hate my parents so much for it.
Please donate to Foregen (dot) org
An organization dedicated to regenerating whatever is needed so people like me, and millions, will have the chance to be complete once again after being mutilated against our wills.
I find any medieval practice resulting in the Mutilation of babies abhorrent but also this disturbing practice is then compounded by the rabbi sucking the childs penis! something which they have tried to keep quite for obvious reasons, needless to say that these jew/paedophiles should be locked up for a very long time, its disgusting what they get up to.
Oh dear... even so I can see the trouble point some of those men have, I think there currently are much worse violations of human rights than male circumcicion to care about. Like ritual African/Islamic FEMALE circumcicion for example! My boyfriend is Jewish, circumcised, happy about it and we enjoy our private life a lot. I think much of this debate is terribly pathetic, it is not that those men have been castrated after birth...
@Seleuce Issues of human rights are not on an arbitrary and sliding scale of importance.To the children (and the men they become) genitally disfigured by a botched circumcision your comment is rather insensitive.
You and your boyfriend may be fine with the moving and protective part of his penis removed, however the diminishing effects of circumcision become more serious with age. Hopefully you can see, when you view a video of a child being cut, how traumatic and abusive circumcision is.
@Seleuce While it's good that you and your boyfriend can enjoy yourselves, that does not make this any less of an issue nor does it nullify the empirical evidence that circumcision reduces the sexual sensitivity of the penis. Sorry.
There is something not mentioned in this research. Circumcised penis is less sensitve to touch but can endure a long time in a vagina giving more pleasure to the lady up to the climax. That is the point there. I am circumcised and I can endure long time sex and my partners are very happy. The issue is how pleasurable is the circumcised or uncircumcised penis to a lady. End!
@vcases, there is no evidence that the circumcised penis lasts longer in sex. Actually, foreskin nerves probably provide more feedback to the intact guy, so he is less likely to be "surprised" by orgasm, and more able to control it. Premature ejcaulation is common in circumcised guys too. For circumcised and uncircumcised men alike, sexual endurance is an acquired skill. An intact guy has more potential to acquire the skill.
@psandbergnz , perhaps you are right, but I comment only based from my observation. I have lived in a country for 5 years where 95% of men are circumcised. I have dated several girls from this country as well and I found their reaction to my circumcised one. Based from my investigation, uncircumcised penis is very sensitive to touch, that it will easily ejaculate. Majority of these men prefer hand-job or blowjob than penetration, because in vagina the foreskin folds in, giving less sensitivity.
@vcases, do you understand the intact (uncircumcised) penis? On erection, foreskin folds back on the penile shaft, exposing the glans, so coitus is no less enjoyable for intact men. Foreskin is great in oral sex (since very sensitive to light touch). Bible: circumcision was given as God's covenant or sign to Jews. However, Christians don't circumcise (in Europe), since New Testament (St. Paul) says it has no value.
Foreskin nerves give more feedback - so could help against premature ejaculation.
@vcases wtf you have no idea what you are talking about, im natural and i cum much faster if the girl gives me a good blow, than i do from penetration,, never had problem with easy ejaculation, and i can control very easy when im about to cum..
@psandbergnz, Circumcised penis is sensitive that it's good to masturbate and play with. I think God (whoever he is) has the reason to circumcised abraham's children - (1) To make them productive at work (at his time) than masturbating, (2) To prefer penetration than hand-job/ blowjob. But if I can turn back time, I'd like my foreskin back, to get more sensitivity in masturbation and enlarging my penis at the same time.
@dimaalmazov you liar. Anyway, listen, they say that if you take off another 50% it's even better! Go ahead, make our day! Go and get another 50% chopped off, oh wait, no, have the entire head taken off! It's good for you! You can then bang away for 72 hours non stop without cumming as you won't feel a thing! & it will be SOO clean! And soo "beautiful" too! No funny head or anything. LET ME PAY! I'll pay for your 2nd phase op! & I encourage you to go & get the head on your shoulders removed too!
this MD obviously lost his a long time ago as he is trying to understand the difference, but he can't since he too was amputated and now fumbles for words. If he were intact he wouldn't speak like this and in blissful ignorance... MD or not. He is devoid of that, that would give him the facts, instantly.
I want you to look at the picture of the ceramics containing scrolls. They look like hershey's top and the circular jar looks like a circumcized penis! I'm not joking! Read Genesis 17 and it's there. Arrow also looks like a circumcised penis. The covenant of God with man is the reason for circumcision. It's God's son's and He commands what He wants to His chosen people! Remember that!
God must be a lousy designer. He creates every man with foreskin on their penis only for us to hack it off. You wanna know what looks better than a circumcised penis? A circumcised vagina. It's more clean, less flaps, and doesn't smell. Let's promote equality of the sexes. Circumcision for all! :D
@jmlew God also says to circumcise the heart! He thinks our hearts are sinful! Read Genesis for some insight if you like...but of course somone like you may not want to bother about the truth...The Lord eventually turns our imperfection back to His design once we believe! My prayer!
@hudna1, it seems to me that YOU don't want to bother with the truth. Instead, you place your Filipino cultural prejudice ABOVE Christian teaching" Is foreskin God's design ERROR?!
I have shown you many times that the New Testament discourages circumcision (e.g. read Paul's letter to the Galatians), saying it has no religious value. Yet you seem incapable of understanding, or refuting what I say. Do you think it is sinful for Christians to eat pork or shellfish (as the Old Testament teaches)?
@hudna1, let me get this right: you appear to think that God inspired the Jews to roll their scrolls into ceramic cartridges that resemble circumcised penises? So, the rabbis would forever be reminded of penises whenever they went to open the scrolls, or even so much as looked at them!
Do you think that God is a woman, or that he's just fixated on phalluses?
@hudna1 And some men think oversized breast implants "looks better" than natural breasts.
What you seem to be unable to see, past your own sexual preference for a surgically simplified and reduced penis, is that this is being forced upon infants and children without consent.
@hudna1 I think women have been conditioned to find the cut more appealing. I find both appealing. I don't see how women have right to vote on this. This is a man's decision. Unfortunately my nephew never got to have a vote. I have two girls myself so I never had to make this decision. If I were to have a son, he'd be left intact. Nature is perfect, the male body is perfect, the woman's body is perfect, to go against and manipulate this perfection is an insult to the original creation.
Hey there Hudna1, I'm looking to date a woman with her clitoral hood and labia minora surgically removed because I like the way it looks. I'm really not concerned whether the woman sees it as mutilation or not, or whether it's traumatic to her or not...because I think it looks better, therefore I VOTE FOR FEMALE MUTILATION. Are you available?
Circumcised and 110% happy with it in every way! You might say "but you've never felt your foreskin so you wouldn't know". To that I say: "Well you've never NOT felt your foreskin, so you wouldn't know either."
@vash1053 A person who is colour blind doesn't know what they are missing either.
To impose colour blindness on an infant or child, or any other sensory deficit is morally and ethically wrong.
Some men have, because of peer pressure, had themselves cut as adults, often with grave regrets. Many men are now creating a pseudo foreskin through foreskin restoration. Their accounts of improved form and function also contribute to this discussion.
@vash1053 , actually cut men can be "cut" if they want to. A foreskin can be pulled back and stayed pulled back. I have tried it and guess what, my penis became dry and irritated. Imagine what would happened to it years down the line. Uncut men have a point of reference to see how to know it is like before and an educated guess of what it's like after. Cut men like you can only see it from one perspective.
I think in the end most parents want their kids to have a better life than they had. To make more money then they did. To experience love with their spouse at a higher level then they have. The purpose of children is to start life on your shoulders and reach higher goals that you couldnt achieve in your life time. I think if parents knew the truth about circumcision it just wouldnt happen.
Bottom line: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is, by very definition, genital mutilation.
It is child abuse and a violation of basic human rights.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a basic human rights violation.
And when something is such, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" there are.
"You were the one who called it "genital mutilation" and said that there is a difference in gender "rights." I was responding to that. You bring up a comment, and I refute it. That's it."
Hm hm no, you refuted a comment I never made.
I will restate: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, and unless there is consent, circumcising a non-consenting minor IS genital mutilation.
The difference in gender rights is that while baby girls are protected by law, baby boys aren't.
"You are just like the people who say that they are going to smoke even though they know it's bad for them. "Well, the research states that smoking is bad for you, but I won't listen to any of that crap. It makes me feel better to smoke." Basically, that is what you are saying." <--- These are your words Munchkin. Having a foreskin is akin to smoking, is what you're saying.
I wish Sorrells would talk about the results of their preliminary test that included restored men. I know that they were able to measure the sensitivity loss caused by tearing away the foreskin from the glans resulting in permanent scar thickened skin. Those restored men who were cut as adults had the glans completely revert to the same sensitivity as the intact men.
Circumcision is a cosmetic trend in decline. 33% of US boys born in 2009 were subjected to the surgery, compared to a peak rate exceeding 90% during the 1960's.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is a medical opinion that the foreskin is needed in the womb to protect the urethra from becoming clogged by the amniotic fluid. Once born, the male child does not need the foreskin any longer & it then becomes an obstacle not only to cleanliness but also to marital harmony ( the sensitivity of the head of the male organ accustomed to being covered by the foreskin leads to premature ejaculation ). Elisheba R.N.
@elishebabb That is the medical opinion of one Edgar J. Schoen. Schoen is infamous for his kinky passion for everything related to cutting the genitals of children.
If you are an R.N. and you think a normal, healthy erogenous body part need to be amputated without the owners consent for the insane reasons you mentioned here I think you need to refresh your education with a basic anatomy lesson.
Every human male and female has a foreskin for a reason, even if you haven't a clue why.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Bonobo3D You did not respond to my reasons. Instead you made accusations against Dr Schoen & me. Do mothers have the infant's consent to drink alcohol during their pregnancy, expose the fetus to STDs, get them aborted , have infant's ears pierced, & give them soybean water to drink instead of mother's milk ? And why is Dr Edell shaving his beard ? Men have beards for a reason. Dogs don't wear clothes so they need their foreskins. Male humans don't need it.
@elishebabb I didn't respond to your "reasons" because they are nuts. (That's a polite word for bullshit.) So is the rest of this list. Continue this conversation with others, but not here.
@elishebabb Women don't need their clitoral hoods, either. Removing the clitoral hood, the female physiological analog to the male foreskin, is illegal in US while removal of the penile foreskin is covered by health insurance.
@elishebabb, so why should girls keep THEIR dirty prepuce? Male and female prepuce is from same embryonic tissue - if the one is "unclean", so is the other! Women are 5 times more prone to urogenital infections than men (as you should know). So why not remove a girl's disgusting, redundant inner labia to simplify her genital hygiene? The extra sensitivity of the natural penis doesn't cause premature ejaculation; foreskin nerves provide sensory feedback for finer control. Your ethics is wanting.
@elishebabb Are you claiming that the 80% of the world's men who are intact have problems with premature ejaculation? Utter bullshit! Take your lies to another planet and stop sexually assaulting babies.
@elishebabb, you don't have andy sound evidence that having a foreskin contributes to premature ejaculation. Have you considered that foreskin sensory nerves may provide a guy with additional feedback to control the onset of orgasm?
@psandbergnz Like what I say about bald penises. It's like driving on bald tires. You can't feel the road, and BANG you're done. Also the foreskin is nature's gift of a surrogate vagina that teaches the owner how best pleasure himself and his partner.
Who(aside from women)care about premature ejaculation? It's not premature to us men, it's right on time. If you're saying it's premature to you, then I would suggest that you get yourself worked up to the point of release prior to sexual intercourse. Anyway, sex wasn't meant to be a 1, 2, or even 3 hour event, it was designed to be productive(in...release....exit), baby conceived.
@elishebabb The foreskin is needed to protect the urethra from contaminates and feces during rearing. Generally the foreskin separates in time of maturity to have sex. It has many uses in sex for marital harmony. See online Sex As Nature Intended. The foreskin is self cleaning. Smegma is Greek for natures soap. Further the erogenous sensations of the foreskin makes it a joy to wash. Circumcision removes average 75% of the sexual receptors and half of the penile skin. It sexually handicaps.
@elishebabb The head is the least sensitive part of the penis. Has only 15% sexual receptors. The foreskin protects itself AND the glans. Upon erection the dartos muscle tenses thereby creating a solid one piece skin tube where any action on the shaft is transferred to act on the erogenous ridged band, and through its loop to and from the frenulum, this action acts on the erogenous frenulum. All action on the shaft acts on these erogenous structures, the ridged band and frenulum. Circumcision...
@elishebabb Circumcision always removes all of the erogenous ridged band and part to all of the erogenous frenulum. Action on the shaft is wasted to act on these structures. Action must be directly applied to the frenulum remnant, if any remains. 85% of the sexual receptors are cut off with the ridged band and frenulum. This leaves 15% receptors located at the glans corona which are overpowered by the more populous pain/thermal receptors located throughout the glans, ratio 5% to 95%.
@elishebabb With only 15% of the sexual receptors left intact in the glans full of pain receptors, is why men have said (Larry David movies) "If I had anymore sensitivity, I think I would die of a heart attack!" Circumcision makes one feel not the full pleasure, as pain cancels pleasure. See Dr. John Taylor "Frenular Delta" and also see his research at CIRP.org.
@elishebabb Don't worry. This guy doesn't know anything about good science! I have done a LOT of research about circumcision, and it all points to circumcision being a good choice! Anti-circumcision advocates either avoid questions like this one is doing or create BOGUS studies. Go to this website for a look into the research. The author is a medical professor of the University of Australia (good credentials) go to circo info.net and click on penis sensitivity!
@elishebabb (btw there is no space in between the two words it just wouldn't let me post it). I am getting really tired of seeing nothing but anti-circ stuff on the internet. It is interesting how all of the stuff that I hear stuff on the internet that is completely different from the stuff that I read in my articles on my encyclopedia at my college. Two things to note: one the appendix is an example of a vestigial and perhaps even HARMFUL organ in the human body. Who says that the foreskin
@elishebabb who says that it is any different. Secondly, you must look at the penis as it is fully erect on an uncircumcised man. The foreskin, as long as there is no phimosis, looks exactly like a circumcised penis. How then, could it EVER have any part in the pleasure during sex when it is along the shaft?! It is impossible and all of your questions should be answered: the foreskin was formed for the evolutionary purpose of protection when we didn't have pants. :-) That's the answer to your ?
@Munchkin9111 during an erection a intct penis does not look like a circumsized 1. y? because u can see that the skin is llooser then the circumsized 1. and its not called uncircumsized. thats like saying she is un breast planted
@punkassbitch49 Beyond your horrible spelling and grammatical issues, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that circumcised men can't get a full erection? Because that is totally false.
@Munchkin9111 dude r u stupid? i said they both dont look the same when erect. the intct penis has losser skin that is seeable. the mutilated penis has tigh skin. and u can see when its tight or not. and thats not true about the hiv. and ofcoars every guy thats circed is happy cuse they never new what its like to have a forskin dum bitch ass nigga
@punkassbitch49 Um, I have actually done extensive research over the topic, and yes, there are a lot of sources that verify what I'm saying about HIV and HPV. You can't just say, "Nuh Uh," and think that it's a good argument. I've heard of people getting circumcised later on in life and saying that it's feels just as good. The only things that's better is masturbation. Good thing because you will be doing that all alone if you're uncircumcised! Even uncirc guys brag about small foreskins.
@Munchkin9111 Even if it did actually have any effect on HIV and HPV, it still wouldn't warrant cutting off a body part. We don't advocate removing any other part of the body as a pre-emptive measure, and the penis of the human male should be treated no differently. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand; you'd think baby boys weren't thought of as normal human beings or something.
@RockoMyler You know, it isn't worth fighting for your case if everyone is too busy denying RESEARCH! The fact is the research STATES circumcision does not either increase or decrease pleasure! The thing is that the foreskin's only evolved purpose was to protect the penis when we did not have pants. The fact is that the procedure not only helps the men that are circumcised but also their future wives as it does not transmit infection. Oh but wait, we don't care about our future wives do we?
@Munchkin9111 If the foreskin really were as detrimental to men and women as you say it is, we would have lost it to evolution ages ago. But facts, reason, and gender equality clearly don't matter to you when it comes to this subject; you just want to justify circumcision because you were lied to about some vague benefits to the procedure and you let it be done to your child because you thought it was in his best interests and you can't take it back. It's sadly not uncommon in your country.
@RockoMyler That reply, too is fictitious. Humans have a few vestigial traits. Two of them are the appendix and that some can wiggle their ears. Both have no purpose. Same with the foreskin. Don't turn this into a discrimination thing because you are far from the truth. I have studied this topic immensely, and the only arguments done by anticirc advocates are either emotional or down right false. I mean, I went to a website where her "sources" were so blatantly biased that I laughed out loud!
@Munchkin9111 The foreskin has an obvious purpose(the nature of which I spelled out pretty clearly not but a few comments ago) and if you actually read as much research as you claim to and weren't so willfully ignorant, that purpose would be fairly obvious by now. But you haven't, and you are. Hence, here we are.
@RockoMyler It can only be one of us that is "willfully ignorant," and I believe that person would be you. As stated, there are many vestigial parts on the human body and some, perhaps even the foreskin, is harmful to the male body. Current research is helping us to see the risks of NOT getting your child circumcised including tearing of the foreskin by objects, increase in UT and other infections, and difficulty with some jobs (ex. army-inability to wash daily--hence circ rate in mid east).
Well I think research should focus on finding cures for diseases, not reasons to cut part of our bodies off. Fact is any part of the body can suffer disease and injury. Like, you totally don't cut off your toes because they're prone to fungus and shit. Like it's totally bogus to remove peoples arms to keep them from getting scraped. And worse, getting infected with gangrene. What kind of crack are you on?
@JLC981 If you are in a clean country like the United States that shouldn't happen to you unless you are a gross person to begin with. After it heals, it's a lot easier to keep clean. Smegma isn't a natural lubricant; it's just freaking nasty! Also, I've read that most men don't even clean it right. Search "foreskin smell" and you will find just all kinds of blogs/articles about how women are complaining about their husbands and men complaining about their own.
Why should somebody's body be hurt to "heal" in the first place, when the solution is a shower? So you're afraid of smegma? Like, you are aware that women get that too right? Where you put your clean cut dick in? You've heard men don't clean it right? You know what happens to a girl if she doesn't wash right? She smells like fish. So like, what's the problem if men get a smell too? Complete bullshit argument.
@JLC981 No, it's not because unlike male genitalia, females are more prone to infections because of the way they are built. There are plenty of jobs in the good ole USA where it helps because there are some jobs where you have to be out somewhere at weeks at a time. What about if your family likes camping. OMG, there are so many reasons why it would be beneficial. The argument that women are like that anyway is just selfish because you neglect to see the difference in anatomies.
Wow! You're real good at stating the obvious! Females are more prone to infections. It's actually easier for guys to stay cleaner than girls. But somehow, it's a "good idea" to cut them to make them "more clean?" Riiight...
There is not a single job in the US where circumcision is a requirement. This is complete bullshit and speculation.
"What about if your family likes camping. OMG, there are so many reasons why it would be beneficial." <--- Trying to make sense of this...
@JLC981 Camping...you have to go outside and can't bathe for long periods of time. Ummmm. That's really a clear statement. It was another example of another way that we don't bathe everyday... I would be ok with female circumcision too if it didn't take out your clitoris. In fact, women in the US DO get hoodectomys for better stimulation. That's like circumcision. The only thing is that that literally takes out a woman's ability to orgasm.. Male circumcision doesn't.
@JLC981 No, not it doesn't in 98% of men, it doesn't. The sensation changes, not the pleasure. The other 2% went to bad doctors. The thing is, you are given smart-ass comments too. "Babies are born smoking." What kind of a response was that? No it was a clear example of what it sounds like you are saying. You were the one who called it "genital mutilation" and said that there is a difference in gender "rights." I was responding to that. You bring up a comment, and I refute it. That's it.
Actually, I know quite a few men who got circumcised as adults and lived to tell the tail. Yes, circumcision DOES desensitize a man. 98% of men are simply living in bliss not knowing what they're missing. Unless there was a medical problem, all doctors that circumcise are "bad doctors."
@JLC981No this was a study about men who got circumcised later on in life. Well, I know a lot of women who get yeast infections when they have sex with a man with an uncircumcised penis; does that mean that all uncircumcised penises do, no. Just in the same way that not everyone is affected by circumcision in the same way. The thing is that it's a CHANGE in sensation...not a complete loss. That is false, too. Doctors who follow the research are GOOD doctors. People who live by emotion aren't.
Actually, no, this study looked at all kinds of men.
And your analogy suffers a few flaws; the assumption that the reason women get yeast infections due to sleeping with uncircumcised men. Women get yeast infections PERIOD. And, all uncircumcised penises do WHAT?
Just as circumcision doesn't always affect men in a negative way, the same is true for women. Not all women suffer loss. In fact, most DONT.
I'm not sure how this means it's OK to mutilate baby boys' penises...
@JLC981 Just because you have think that you are right doesn't mean that they are not true. Go to the Health Reference center and see how many articles talk about how "bad" circumcision is. Go ahead. I pay for it; why don't you? They are peer-review articles. Those can't just get into the system. You cannot just keep denying something because you don't want it to be true!
Without medical or clinical indication, how can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice" to make?
How is it that parents can even feel entitled to something doctors can't be doing? How this a "right?"
I'm afraid tricking parents into thinking they have a "right" to non-medical procedures are engaging in charlatanism.
@JLC981 Parents do research about the best choice for their child. Cirucmcision, the eye of many doctors, is a decision to be given to the parents. Why put children through shots? Because you care about your child, and you know what's best for them.
@JLC981 I don't understand how you don't know what I'm saying when I give that example. I can't make it any clearer. How about this. New research indicates that circumcision is better than getting the gardesil shot. It protects against disease. Hence, it can be thought of as an inoculation.
No, that is not what "new research" says. "New research" says that some interested scientists are trying to find reasons to circumcise men and children.
The fact is that children aren't at risk for any STD transmission, and condoms already trump circumcision anyway.
And uh, in some cases, yes, circumcision does take away a man's ability to orgasm. As this study shows, being circumcised desensitizes your penis over time.
And yes, in some cases male circumcision does "take out" a man's ability to orgasm. Being circumcised desensitizes the penis over time, as this study shows.
@JLC981 Once again, I don't care if anyone is circumcised or whatever. What I have a problem with is when people decide that it's "genital mutilation" for no reason, and try to make it illegal. Research DOES NOT support that claim, and the APA is reviewing its stance on the issue. In the magazine, Reprodutive Health Matters, it states, "there is a general agreement that...any degree of risk reduction is a good thing."
@JLC981 Yes, because there are families that are getting incorrect information by hearing nothing but people like you saying there's nothing good about it. Nope, I don't think so. Yes, there is a body part that people take out all the time: wisdom teeth. Maybe we should keep those things too! The body is a perfect thing right. We don't care if we get crooked teeth. All that matters is that you keep the whole human. Those are what your arguments are saying.
Once again; surgery is performed because there is a medical or clinical indication for it. There is a problem that cannot be addressed any other way.
Doctor don't just perform surgeries because they think it's a "good idea."
And once again, you are beating the same old straw man.
No, the foreskin is not anything like wisdom teeth or crooked teeth. The foreskin is a normal, natural body part, not a deformity, birth defect or congenital anomaly in need of "correction."
@JLC981 It is a good comparison, yes. Both are vestigial. I can't put it any other way. Maybe you need to look up the definition of vestigial before you comment again.
Maybe we need not quibble with semantics and come back to the point.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice."
What you consider "vestigial," and anything else is really quite irrelevant.
@JLC981 Your point is not valid it is not sound. It stems from emotion not from any logical reason. You are arguing ethics. Nothing more. And your "ethics" are not necessarily for the best interest of the child.
Yes, when all else fails try to attack your opponent right?
Sorry, emotion or not, my arguments stand. Not attacking them, or attacking straw men does not make them fall.
Nobody's "ethics" are necessary for the best interest of the child; sound medicine is.
And sound medicine indicates that unless there is an actual medical problem, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting children, much less give parents any kind of "choice."
@JLC981 If you are not willing to listen to the APA, then you need to just stop having opinions because you don't make any logical ones. Ethics does not make an argument. Sound medicine, and all the doctors I have talked to have said that circumcision is a good option. I cannot believe there are people like you who just don't listen to reason.
If the APA takes "research" on male genital mutilation seriously, no, I am not willing to listen. In fact, I will say that they are on crack and should be dismissed as any credible source.
My opinions are quite logical. That you don't want to think so is your problem.
Ethics DOES make an argument. And it is part of sound medicine; unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals.
@JLC981 Wow, you should look at psychology 101. Looks like you can't handle dissonance. It's so interesting to see people who can't be swayed by real evidence. When you think it's one thing, you won't change. No, ethics is not a founding reason. When you look at something scientific, it must be founded by research. that is how something is objective. Being ruled by emotions doesn't get you anywhere.
@JLC981 That's not what I'm saying. You are just stubborn and won't listen to reason. I have to do homework, so I'm losing interest in trying to reason with you. I disagree with you, so does most of the evidence. I don't know what else I can say. If you want to be stuck on your emotional arguments that's fine, but when it's CLEARLY something good for the child, I don't know how you can argue against it. Plus your arguments are circling at this point so "yawn" to you too.
@JLC981 No you cannot refute something when you say that it is genital mutilation when it benefits the child. You can't do that. You say that the child should have the choice. There is no evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence against it. If you just say it's genital mutilation because it is, you can't refute that.
Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, circumcision does not "benefit" a healthy, non-consenting child.
Cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child constitutes genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a human rights violation, and when something is a human rights violation, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" you say there are.
@JLC981 OR circumcision is a good option for parents to do what's best for their child. They do this because it protects their child against many diseases including HIV, HPV, yeast infection, UT infections, and penile cancer. For their best interest, they do this before the child is sexually active or gets one of these things because of the uselessness of the foreskin.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a basic human rights violation.
And when something is such, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" there are.
@Munchkin9111 Genital mutilation is when you deface, cut off or scar part or all of a person's genital organ without consent. You think there's a "benefit" to having less penis? Great, have yourself cut to your own specifics, hopefully you are fully informed of the risks.
imposing this on a child based on some superstitious or specious and fraudulent medical excuses is a serious violation of a child's inherent human right to body integrity. See definition "aggravated sexual assault."
@JLC981 Yes there are a number of body parts that aren't necessary. I have given you plenty of examples, and if you choose to ignore them, that is your prerogative. I can't be any more clear. It is a benefit to the child. It is a benefit to society. I see that as being reason enough.
@JLC981 Ignore the facts and research do what you will. I really have to get stuff done because I have more of a life than just to argue for hours on end. I can pick up where we left off some other time.
The facts are that unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, a doctor has no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting children, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
The facts unless there is a clear medical indication, cutting off part of a child's genitals is clear, irrefuteable genital mutilation.
It is a violation of basic human rights, and when something is such, it doesn't matter how much "research" there is. It's WRONG.
@JLC981 It's an issue of parents knowing what's best for their children. I have proved to many against your viewpoint. If you want to stick to your emotional definition of circumcision then you can. I can't persuade you otherwise. Hopefully the others in this log will see that your arguments don't hold up.
@Munchkin9111 Some parents' once "knew" that it was in their daughter's "best interests" to bind and deform her feet. All manner of physical and mental abuse has been done to children for some distorted and misguided, or superstitious beliefs of the parents. The only reason your trollish comments are staying up here is as an dreary example of the willful ignorance that supports genital mutilation of children.
No, it's an issue of, unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option." And calling an argument "emotional" doesn't exactly make it go away; you must still address it. "It's my right as a parent;" now THERE'S an "emotional" argument if I ever saw one. Others will see that you are self-delusional, and that you have failed to address my questions.
No, not all parents "know what's best for their children." There is such a thing as "bad parenting" and abuse. If all parents did was "right" based on the mere virtue that they are the parents, then there wouldn't be a need for child protective services, because nothing you ever did to your child could be considered "abuse." And a doctor has a duty to practice medicine, not to be complying with parents' desires to have their children's genital mutilated.
@JLC981 If we were all like you then progress would never occur. You take real, true facts and just because you don't like them, you say "NUH, UH!" and you think that's all it takes. Well, parents DESERVE to know both sides of an argument and that is why I care, because I care about little boys whose parents who won't even talk about the birds and the bees with him won't tell him how to clean himself. And believe me, it happens!
It's interesting how you define "progress." Medical research seeks to find ways to fix medical problems WITHOUT having to cut off parts of the body. Actually, it seeks to PRESERVE the human body.
Joseph did all kinds of experiments on Jewish people during the holocaust, but I'm sure that people didn't think stopping him would block "progress."
No, unless there is an actual medical condition that can't be cured any other way than surgery, parents don't "deserve" anything.
@JLC981Yep, that's it. Read what vestigial is, and write back. There are many vestigial parts on the human body. Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two examples. I can't put it any other way. Why not circumcision? You do not have an argument when you don't understand what I'm writing and call it a straw man...plus you are using the wrong fallacy term. A straw man is when you attack your opponent to get what you want. I'm not attacking anyone who is not circ only those who force onto others.
The definition of the word "vestigial" is rather irrelevant.
You seem to insist that what you call something matters, and you keep comparing apples and oranges. How is a foreskin anything like crooked teeth or a burst appendix?
It always comes down to this:
Unless there is a medical or clinical condition that can't be cured any other way, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice."
@JLC981 I replied. That is all I have to say. There are many things where the parents can choose for their children, and this is one where many parents need to choose the right way. It is a lot more painful when one grows up and it takes a lot longer to recoup. It is better to do it when the child is young. It only takes a little less than a week instead of a month and a half. I would say that is reasoning behind a loving parent.
All I have to say is that, unless there is an actual medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting children, much less be giving parents any kind of "choice" in the matter.
Parents are not entitled to a "decision" they can't be making in the first place.
@JLC981 And I disagree. There. People have the right to to become circumcised and just because insane, controlling people who don't care what good literature says doesn't mean the whole community has to suffer. Thank you Hitler.
And there you go pulling the ol' switcheroo again... attacking something I never said.
If men want to go get circumcised, it is their right. If women want to go get circumcised or have any part of their vulvas removed, it is their right.
We're talking about the rights of children and forcefully cutting off part of their genitals. When there is no consent, it is genital mutilation.
@JLC981 And I am talking about the right of a child too by stating that it is better for him throughout his life and that it keeps him from experiencing immense amounts of pain. I can't get any clearer than that. It is not genital mutilation if it's better for them. If you aren't willing to listen to a plethora of studies that argues against your beliefs just because you don't like it then there is no helping you. You have to see the whole issue. I have and have changed my beliefs.
@webserfin
"Lying"? I didn't say that. I have no "hatred" of people who are cut, I am one of them. What I do have difficulty with is people who justify forced genital cutting of children with their own prejudices, based usually on very limited sexual experience. You yourself said it was based on one person you dated.
Circumcision of children is always justified by flimsy and prejudiced excuses such as you revealed.
Bonobo3D 1 month ago
@webserfin So you are judging all intact men on one sexual experience? Sounds like you came to that experience with some pre-judgment and baggage of your own.
Bonobo3D 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pls thumbs up so people can see:
I know this is the YouTube community and it is a long-shot but please, I have been mutilated and I will never know what it feels like to be a complete man again, I hate my parents so much for it.
Please donate to Foregen (dot) org
An organization dedicated to regenerating whatever is needed so people like me, and millions, will have the chance to be complete once again after being mutilated against our wills.
Pass this around to circ videos to speak.out!
BUGZdood 2 months ago in playlist Doctors Opposing Circumcision = genital mutilation
Loved being cut lol u all ppl jeolous u werent cut so try to make shit up! go clean u dick
Sub4SubbingMe 3 months ago
why is talking about sexual pleasure such a taboo in the US
LethalDozePL 4 months ago
@LethalDozePL Religion.
Bonobo3D 4 months ago
@LethalDozePL If you can't talk about circumcision, them don't perform circumcision, Doing it is worse than talking about it.
moyomongoose 1 week ago
great stuff
LethalDozePL 4 months ago 3
I find any medieval practice resulting in the Mutilation of babies abhorrent but also this disturbing practice is then compounded by the rabbi sucking the childs penis! something which they have tried to keep quite for obvious reasons, needless to say that these jew/paedophiles should be locked up for a very long time, its disgusting what they get up to.
MindCrazedBanjo 4 months ago
Oh dear... even so I can see the trouble point some of those men have, I think there currently are much worse violations of human rights than male circumcicion to care about. Like ritual African/Islamic FEMALE circumcicion for example! My boyfriend is Jewish, circumcised, happy about it and we enjoy our private life a lot. I think much of this debate is terribly pathetic, it is not that those men have been castrated after birth...
Seleuce 6 months ago
@Seleuce Issues of human rights are not on an arbitrary and sliding scale of importance.To the children (and the men they become) genitally disfigured by a botched circumcision your comment is rather insensitive.
You and your boyfriend may be fine with the moving and protective part of his penis removed, however the diminishing effects of circumcision become more serious with age. Hopefully you can see, when you view a video of a child being cut, how traumatic and abusive circumcision is.
EnoFrisk 6 months ago
@Seleuce While it's good that you and your boyfriend can enjoy yourselves, that does not make this any less of an issue nor does it nullify the empirical evidence that circumcision reduces the sexual sensitivity of the penis. Sorry.
DetestableCrabmeat 6 months ago
In this issue, let the ladies speak!
vcases 6 months ago
There is something not mentioned in this research. Circumcised penis is less sensitve to touch but can endure a long time in a vagina giving more pleasure to the lady up to the climax. That is the point there. I am circumcised and I can endure long time sex and my partners are very happy. The issue is how pleasurable is the circumcised or uncircumcised penis to a lady. End!
vcases 6 months ago
@vcases, there is no evidence that the circumcised penis lasts longer in sex. Actually, foreskin nerves probably provide more feedback to the intact guy, so he is less likely to be "surprised" by orgasm, and more able to control it. Premature ejcaulation is common in circumcised guys too. For circumcised and uncircumcised men alike, sexual endurance is an acquired skill. An intact guy has more potential to acquire the skill.
psandbergnz 6 months ago
@psandbergnz , perhaps you are right, but I comment only based from my observation. I have lived in a country for 5 years where 95% of men are circumcised. I have dated several girls from this country as well and I found their reaction to my circumcised one. Based from my investigation, uncircumcised penis is very sensitive to touch, that it will easily ejaculate. Majority of these men prefer hand-job or blowjob than penetration, because in vagina the foreskin folds in, giving less sensitivity.
vcases 5 months ago
@vcases, do you understand the intact (uncircumcised) penis? On erection, foreskin folds back on the penile shaft, exposing the glans, so coitus is no less enjoyable for intact men. Foreskin is great in oral sex (since very sensitive to light touch). Bible: circumcision was given as God's covenant or sign to Jews. However, Christians don't circumcise (in Europe), since New Testament (St. Paul) says it has no value.
Foreskin nerves give more feedback - so could help against premature ejaculation.
psandbergnz 5 months ago
@vcases wtf you have no idea what you are talking about, im natural and i cum much faster if the girl gives me a good blow, than i do from penetration,, never had problem with easy ejaculation, and i can control very easy when im about to cum..
cubano0306 4 months ago
@psandbergnz, Circumcised penis is sensitive that it's good to masturbate and play with. I think God (whoever he is) has the reason to circumcised abraham's children - (1) To make them productive at work (at his time) than masturbating, (2) To prefer penetration than hand-job/ blowjob. But if I can turn back time, I'd like my foreskin back, to get more sensitivity in masturbation and enlarging my penis at the same time.
vcases 5 months ago
Simple, objective, and reproducible: only an ostrich of person could stick their head in the sand to hide from this truth.
finklesk 8 months ago 2
@dimaalmazov you liar. Anyway, listen, they say that if you take off another 50% it's even better! Go ahead, make our day! Go and get another 50% chopped off, oh wait, no, have the entire head taken off! It's good for you! You can then bang away for 72 hours non stop without cumming as you won't feel a thing! & it will be SOO clean! And soo "beautiful" too! No funny head or anything. LET ME PAY! I'll pay for your 2nd phase op! & I encourage you to go & get the head on your shoulders removed too!
trident3b 8 months ago
this MD obviously lost his a long time ago as he is trying to understand the difference, but he can't since he too was amputated and now fumbles for words. If he were intact he wouldn't speak like this and in blissful ignorance... MD or not. He is devoid of that, that would give him the facts, instantly.
trident3b 8 months ago
I want you to look at the picture of the ceramics containing scrolls. They look like hershey's top and the circular jar looks like a circumcized penis! I'm not joking! Read Genesis 17 and it's there. Arrow also looks like a circumcised penis. The covenant of God with man is the reason for circumcision. It's God's son's and He commands what He wants to His chosen people! Remember that!
hudna1 11 months ago
@hudna1
God must be a lousy designer. He creates every man with foreskin on their penis only for us to hack it off. You wanna know what looks better than a circumcised penis? A circumcised vagina. It's more clean, less flaps, and doesn't smell. Let's promote equality of the sexes. Circumcision for all! :D
jmlew 10 months ago 2
@jmlew God also says to circumcise the heart! He thinks our hearts are sinful! Read Genesis for some insight if you like...but of course somone like you may not want to bother about the truth...The Lord eventually turns our imperfection back to His design once we believe! My prayer!
hudna1 10 months ago
@hudna1, it seems to me that YOU don't want to bother with the truth. Instead, you place your Filipino cultural prejudice ABOVE Christian teaching" Is foreskin God's design ERROR?!
I have shown you many times that the New Testament discourages circumcision (e.g. read Paul's letter to the Galatians), saying it has no religious value. Yet you seem incapable of understanding, or refuting what I say. Do you think it is sinful for Christians to eat pork or shellfish (as the Old Testament teaches)?
psandbergnz 9 months ago
@hudna1, let me get this right: you appear to think that God inspired the Jews to roll their scrolls into ceramic cartridges that resemble circumcised penises? So, the rabbis would forever be reminded of penises whenever they went to open the scrolls, or even so much as looked at them!
Do you think that God is a woman, or that he's just fixated on phalluses?
psandbergnz 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I THINK IT LOOKS BETTER WITH THE CUT! I'D VOTE FOR CIRCUMCISED! OF COURSE I AM A WOMAN!
hudna1 11 months ago
@hudna1 And some men think oversized breast implants "looks better" than natural breasts.
What you seem to be unable to see, past your own sexual preference for a surgically simplified and reduced penis, is that this is being forced upon infants and children without consent.
Bonobo3D 11 months ago 13
@hudna1 I think women have been conditioned to find the cut more appealing. I find both appealing. I don't see how women have right to vote on this. This is a man's decision. Unfortunately my nephew never got to have a vote. I have two girls myself so I never had to make this decision. If I were to have a son, he'd be left intact. Nature is perfect, the male body is perfect, the woman's body is perfect, to go against and manipulate this perfection is an insult to the original creation.
dladymuse 11 months ago 2
@hudna1
keep the cutting to your own body!
finklesk 8 months ago 2
@hudna1
You're either Jewish or Muslim aren't you? lol.
Omnislash2000 2 months ago in playlist We are not acceptable losses or risks
@hudna1
Hey there Hudna1, I'm looking to date a woman with her clitoral hood and labia minora surgically removed because I like the way it looks. I'm really not concerned whether the woman sees it as mutilation or not, or whether it's traumatic to her or not...because I think it looks better, therefore I VOTE FOR FEMALE MUTILATION. Are you available?
Theatre of the Absurd!
flatswing 1 week ago
Circumcised and 110% happy with it in every way! You might say "but you've never felt your foreskin so you wouldn't know". To that I say: "Well you've never NOT felt your foreskin, so you wouldn't know either."
vash1053 1 year ago
@vash1053 A person who is colour blind doesn't know what they are missing either.
To impose colour blindness on an infant or child, or any other sensory deficit is morally and ethically wrong.
Some men have, because of peer pressure, had themselves cut as adults, often with grave regrets. Many men are now creating a pseudo foreskin through foreskin restoration. Their accounts of improved form and function also contribute to this discussion.
Bonobo3D 1 year ago 12
@Bonobo3D You spelles 'colour' correctly :D What country do you live in?
mslewp 6 months ago
@vash1053 , actually cut men can be "cut" if they want to. A foreskin can be pulled back and stayed pulled back. I have tried it and guess what, my penis became dry and irritated. Imagine what would happened to it years down the line. Uncut men have a point of reference to see how to know it is like before and an educated guess of what it's like after. Cut men like you can only see it from one perspective.
PungiFungi 11 months ago
@vash1053 yea we can. just keep the skin back and jack off like we r mutilated
punkassbitch49 6 months ago
I think in the end most parents want their kids to have a better life than they had. To make more money then they did. To experience love with their spouse at a higher level then they have. The purpose of children is to start life on your shoulders and reach higher goals that you couldnt achieve in your life time. I think if parents knew the truth about circumcision it just wouldnt happen.
s8nsK405 1 year ago
Bottom line: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is, by very definition, genital mutilation.
It is child abuse and a violation of basic human rights.
JLC981 1 year ago
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a basic human rights violation.
And when something is such, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" there are.
JLC981 1 year ago
"You were the one who called it "genital mutilation" and said that there is a difference in gender "rights." I was responding to that. You bring up a comment, and I refute it. That's it."
Hm hm no, you refuted a comment I never made.
I will restate: Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, and unless there is consent, circumcising a non-consenting minor IS genital mutilation.
The difference in gender rights is that while baby girls are protected by law, baby boys aren't.
JLC981 1 year ago
"You are just like the people who say that they are going to smoke even though they know it's bad for them. "Well, the research states that smoking is bad for you, but I won't listen to any of that crap. It makes me feel better to smoke." Basically, that is what you are saying." <--- These are your words Munchkin. Having a foreskin is akin to smoking, is what you're saying.
JLC981 1 year ago
I wish Sorrells would talk about the results of their preliminary test that included restored men. I know that they were able to measure the sensitivity loss caused by tearing away the foreskin from the glans resulting in permanent scar thickened skin. Those restored men who were cut as adults had the glans completely revert to the same sensitivity as the intact men.
kotfrank 1 year ago 2
Circumcision is a cosmetic trend in decline. 33% of US boys born in 2009 were subjected to the surgery, compared to a peak rate exceeding 90% during the 1960's.
feministsAreCorrupt 1 year ago
evolution gave us a foreskin for a reason
all these religious nutheads need to stop calling it circumcision. Its mutilation not only for girls but boys too.
As for those who say "it looks better that way", you're fucking sick!!
I was unfortunately circumcised and need foreskin restoration
jigglyfidda125 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is a medical opinion that the foreskin is needed in the womb to protect the urethra from becoming clogged by the amniotic fluid. Once born, the male child does not need the foreskin any longer & it then becomes an obstacle not only to cleanliness but also to marital harmony ( the sensitivity of the head of the male organ accustomed to being covered by the foreskin leads to premature ejaculation ). Elisheba R.N.
elishebabb 1 year ago
@elishebabb That is the medical opinion of one Edgar J. Schoen. Schoen is infamous for his kinky passion for everything related to cutting the genitals of children.
If you are an R.N. and you think a normal, healthy erogenous body part need to be amputated without the owners consent for the insane reasons you mentioned here I think you need to refresh your education with a basic anatomy lesson.
Every human male and female has a foreskin for a reason, even if you haven't a clue why.
Bonobo3D 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Bonobo3D You did not respond to my reasons. Instead you made accusations against Dr Schoen & me. Do mothers have the infant's consent to drink alcohol during their pregnancy, expose the fetus to STDs, get them aborted , have infant's ears pierced, & give them soybean water to drink instead of mother's milk ? And why is Dr Edell shaving his beard ? Men have beards for a reason. Dogs don't wear clothes so they need their foreskins. Male humans don't need it.
elishebabb 1 year ago
@elishebabb I didn't respond to your "reasons" because they are nuts. (That's a polite word for bullshit.) So is the rest of this list. Continue this conversation with others, but not here.
Bonobo3D 1 year ago 7
@elishebabb Women don't need their clitoral hoods, either. Removing the clitoral hood, the female physiological analog to the male foreskin, is illegal in US while removal of the penile foreskin is covered by health insurance.
feministsAreCorrupt 1 year ago 2
@elishebabb, so why should girls keep THEIR dirty prepuce? Male and female prepuce is from same embryonic tissue - if the one is "unclean", so is the other! Women are 5 times more prone to urogenital infections than men (as you should know). So why not remove a girl's disgusting, redundant inner labia to simplify her genital hygiene? The extra sensitivity of the natural penis doesn't cause premature ejaculation; foreskin nerves provide sensory feedback for finer control. Your ethics is wanting.
psandbergnz 1 year ago
@elishebabb Are you claiming that the 80% of the world's men who are intact have problems with premature ejaculation? Utter bullshit! Take your lies to another planet and stop sexually assaulting babies.
parkwoodlounge 1 year ago
@elishebabb, you don't have andy sound evidence that having a foreskin contributes to premature ejaculation. Have you considered that foreskin sensory nerves may provide a guy with additional feedback to control the onset of orgasm?
psandbergnz 1 year ago
@psandbergnz Like what I say about bald penises. It's like driving on bald tires. You can't feel the road, and BANG you're done. Also the foreskin is nature's gift of a surrogate vagina that teaches the owner how best pleasure himself and his partner.
kotfrank 1 year ago
@elishebabb So, what is the problem with premature ejaculation.
"Once born, the male child does not need the foreskin any longer"
A woman does not need a clitoris and particularly the clitoral hood. That is not reason enough to amputate it.
feministsAreCorrupt 1 year ago
@elishebabb
Who(aside from women)care about premature ejaculation? It's not premature to us men, it's right on time. If you're saying it's premature to you, then I would suggest that you get yourself worked up to the point of release prior to sexual intercourse. Anyway, sex wasn't meant to be a 1, 2, or even 3 hour event, it was designed to be productive(in...release....exit), baby conceived.
Maximilionalpha 1 year ago
@elishebabb The foreskin is needed to protect the urethra from contaminates and feces during rearing. Generally the foreskin separates in time of maturity to have sex. It has many uses in sex for marital harmony. See online Sex As Nature Intended. The foreskin is self cleaning. Smegma is Greek for natures soap. Further the erogenous sensations of the foreskin makes it a joy to wash. Circumcision removes average 75% of the sexual receptors and half of the penile skin. It sexually handicaps.
kotfrank 1 year ago
@elishebabb The head is the least sensitive part of the penis. Has only 15% sexual receptors. The foreskin protects itself AND the glans. Upon erection the dartos muscle tenses thereby creating a solid one piece skin tube where any action on the shaft is transferred to act on the erogenous ridged band, and through its loop to and from the frenulum, this action acts on the erogenous frenulum. All action on the shaft acts on these erogenous structures, the ridged band and frenulum. Circumcision...
kotfrank 1 year ago
@elishebabb Circumcision always removes all of the erogenous ridged band and part to all of the erogenous frenulum. Action on the shaft is wasted to act on these structures. Action must be directly applied to the frenulum remnant, if any remains. 85% of the sexual receptors are cut off with the ridged band and frenulum. This leaves 15% receptors located at the glans corona which are overpowered by the more populous pain/thermal receptors located throughout the glans, ratio 5% to 95%.
kotfrank 1 year ago
@elishebabb With only 15% of the sexual receptors left intact in the glans full of pain receptors, is why men have said (Larry David movies) "If I had anymore sensitivity, I think I would die of a heart attack!" Circumcision makes one feel not the full pleasure, as pain cancels pleasure. See Dr. John Taylor "Frenular Delta" and also see his research at CIRP.org.
kotfrank 1 year ago
@kotfrank Wow, that source isn't biased. This cracks me up!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@elishebabb Don't worry. This guy doesn't know anything about good science! I have done a LOT of research about circumcision, and it all points to circumcision being a good choice! Anti-circumcision advocates either avoid questions like this one is doing or create BOGUS studies. Go to this website for a look into the research. The author is a medical professor of the University of Australia (good credentials) go to circo info.net and click on penis sensitivity!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
I don't see anything bogus about the Sorrells study whatsoever.
RockoMyler 1 year ago
@elishebabb (btw there is no space in between the two words it just wouldn't let me post it). I am getting really tired of seeing nothing but anti-circ stuff on the internet. It is interesting how all of the stuff that I hear stuff on the internet that is completely different from the stuff that I read in my articles on my encyclopedia at my college. Two things to note: one the appendix is an example of a vestigial and perhaps even HARMFUL organ in the human body. Who says that the foreskin
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@elishebabb who says that it is any different. Secondly, you must look at the penis as it is fully erect on an uncircumcised man. The foreskin, as long as there is no phimosis, looks exactly like a circumcised penis. How then, could it EVER have any part in the pleasure during sex when it is along the shaft?! It is impossible and all of your questions should be answered: the foreskin was formed for the evolutionary purpose of protection when we didn't have pants. :-) That's the answer to your ?
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 during an erection a intct penis does not look like a circumsized 1. y? because u can see that the skin is llooser then the circumsized 1. and its not called uncircumsized. thats like saying she is un breast planted
punkassbitch49 1 year ago
@punkassbitch49 Beyond your horrible spelling and grammatical issues, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you saying that circumcised men can't get a full erection? Because that is totally false.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 dude r u stupid? i said they both dont look the same when erect. the intct penis has losser skin that is seeable. the mutilated penis has tigh skin. and u can see when its tight or not. and thats not true about the hiv. and ofcoars every guy thats circed is happy cuse they never new what its like to have a forskin dum bitch ass nigga
punkassbitch49 1 year ago
@punkassbitch49 Um, I have actually done extensive research over the topic, and yes, there are a lot of sources that verify what I'm saying about HIV and HPV. You can't just say, "Nuh Uh," and think that it's a good argument. I've heard of people getting circumcised later on in life and saying that it's feels just as good. The only things that's better is masturbation. Good thing because you will be doing that all alone if you're uncircumcised! Even uncirc guys brag about small foreskins.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 Even if it did actually have any effect on HIV and HPV, it still wouldn't warrant cutting off a body part. We don't advocate removing any other part of the body as a pre-emptive measure, and the penis of the human male should be treated no differently. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand; you'd think baby boys weren't thought of as normal human beings or something.
RockoMyler 1 year ago
@RockoMyler You know, it isn't worth fighting for your case if everyone is too busy denying RESEARCH! The fact is the research STATES circumcision does not either increase or decrease pleasure! The thing is that the foreskin's only evolved purpose was to protect the penis when we did not have pants. The fact is that the procedure not only helps the men that are circumcised but also their future wives as it does not transmit infection. Oh but wait, we don't care about our future wives do we?
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 If the foreskin really were as detrimental to men and women as you say it is, we would have lost it to evolution ages ago. But facts, reason, and gender equality clearly don't matter to you when it comes to this subject; you just want to justify circumcision because you were lied to about some vague benefits to the procedure and you let it be done to your child because you thought it was in his best interests and you can't take it back. It's sadly not uncommon in your country.
RockoMyler 1 year ago
@RockoMyler That reply, too is fictitious. Humans have a few vestigial traits. Two of them are the appendix and that some can wiggle their ears. Both have no purpose. Same with the foreskin. Don't turn this into a discrimination thing because you are far from the truth. I have studied this topic immensely, and the only arguments done by anticirc advocates are either emotional or down right false. I mean, I went to a website where her "sources" were so blatantly biased that I laughed out loud!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 The foreskin has an obvious purpose(the nature of which I spelled out pretty clearly not but a few comments ago) and if you actually read as much research as you claim to and weren't so willfully ignorant, that purpose would be fairly obvious by now. But you haven't, and you are. Hence, here we are.
RockoMyler 1 year ago
@RockoMyler It can only be one of us that is "willfully ignorant," and I believe that person would be you. As stated, there are many vestigial parts on the human body and some, perhaps even the foreskin, is harmful to the male body. Current research is helping us to see the risks of NOT getting your child circumcised including tearing of the foreskin by objects, increase in UT and other infections, and difficulty with some jobs (ex. army-inability to wash daily--hence circ rate in mid east).
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
Comment removed
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Well I think research should focus on finding cures for diseases, not reasons to cut part of our bodies off. Fact is any part of the body can suffer disease and injury. Like, you totally don't cut off your toes because they're prone to fungus and shit. Like it's totally bogus to remove peoples arms to keep them from getting scraped. And worse, getting infected with gangrene. What kind of crack are you on?
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 If you are in a clean country like the United States that shouldn't happen to you unless you are a gross person to begin with. After it heals, it's a lot easier to keep clean. Smegma isn't a natural lubricant; it's just freaking nasty! Also, I've read that most men don't even clean it right. Search "foreskin smell" and you will find just all kinds of blogs/articles about how women are complaining about their husbands and men complaining about their own.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Why should somebody's body be hurt to "heal" in the first place, when the solution is a shower? So you're afraid of smegma? Like, you are aware that women get that too right? Where you put your clean cut dick in? You've heard men don't clean it right? You know what happens to a girl if she doesn't wash right? She smells like fish. So like, what's the problem if men get a smell too? Complete bullshit argument.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 No, it's not because unlike male genitalia, females are more prone to infections because of the way they are built. There are plenty of jobs in the good ole USA where it helps because there are some jobs where you have to be out somewhere at weeks at a time. What about if your family likes camping. OMG, there are so many reasons why it would be beneficial. The argument that women are like that anyway is just selfish because you neglect to see the difference in anatomies.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Wow! You're real good at stating the obvious! Females are more prone to infections. It's actually easier for guys to stay cleaner than girls. But somehow, it's a "good idea" to cut them to make them "more clean?" Riiight...
There is not a single job in the US where circumcision is a requirement. This is complete bullshit and speculation.
"What about if your family likes camping. OMG, there are so many reasons why it would be beneficial." <--- Trying to make sense of this...
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Camping...you have to go outside and can't bathe for long periods of time. Ummmm. That's really a clear statement. It was another example of another way that we don't bathe everyday... I would be ok with female circumcision too if it didn't take out your clitoris. In fact, women in the US DO get hoodectomys for better stimulation. That's like circumcision. The only thing is that that literally takes out a woman's ability to orgasm.. Male circumcision doesn't.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Yeah, it's a stupid statement. Doesn't hold too much water... you talk as if you've actually been camping having had a foreskin...
And uh, I'm going to stop arguing with you if you keep changing the subject.
The whole reason people are against circumcision is because it's done forcebly on baby boys.
Women are free to cut off whatever they want. If baby girls were getting hoodectomies or whatever, I'd be at the front of that line.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 No, not it doesn't in 98% of men, it doesn't. The sensation changes, not the pleasure. The other 2% went to bad doctors. The thing is, you are given smart-ass comments too. "Babies are born smoking." What kind of a response was that? No it was a clear example of what it sounds like you are saying. You were the one who called it "genital mutilation" and said that there is a difference in gender "rights." I was responding to that. You bring up a comment, and I refute it. That's it.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Actually, I know quite a few men who got circumcised as adults and lived to tell the tail. Yes, circumcision DOES desensitize a man. 98% of men are simply living in bliss not knowing what they're missing. Unless there was a medical problem, all doctors that circumcise are "bad doctors."
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981No this was a study about men who got circumcised later on in life. Well, I know a lot of women who get yeast infections when they have sex with a man with an uncircumcised penis; does that mean that all uncircumcised penises do, no. Just in the same way that not everyone is affected by circumcision in the same way. The thing is that it's a CHANGE in sensation...not a complete loss. That is false, too. Doctors who follow the research are GOOD doctors. People who live by emotion aren't.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Actually, no, this study looked at all kinds of men.
And your analogy suffers a few flaws; the assumption that the reason women get yeast infections due to sleeping with uncircumcised men. Women get yeast infections PERIOD. And, all uncircumcised penises do WHAT?
Just as circumcision doesn't always affect men in a negative way, the same is true for women. Not all women suffer loss. In fact, most DONT.
I'm not sure how this means it's OK to mutilate baby boys' penises...
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
"Doctors who follow the research are GOOD doctors. People who live by emotion aren't."
Correction: Doctors that follow GOOD research, are GOOD doctors. Doctors that follow quack studies are quack doctors.
"Research" that seeks to justify cutting off any healthy part of the body is quack research that needs to be thrown out.
Emotion is a red-herring; arguments stand with or without emotion.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Just because you have think that you are right doesn't mean that they are not true. Go to the Health Reference center and see how many articles talk about how "bad" circumcision is. Go ahead. I pay for it; why don't you? They are peer-review articles. Those can't just get into the system. You cannot just keep denying something because you don't want it to be true!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Yes, I'm sure there is such a thing as "bad" female circumcision, and "good" female circumcision.
I think you miss the point.
When an action is a violation of basic human rights, "research," "pros and cons" do not matter.
It's pointless to be discussing "research" that tries to legitimize genital mutilation.
"Research" should be trying to find ways to elliminate surgery, not preserve it.
I have access to plenty of articles. That is kind of irrelevant.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
And you never addressed the question:
Without medical or clinical indication, how can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice" to make?
How is it that parents can even feel entitled to something doctors can't be doing? How this a "right?"
I'm afraid tricking parents into thinking they have a "right" to non-medical procedures are engaging in charlatanism.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Parents do research about the best choice for their child. Cirucmcision, the eye of many doctors, is a decision to be given to the parents. Why put children through shots? Because you care about your child, and you know what's best for them.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
It is the doctors who are payed the big bucks to do "research."
Under no other circumstances can parents come in and tell a doctor "doctor, cut this part of my child off. I've done my research."
It really doesn't work that way.
Ah yes, the "shots" comparison.
Tell us, Munchkin, how a circumcision is anything like a vaccine.
When a virus invades your child's body, how is the fact that he is missing his foreskin, his finger, or any other body part, matter?
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 I don't understand how you don't know what I'm saying when I give that example. I can't make it any clearer. How about this. New research indicates that circumcision is better than getting the gardesil shot. It protects against disease. Hence, it can be thought of as an inoculation.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
No, that is not what "new research" says. "New research" says that some interested scientists are trying to find reasons to circumcise men and children.
The fact is that children aren't at risk for any STD transmission, and condoms already trump circumcision anyway.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 OMG BUT CHILDREN GROW UP! EVERYONE DOES FACT OF LIFE. And yes, everything that I have replied to you have said.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Yes. Children grow up. It's a fact of life.
But you know what's also a fact of life? That when children grow up, they become capable of making their own judgement and decisions.
By that time they can decide whether they want to have part of their penis cut off, or wear a condom instead.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 No, no they shouldn't because I have already stated the problem with adult circumcision.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
Comment removed
JLC981 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Munchkin9111
And uh, in some cases, yes, circumcision does take away a man's ability to orgasm. As this study shows, being circumcised desensitizes your penis over time.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
And yes, in some cases male circumcision does "take out" a man's ability to orgasm. Being circumcised desensitizes the penis over time, as this study shows.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 So a guy is in a collared shirt and you believe everything he says.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
He could be wearing a hoopskirt.
JLC981 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Munchkin9111
"The argument that women are like that anyway is just selfish because you neglect to see the difference in anatomies."
That's because I tend not to want to see the "differences," but the similarities.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Talk about "selfish," it's absolutely sexist to have double-standards for boys and girls.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Hygiene commands us to clean our bodies, not cut parts of it off. Absolutely stupid argument.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Once again, I don't care if anyone is circumcised or whatever. What I have a problem with is when people decide that it's "genital mutilation" for no reason, and try to make it illegal. Research DOES NOT support that claim, and the APA is reviewing its stance on the issue. In the magazine, Reprodutive Health Matters, it states, "there is a general agreement that...any degree of risk reduction is a good thing."
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Oh yes you do! That's why you're here. While you like to talk as if "you don't really care," notice how you have to respond to every comment. Pshh...
Sorry, dude, unless there is an actual medical problem, when you cut part of somebody off? That's mutilation. Any way you slice it.
There is no "research" that can ever justify cutting off healthy parts of peoples' bodies, EVER.
You know what that is called? It's called "quackery."
The APA needs to throw that shit OUT.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Yes, because there are families that are getting incorrect information by hearing nothing but people like you saying there's nothing good about it. Nope, I don't think so. Yes, there is a body part that people take out all the time: wisdom teeth. Maybe we should keep those things too! The body is a perfect thing right. We don't care if we get crooked teeth. All that matters is that you keep the whole human. Those are what your arguments are saying.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Once again; surgery is performed because there is a medical or clinical indication for it. There is a problem that cannot be addressed any other way.
Doctor don't just perform surgeries because they think it's a "good idea."
And once again, you are beating the same old straw man.
No, the foreskin is not anything like wisdom teeth or crooked teeth. The foreskin is a normal, natural body part, not a deformity, birth defect or congenital anomaly in need of "correction."
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 It is a good comparison, yes. Both are vestigial. I can't put it any other way. Maybe you need to look up the definition of vestigial before you comment again.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Maybe we need not quibble with semantics and come back to the point.
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice."
What you consider "vestigial," and anything else is really quite irrelevant.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Your point is not valid it is not sound. It stems from emotion not from any logical reason. You are arguing ethics. Nothing more. And your "ethics" are not necessarily for the best interest of the child.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
>Yawn<
Yes, when all else fails try to attack your opponent right?
Sorry, emotion or not, my arguments stand. Not attacking them, or attacking straw men does not make them fall.
Nobody's "ethics" are necessary for the best interest of the child; sound medicine is.
And sound medicine indicates that unless there is an actual medical problem, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting children, much less give parents any kind of "choice."
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 If you are not willing to listen to the APA, then you need to just stop having opinions because you don't make any logical ones. Ethics does not make an argument. Sound medicine, and all the doctors I have talked to have said that circumcision is a good option. I cannot believe there are people like you who just don't listen to reason.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
If the APA takes "research" on male genital mutilation seriously, no, I am not willing to listen. In fact, I will say that they are on crack and should be dismissed as any credible source.
My opinions are quite logical. That you don't want to think so is your problem.
Ethics DOES make an argument. And it is part of sound medicine; unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Wow, you should look at psychology 101. Looks like you can't handle dissonance. It's so interesting to see people who can't be swayed by real evidence. When you think it's one thing, you won't change. No, ethics is not a founding reason. When you look at something scientific, it must be founded by research. that is how something is objective. Being ruled by emotions doesn't get you anywhere.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
>Yawn< It really is interesting how you think emotion is of any relevance here!
Arguments fall or stand on their own merit. The presence or absence of emotion is irrelevant.
Bottom line; when an action is a violation of basic human rights, "research" and "studies" are irrelevant.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
All doctors that you have talked to say that circumcision is a good option because they perform them.
"It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding." ~Upton Sinclair
Go to Europe; I think doctors there will tell you something different.
There is no "reason" to circumcise a child if he there is no medical or clinical indication.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 That's not what I'm saying. You are just stubborn and won't listen to reason. I have to do homework, so I'm losing interest in trying to reason with you. I disagree with you, so does most of the evidence. I don't know what else I can say. If you want to be stuck on your emotional arguments that's fine, but when it's CLEARLY something good for the child, I don't know how you can argue against it. Plus your arguments are circling at this point so "yawn" to you too.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
I'm sorry, there is no logic or reason in your argument to listen to.
No amount of "evidence" would ever justify genital mutilation in girls. It is absurd that you think that this matters in boys.
Emotional arguments or not, you have failed to refute them.
Surgery is performed because there is clear medical indication, not because someone thinks it's "good."
I'm afraid the one who is "circling" is you. I'm just following your lead.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 YOU CANNOT REFUTE EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS!!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Straw man:
"JLC981's arguments are emotional arguments, therefore I will not refute them."
Reality; JLC981's arguments are solid, and you'd rather dismiss them as emotional because you cannot refute them.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 No you cannot refute something when you say that it is genital mutilation when it benefits the child. You can't do that. You say that the child should have the choice. There is no evidence for this. In fact, there is evidence against it. If you just say it's genital mutilation because it is, you can't refute that.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, circumcision does not "benefit" a healthy, non-consenting child.
Cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child constitutes genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a human rights violation, and when something is a human rights violation, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" you say there are.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 OR circumcision is a good option for parents to do what's best for their child. They do this because it protects their child against many diseases including HIV, HPV, yeast infection, UT infections, and penile cancer. For their best interest, they do this before the child is sexually active or gets one of these things because of the uselessness of the foreskin.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Penile cancer is already quite rare and easily prevented also.
If a child thinks he wants to be circumcised to prevent all of these disease, or use a condom, that should be up to him to decide.
It's none of the parents' or doctors' business.
And the foreskin is not "useless." It actually serves quite a few functions.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Ok want to support that with anything other than "I said so."
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Facts are facts...
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Bottom line:
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, yes, cutting off part of a child's genitals is genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is a basic human rights violation.
And when something is such, it doesn't matter how many "benefits" there are.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 Genital mutilation is when you deface, cut off or scar part or all of a person's genital organ without consent. You think there's a "benefit" to having less penis? Great, have yourself cut to your own specifics, hopefully you are fully informed of the risks.
imposing this on a child based on some superstitious or specious and fraudulent medical excuses is a serious violation of a child's inherent human right to body integrity. See definition "aggravated sexual assault."
Bonobo3D 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Bottom line:
For doctors to perform surgery on non-consenting individuals, there must be clear medical and clinical indication.
The "pros and cons" and "risks and benefits" are never questioned with any other healthy part of the body.
To do so would be quackery.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Yes there are a number of body parts that aren't necessary. I have given you plenty of examples, and if you choose to ignore them, that is your prerogative. I can't be any more clear. It is a benefit to the child. It is a benefit to society. I see that as being reason enough.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Your own argument steps on your own foot.
There are all kinds of parts of the body that a person can live without.
That alone does not justify cutting them off in healthy, non-consenting children.
There is no "benefit" in cutting off parts of the genitals of an already healthy child.
As I keep saying; there needs to be a clear medical or clinical indication.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 You are not looking at my other arguments. I am saying:
1) There are vestigial body parts and the foreskin is probably one of them
2) The foreskin makes it easier to get a number of different penile infections
3) It protects partners whether homo or heterosexual later in life
4) It helps children keep themselves clean because little boys and even sometimes men would rather play than bathe
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Your arguments are irrelevant.
1) The fact that a body part is considered "vestigial" does not make it OK to forcefully cut them off a non-consenting individual.
2) The infections of which you speak are already easily preventable by other means. You don't have to be circumcised to prevent penile infections.
3) Circumcision does not protect ANYBODY. You are delusional if you think this is true. All you have to do is look at the US.
4) It is already easy to keep clean. No need.
JLC981 1 year ago 2
@JLC981 Ignore the facts and research do what you will. I really have to get stuff done because I have more of a life than just to argue for hours on end. I can pick up where we left off some other time.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
The facts are that unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, a doctor has no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting children, much less be giving parents any kind of "option."
The facts unless there is a clear medical indication, cutting off part of a child's genitals is clear, irrefuteable genital mutilation.
It is a violation of basic human rights, and when something is such, it doesn't matter how much "research" there is. It's WRONG.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Wow, I will leave all the readers here. That sounded stupid enough.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
And don't stumble on the way out.
JLC981 1 year ago 5
@Munchkin9111
If you have better things to do than sit here and try to piss in my mouth and call it rain, then no body is stopping you; go do them.
Apprehension always, always betrays apathy.
If this were really a "non-issue," then you wouldn't be here.
Go on now, shoo.
JLC981 1 year ago 2
@JLC981 It's an issue of parents knowing what's best for their children. I have proved to many against your viewpoint. If you want to stick to your emotional definition of circumcision then you can. I can't persuade you otherwise. Hopefully the others in this log will see that your arguments don't hold up.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111 Some parents' once "knew" that it was in their daughter's "best interests" to bind and deform her feet. All manner of physical and mental abuse has been done to children for some distorted and misguided, or superstitious beliefs of the parents. The only reason your trollish comments are staying up here is as an dreary example of the willful ignorance that supports genital mutilation of children.
Bonobo3D 1 year ago 10
@Munchkin9111
No, it's an issue of, unless there is a medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be giving parents any kind of "option." And calling an argument "emotional" doesn't exactly make it go away; you must still address it. "It's my right as a parent;" now THERE'S an "emotional" argument if I ever saw one. Others will see that you are self-delusional, and that you have failed to address my questions.
JLC981 1 year ago 3
@Munchkin9111
No, not all parents "know what's best for their children." There is such a thing as "bad parenting" and abuse. If all parents did was "right" based on the mere virtue that they are the parents, then there wouldn't be a need for child protective services, because nothing you ever did to your child could be considered "abuse." And a doctor has a duty to practice medicine, not to be complying with parents' desires to have their children's genital mutilated.
JLC981 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Munchkin9111
Now go do your homework.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 If we were all like you then progress would never occur. You take real, true facts and just because you don't like them, you say "NUH, UH!" and you think that's all it takes. Well, parents DESERVE to know both sides of an argument and that is why I care, because I care about little boys whose parents who won't even talk about the birds and the bees with him won't tell him how to clean himself. And believe me, it happens!
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
It's interesting how you define "progress." Medical research seeks to find ways to fix medical problems WITHOUT having to cut off parts of the body. Actually, it seeks to PRESERVE the human body.
Joseph did all kinds of experiments on Jewish people during the holocaust, but I'm sure that people didn't think stopping him would block "progress."
No, unless there is an actual medical condition that can't be cured any other way than surgery, parents don't "deserve" anything.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981Yep, that's it. Read what vestigial is, and write back. There are many vestigial parts on the human body. Wisdom teeth and the appendix are two examples. I can't put it any other way. Why not circumcision? You do not have an argument when you don't understand what I'm writing and call it a straw man...plus you are using the wrong fallacy term. A straw man is when you attack your opponent to get what you want. I'm not attacking anyone who is not circ only those who force onto others.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
The definition of the word "vestigial" is rather irrelevant.
You seem to insist that what you call something matters, and you keep comparing apples and oranges. How is a foreskin anything like crooked teeth or a burst appendix?
It always comes down to this:
Unless there is a medical or clinical condition that can't be cured any other way, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice."
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 I replied. That is all I have to say. There are many things where the parents can choose for their children, and this is one where many parents need to choose the right way. It is a lot more painful when one grows up and it takes a lot longer to recoup. It is better to do it when the child is young. It only takes a little less than a week instead of a month and a half. I would say that is reasoning behind a loving parent.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
All I have to say is that, unless there is an actual medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting children, much less be giving parents any kind of "choice" in the matter.
Parents are not entitled to a "decision" they can't be making in the first place.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 And I disagree. There. People have the right to to become circumcised and just because insane, controlling people who don't care what good literature says doesn't mean the whole community has to suffer. Thank you Hitler.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
And there you go pulling the ol' switcheroo again... attacking something I never said.
If men want to go get circumcised, it is their right. If women want to go get circumcised or have any part of their vulvas removed, it is their right.
We're talking about the rights of children and forcefully cutting off part of their genitals. When there is no consent, it is genital mutilation.
Please stop conflating the two.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 And I am talking about the right of a child too by stating that it is better for him throughout his life and that it keeps him from experiencing immense amounts of pain. I can't get any clearer than that. It is not genital mutilation if it's better for them. If you aren't willing to listen to a plethora of studies that argues against your beliefs just because you don't like it then there is no helping you. You have to see the whole issue. I have and have changed my beliefs.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Your assumption being that a child's normal, healthy body parts indeed result in experiencing immense amounts of pain.
Unless there is a clear medical or clinical indication, cutting off parts of children's genitals is in fact genital mutilation.
It is a violation of basic human rights, and when something is a violation of basic human rights, it doesn't matter how many studies exist.
And it doesn't matter what you believe.
JLC981 1 year ago
@Munchkin9111
Once again; surgery is performed because there is a clear medical or clinical need for it, not because someone thinks it's "better."
This logic is pure quackery.
JLC981 1 year ago
@JLC981 Wow, just wow. It's quackery when it makes more sense and is better for the human being. I see. Tell me more.
Munchkin9111 1 year ago