pl3asehelp Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 My opinion is not based on anything other than personal preference and I don't claim it's 'right' in any way other than it is merely in line with my personal morals and happens to be substantiated by the majority and the law. Your opinion appears to be based on what you claim are medical facts, which you haven't substantiated, and subjective concepts like 'fairness'. People who share your opinion in SF have been trying for years to convince the rest of us and have failed. Maybe you can do a better job gathering and presenting your facts and convincing others than those that have come before you - I wish you good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJK Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bahahaha!!!! Listen lady, myself and most of my friends are circumcised and I dont know one of them who has said "oh man I wish I had my foreskin back!" It happened to me when I was a baby and I have no recollection of it...I am not traumatized, nor are any of my friends LOL. I think you are grossly exaggerating your points based on God know what. There is no such thing as "natural law" and correct me if I'm wrong but the mods frown on political and religious posts and yours, ma'am, are both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofvampires Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 People who share your opinion in SF have been trying for years to convince the rest of us and have failed. Maybe you can do a better job gathering and presenting your facts and convincing others than those that have come before you - I wish you good luck! This is a very old thread, and to be honest, I'm not even sure if I posted on it before. I don't care to go back over the pages and pages. But I've been on this forum for a few years, have seen this topic come up more than once (always resulting in naturally very charged responses), and I have presented links and so forth to the medical facts before. Anatomy is not a matter of opinion, so I'll just ask a skeptic to go study the organ and its tissues in depth, and report back to me that they see no use for the foreskin. I don't consider this my job, and I'm not taking up arms on this cause simply because there are other causes that I'm more invested in, and there's only so much time in a life. I feel rather vocal and passionate about it, but my time to invest in it is limited to petty forums. But thank you for the well-wishes anyway. I have yet to meet a man on this site who is circumcised who believes it to be wrong for anyone else. Which I find interesting, since as a general principle, one thing isn't right for everyone in any other health choice. So why would this be different? But this is one topic where men get quite hot under the collar about the suggestion it may not be good for some. Observe: Bahahaha!!!! Listen lady As you can see, many men get quite defensive on the topic. Why do you think that is? Maybe you haven't met anyone else who has a problem with their foreskins being gone, PJK, but I personally know more than one man who has had his foreskin botched, and badly, and is traumatized. Also, there are plastic surgeons now who are making good money in foreskin restoration. As you can tell by the discussion on this thread, it's actually gone to the ballot booth. So am I making up an issue that doesn't exist? I don't know why I should have to inform you of this, but you and your friends are not the sum total of men in the world. And some men are actually different than you and your friends. It's interesting how women and mothers are at the forefront of this movement...while men and fathers are the most hot-headed about keeping the tradition alive. Something pretty fascinating, I'd say. Funny thing is, if someone were to suggest that parents have a right to tattoo their favorite religious icon's name on a baby's bum, I wonder what the reaction would be. "Guess what I saw on FB/youtube/in the news!" Imagine the reaction to that thread. (This is not a religious argument, per se. It's an argument about not imposing religion -- or anything, including aesthetic tastes, preferences, etc. -- on a person's body when they are born, which is a medical and psychosocial issue.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofvampires Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 By the way, PJK -- I just happened to do an eenie meenie miney moe, and pick a page in the middle of this thread somewhere. And BAM. #294 Not makin it up, dude. (And anyone wanting a physiology/anatomy/medical lesson may want to check out the video material that poster has cited.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewing Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 There is no right or wrong when it comes to morals, only opinions. If most of us feel it's morally ok to take kidneys from babies and we legislate that, then the law just simply reflects the majority's opinion of morality which is always changing, as do laws. It's this system that leads you to believe circumcision should be banned? Not sure I follow why/how. You're advocating that the majority opinion of what is moral be disregarded? Why? Because it's not your opinion? I am blatantly stating that the majority consensus is not always ethically or morally right, and when such conflict happens, the majority consensus should be overridden. We have a supreme court for just such cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewing Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 So then your system and your morals are about who can buy the system out? Seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewing Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Bahahaha!!!! Listen lady, myself and most of my friends are circumcised and I dont know one of them who has said "oh man I wish I had my foreskin back!" It happened to me when I was a baby and I have no recollection of it...I am not traumatized, nor are any of my friends LOL. I think you are grossly exaggerating your points based on God know what. There is no such thing as "natural law" and correct me if I'm wrong but the mods frown on political and religious posts and yours, ma'am, are both. But then, you will never know what it's like to have a foreskin... All your parents did, was make your physicians an easy $100-$300 for a quick snip they didn't need to do. And you think everybody else should be like you, because otherwise that would wreck the status quo, to a position from which you can't so easily reverse. I'm not saying the practice should be outright made ilelgal. I'm saying the practice should only be allowed by the individual upon whom it's being done, at an age where they are fully conscious and aware of what the procedure is and what it does and why they are getting it done, and are legally capable of making the decision. Until then, it's nobody's right to make that decision, but unfortunately, there is still this Foreskin Envy to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EQIQ Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I have yet to meet a man on this site who is circumcised who believes it to be wrong for anyone else. Which I find interesting, since as a general principle, one thing isn't right for everyone in any other health choice. So why would this be different? But this is one topic where men get quite hot under the collar about the suggestion it may not be good for some. I am circumcised, and I have no problems with it. I also have no problems with the circumcision of little kids if the parents so choose. But I do tend to lean on the side that it would be better if the kids were allowed to grow up and make their own choice. In my case it was a medical thing, my foreskin wouldn't open up properly, parents could foresee problems in the future. I remember as a little kid having little issues pulling the skin back to pee etc. Did it at 4 years old, remember I was in pain for at least a week lol... but I have absolutely no issue with being circumcised at all, zero trauma. Nor do I hold any bitterness towards my parents. I have researched circumcision and it's effect on sex enjoyment, etc. And there seems to be no logical clear cut conclusions. I think it should have close to no effect. Some men that did it after being adults, reported improvements in enjoyment, and some no difference, and some a decrease in enjoyment... so.... yeah... hard to tell. P.S: I was reading some of the posts in this thread from early on, and there is soooo much misinformation that it baffles me. Some guy was claiming that having foreskin would make the penis larger. Another that the Bible says that those that are not circumcised will not inherit God's Kingdom (don't know what Bible he has been reading........ if any). just... lmao... Amazing ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragunov-21 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The most disturbing problems about the studies that have been done is the fact that they are studies of statistics and nothing more. They take a body of people, count up who has foreskins and who doesn't, and then who has HIV in the populaitons and who doesn't, and then dance upon whatever result they get. Statistics =/= bad. Bad statistical studies = bad. link removed Seems rigorous enough to me, given the nature of the study and especially its efforts to find any significant variations between the sexual practices of circumcised and uncircumcised men in the study. For the record, this study didn't simply split the sample into cut/uncut and AIDS/No-AIDS. It gathered a sample of HIV-negative men and recorded the incidence of HIV infection amongst the sample over the following few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonewing Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It did not take into account religious variation nor social variation. If you have one population that is all circumcised but this is done under a belief system that also shuns casual sex, while the second is under a belief system that does not support circumcision but also supports casual sex for men but not women, then you have a situation where there's a population ripe for spreading HIV, whether they had a foreskin or not. I believe that is what is going on here in this community where the study was done; there are social practices occurring along ideological lines; circumcision just happens to be one of those defining attributes of one religion versus the other. Like I said, it's a statistical study, and statistical studies are very easy to think it's causation when it's only correlation. The problem then is not circumcision; the problem is low sex hygiene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofvampires Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I have researched circumcision and it's effect on sex enjoyment, etc. And there seems to be no logical clear cut conclusions. I think it should have close to no effect. Some men that did it after being adults, reported improvements in enjoyment, and some no difference, and some a decrease in enjoyment... so.... yeah... hard to tell. Well if you do study all the anatomical information about the foreskin (aka, prepuce), you'll find that it's the MOST innervated skin in the penis, that it contains specialized nerve cells dedicated to sensation that are nowhere else in the penis. These cells are what differentiates the mucous membrane surfaces in our bodies from other surfaces, as well as a few other places where exquisite sensation is warranted. The palms of the hands and fingertips contain these same cells. So stroke the inside of your palm with a finger, and compare that to stroking the outside of your hand. Feel that difference? That's the difference between having a foreskin and not, though probably even more pronounced with the penis. So I don't really find it credible that you're not losing anything -- you are. You're losing very specific types of nerves, specialized JUST for the foreskin, and these are devoted to sensation. So to this, a lot of guys will just say, "Well I've got quite enough sensation anyway, so I don't care." Okay. So let's say you'd never heard of circumcision and now, as an adult, someone said to you, "Let's do an operation on you. Let's do it on your willy! Let's cut off the skin at the head, and leave you with 30-70% (guesstimating here) less sensation. Then let's put a condom on you, and you'll lose another 20-50% of that. Additionally, it will turn your wang into a dry knob, instead of a sleek, slippery sex glider, requiring you to use that many more globs of bottled lube, especially as you get on in years. No particular reason, except now you can see the head better when said wang is not fully erect (nevermind that it's going to be in some cavity, hidden, doing its thing in short order, when being used for these purposes). And you'll be more readily accepted into various faiths." How would that strike you? Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofvampires Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Here you go: link removed Also, I think it's really quite misguided to say, "I have no foreskin, I'm circumcised and I'm just fine, so it's a fine practice." Again -- any time someone says, "this works for me", it's nothing more than an anecdote. And you can't really draw any reliable medical conclusions from personal anecdotes. No other respectable practice in medicine is regarded this way. If I can find just one person who has the opposite kind of anecdote, that should be a red flag to anyone who wants to unthinkingly adopt a one-size-fits-all position or policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowplay Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I haven't read the whole thread, just responding to the OP: I have been with various versions of both, and it really makes no difference to me, visually or performatively. It's a practice I don't see any point to, though, in this day and age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJK Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 But then, you will never know what it's like to have a foreskin... All your parents did, was make your physicians an easy $100-$300 for a quick snip they didn't need to do. And you think everybody else should be like you, because otherwise that would wreck the status quo, to a position from which you can't so easily reverse. I'm not saying the practice should be outright made ilelgal. I'm saying the practice should only be allowed by the individual upon whom it's being done, at an age where they are fully conscious and aware of what the procedure is and what it does and why they are getting it done, and are legally capable of making the decision. Until then, it's nobody's right to make that decision, but unfortunately, there is still this Foreskin Envy to deal with. Didn't say everyone should be like me. I could care less if you are uncircumcised, I just think it's funny that people are foreskin fear mongering on this forum! The human body is full of vestigial parts and organs that we just don't need anymore. I don't really know what the original purpose of the foreskin was...maybe protection of the penis when we walked around naked in the wilderness...I guess I gotta brush up on my penis research. All I know is that people function just fine, maybe even, better without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJK Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Here you go: link removed Also, I think it's really quite misguided to say, "I have no foreskin, I'm circumcised and I'm just fine, so it's a fine practice." Again -- any time someone says, "this works for me", it's nothing more than an anecdote. And you can't really draw any reliable medical conclusions from personal anecdotes. No other respectable practice in medicine is regarded this way. If I can find just one person who has the opposite kind of anecdote, that should be a red flag to anyone who wants to unthinkingly adopt a one-size-fits-all position or policy. link removed? Is that a medical journal? Just looking around this website I've seen a dozen or so threads about people with foreskin problems...foreskin won't pull back, foreskin hurts when I pull it back, foreskin bleeds after sex etc. Never seen one thread about problems associated with circumcision on this site...just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiredofvampires Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 [link removed? Is that a medical journal? No, it's an online academic resource center (lots of medical journal bibliography). You can click on the link and find out more if you so choose. I also suggested you check out a post in this thread alone about negative circumcision experience. Didn't see that? That was just one, and there are more here, including psychological problems. But it'll be up to you to do your research of the subject (and the penis), and to not selectively pick out the posts that support your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DN Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 This thread has run its course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.