Have you got a foreskin?

[charliebigspuds]

Yup. For those who don't have one, imagine asking your wife what it's like to have her clit singed off.

If a mans foreskin was there simply to induce pleasure... we wouldn't have any form of economic crisis...





















We'd still be living in caves.

have you got one then Chris, I can't remember the photo's you gave me, I think you did

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

I don't and I'm not Jewish.

 

[green pennies]

Yes, no fucknut has butchered my sexual organs in the name of some dodgy abrahamic faith.

I find those that feel they know better than 100's of thousands of years of evolution very very disturbed.

Yes, but I wouldn't mind knowing why the fuck parents choose to have their kids cock butchered without him having the slightest say or choice in the matter.

Unless God said so, that would explain it.

OK, here goes:

1. I'm as atheist as the day is long. I believe religion is generally a force for evil in the world, as it makes humans commit atrocities they would never otherwise consider against their fellow man.

2. While it has religious origins, I don't feel that circumcision is one of these atrocities. As I said, I could give a damn about abrahamic traditions. However, like a lot of things in a lot of holy books, I think circumcision probably got in there more to protect a group of nomadic bronze age tribesmen from themselves and their surroundings (dietary restrictions anyone?) moreso than to cripple them sexually. It was important that they were able to be fruitful and multiply, after all.

3. I am circumcised. My son is circumcised. In both cases, the reason is simple: cleanliness. It seems self evident why this sort of thing is done. I will grant that with proper cleaning and attention to detail, it probably doesn't make too much of a difference, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather that my son not have some dirt trapped under his foreskin, simple as that.

4. I can only speak from my own experience and logic, but claims that sexual pleasure is greatly reduced or that some great psychological harm is done seem to me to be greatly exaggerated at best, or completely fabricated at worst. Of course the easy thing would be to ask adults who have undergone the procedure, but for obvious reasons they are few, and they are all going from uncircumcised to circumcised (and probably have a vested interest/mental desire to be that way in the first place, so we mostly can predict what they will say). Until it can be done the other way around, we may not truly know. (Yeah Yeah, I know some wacky one time reverse circumcision may have been done somewhere and skin put back on, but you know what I mean.)

5. I think it is utter and absolute bullshit that people refer to circumcision as "mutilation". While I was always a big fan of free-thinker and prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, this was one area where he absolutely lost me. He used to compare circumcision to clitoral removal! If one cannot see the distinction between those two things, then I don't even know what to say...



Lastly, I'm always curious if those who are against it are circumcised. Are there any who are uncircumcised and speak out against the procedure just because they like their foreskin that much? Just curious. I suppose it doesn't make a difference since ostensibly you didn't have a choice, but I do oftentimes sense that latent anger over being cut themselves in there somewhere. Not that you aren't entitled to feel as you like about your knob and all...

Are you gay ????????????????

I honestly believe that your real name is "green penis" as there is NO significant theory that a circumcised penis is cleaner than one that isnt.
I have the old hanging skin attached at 61 years of age and so has my son who is 20 years of age.
However,even from the age of 5,I have taught him to pull back the foreskin ( as best he can) and wash,telling him the reasons why.If parents cannot discuss sex/hygiene with their kids even at an early age in their lives,then you as an individual are either frightened of discussing sexual behaviour and the importance of growing up,or you regard it as taboo.
Thankfully all our children (two girls and one boy) have understood the need for sexual discussion between Mother & Father and we are/have some great and open minded discussions over sex and teenagers needs,as we can relate to our own individual sexuality some 40 years ago.
Embarrassed ?? Definately not us and our three kids have stated that as parents to be,they will discuss, as and when the time is right,with their kids,their upbringing and how it should not detract from an open and honest opinion between parents and their kids.

OK, it looks like I have offended you somehow? You call me names and make a sweeping generalization that I am "embarrassed" to talk to my son about sex. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Upon what do you base this? I never said circumcision was a substitution for knowledge and good hygiene, just that it helped. I want to make it clear that I am not against those who choose to not circumcise, in fact I even considered not having it done to my son myself, but in the end it was right for my family. OK, I can't believe I even have to refute this, but yes, there is a mass of "significant theories" aka scientific evidence that circumcision:

-decreases the risk of urinary tract infection.
-reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
-lowers the risk of STDs.
-protects against penile cancer.
-reduces the risk of penile HPV infection and the risk of cervical cancer in female partners.
-prevents chlamydia infections and subsequent pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility.
-decreases the risk of balanoposthitis and phimosis and the later need for postneonatal circumcision.
-improves sexual function and creativity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

No i do it because it is done before the child is old enough to decide themselves if they want it doing. I find it immoral.
I find such an imposition abhorrant if i'm honest.

If you check the definition for "mutilation" you will see it's use in reference to circumcision is accurate, especially for females.

Could you show me scientific studies that show a circumcised penis is better than un-circumcised penis regarding cleanliness and therefore i presume less prone to complications also. ?

I respect your honest answer and my rebuke is not meant to be venomous, just concise :)

I thank you for your respectful response. As I said above, I’ve no issue with those who choose to not go for this procedure. However, the reason I jumped into this discussion in the first place is because I’m troubled that people assume this is always done for blind religious reasons, or worse, because we have some egotistical need to “make the lad look like dad” and mutilate him to achieve it. Now as far as your definition of mutilation; I did look it up and this is what I got:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Now this could get into semantics here, but I still think I have a leg to stand on even there. Definition 1 is probably your best bet, as it can be considered an injury because there is a brief bit of pain.. a disfigurement? Some would say it’s an improvement, but that’s eye of the beholder stuff, I suppose technically we have changed its figure, so I’ll even give you that. Make imperfect? Eye of the beholder, don’t know about that. But the second part is the kicker: have we IRREPARABLY DAMAGED the part??? I would argue no.

And as for Definition 2? I think that falls short too, because we have not removed an ESSENTIAL part.

Now, not giving the child choice? By that standard the kid would have no immunizations, medical procedures, or even a name, etc. until he was older! I kind of see what you are saying but some (actually a lot) of choices simply must be made by the parents. It is a fair point though, and perhaps one of the hardest to argue.

As far as the scientific proof, see the stuff here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/ in my response above.

And this:

http://www.circinfo.net/


Of course, this is a hot button issue today, especially in America, where rates of circumcision have dropped from around 90% to near 60%. It’s one of the most popular procedures to hate today. Just ask Russell Crowe.

You can find just as much stuff trying to rip these findings apart, but don’t act like they don’t exist in the first place is all I ask. The simple truth is that both sides may have some valid points, but it is often the anti-circumcision folks who seem to be the most… “in your face” shall we say.

You'r American, correct?

Yes. So you must know everything about me based upon this, eh?

Look, it’s true, circumcision is kind of a normal thing in America, though that is changing fast as I mentioned above. I grant that things are different in Europe and indeed, across the rest of the world. I’m open to debate on the issue and even changing my mind (!!!) But for now, this is where I am at. Anything to add besides poking fun at my opinion/nationality?

 

[whothefisAlice]

Nope!

 

[the blue panther]

Ask a silly question - get 6 pages of shit!

 

[1_barry_conlon]

The old Roundhead and Cavalier debate i see?

I must say tho when i look down at my 'old man' it's the only hoody i'm not scared of nowadays!

 

[Swales lives]

OK, here goes:

1. I'm as atheist as the day is long. I believe religion is generally a force for evil in the world, as it makes humans commit atrocities they would never otherwise consider against their fellow man.

2. While it has religious origins, I don't feel that circumcision is one of these atrocities. As I said, I could give a damn about abrahamic traditions. However, like a lot of things in a lot of holy books, I think circumcision probably got in there more to protect a group of nomadic bronze age tribesmen from themselves and their surroundings (dietary restrictions anyone?) moreso than to cripple them sexually. It was important that they were able to be fruitful and multiply, after all.

3. I am circumcised. My son is circumcised. In both cases, the reason is simple: cleanliness. It seems self evident why this sort of thing is done. I will grant that with proper cleaning and attention to detail, it probably doesn't make too much of a difference, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather that my son not have some dirt trapped under his foreskin, simple as that.

4. I can only speak from my own experience and logic, but claims that sexual pleasure is greatly reduced or that some great psychological harm is done seem to me to be greatly exaggerated at best, or completely fabricated at worst. Of course the easy thing would be to ask adults who have undergone the procedure, but for obvious reasons they are few, and they are all going from uncircumcised to circumcised (and probably have a vested interest/mental desire to be that way in the first place, so we mostly can predict what they will say). Until it can be done the other way around, we may not truly know. (Yeah Yeah, I know some wacky one time reverse circumcision may have been done somewhere and skin put back on, but you know what I mean.)

5. I think it is utter and absolute bullshit that people refer to circumcision as "mutilation". While I was always a big fan of free-thinker and prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, this was one area where he absolutely lost me. He used to compare circumcision to clitoral removal! If one cannot see the distinction between those two things, then I don't even know what to say...



Lastly, I'm always curious if those who are against it are circumcised. Are there any who are uncircumcised and speak out against the procedure just because they like their foreskin that much? Just curious. I suppose it doesn't make a difference since ostensibly you didn't have a choice, but I do oftentimes sense that latent anger over being cut themselves in there somewhere. Not that you aren't entitled to feel as you like about your knob and all...

Are you gay ????????????????

I honestly believe that your real name is "green penis" as there is NO significant theory that a circumcised penis is cleaner than one that isnt.
I have the old hanging skin attached at 61 years of age and so has my son who is 20 years of age.
However,even from the age of 5,I have taught him to pull back the foreskin ( as best he can) and wash,telling him the reasons why.If parents cannot discuss sex/hygiene with their kids even at an early age in their lives,then you as an individual are either frightened of discussing sexual behaviour and the importance of growing up,or you regard it as taboo.
Thankfully all our children (two girls and one boy) have understood the need for sexual discussion between Mother & Father and we are/have some great and open minded discussions over sex and teenagers needs,as we can relate to our own individual sexuality some 40 years ago.
Embarrassed ?? Definately not us and our three kids have stated that as parents to be,they will discuss, as and when the time is right,with their kids,their upbringing and how it should not detract from an open and honest opinion between parents and their kids.

OK, it looks like I have offended you somehow? You call me names and make a sweeping generalization that I am "embarrassed" to talk to my son about sex. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Upon what do you base this? I never said circumcision was a substitution for knowledge and good hygiene, just that it helped. I want to make it clear that I am not against those who choose to not circumcise, in fact I even considered not having it done to my son myself, but in the end it was right for my family. OK, I can't believe I even have to refute this, but yes, there is a mass of "significant theories" aka scientific evidence that circumcision:

-decreases the risk of urinary tract infection.
-reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
-lowers the risk of STDs.
-protects against penile cancer.
-reduces the risk of penile HPV infection and the risk of cervical cancer in female partners.
-prevents chlamydia infections and subsequent pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility.
-decreases the risk of balanoposthitis and phimosis and the later need for postneonatal circumcision.
-improves sexual function and creativity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

No i do it because it is done before the child is old enough to decide themselves if they want it doing. I find it immoral.
I find such an imposition abhorrant if i'm honest.

If you check the definition for "mutilation" you will see it's use in reference to circumcision is accurate, especially for females.

Could you show me scientific studies that show a circumcised penis is better than un-circumcised penis regarding cleanliness and therefore i presume less prone to complications also. ?

I respect your honest answer and my rebuke is not meant to be venomous, just concise :)

I thank you for your respectful response. As I said above, I’ve no issue with those who choose to not go for this procedure. However, the reason I jumped into this discussion in the first place is because I’m troubled that people assume this is always done for blind religious reasons, or worse, because we have some egotistical need to “make the lad look like dad” and mutilate him to achieve it. Now as far as your definition of mutilation; I did look it up and this is what I got:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Now this could get into semantics here, but I still think I have a leg to stand on even there. Definition 1 is probably your best bet, as it can be considered an injury because there is a brief bit of pain.. a disfigurement? Some would say it’s an improvement, but that’s eye of the beholder stuff, I suppose technically we have changed its figure, so I’ll even give you that. Make imperfect? Eye of the beholder, don’t know about that. But the second part is the kicker: have we IRREPARABLY DAMAGED the part??? I would argue no.

And as for Definition 2? I think that falls short too, because we have not removed an ESSENTIAL part.

Now, not giving the child choice? By that standard the kid would have no immunizations, medical procedures, or even a name, etc. until he was older! I kind of see what you are saying but some (actually a lot) of choices simply must be made by the parents. It is a fair point though, and perhaps one of the hardest to argue.

As far as the scientific proof, see the stuff here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/ in my response above.

And this:

http://www.circinfo.net/


Of course, this is a hot button issue today, especially in America, where rates of circumcision have dropped from around 90% to near 60%. It’s one of the most popular procedures to hate today. Just ask Russell Crowe.

You can find just as much stuff trying to rip these findings apart, but don’t act like they don’t exist in the first place is all I ask. The simple truth is that both sides may have some valid points, but it is often the anti-circumcision folks who seem to be the most… “in your face” shall we say.

You'r American, correct?

Yes. So you must know everything about me based upon this, eh?

Look, it’s true, circumcision is kind of a normal thing in America, though that is changing fast as I mentioned above. I grant that things are different in Europe and indeed, across the rest of the world. I’m open to debate on the issue and even changing my mind (!!!) But for now, this is where I am at. Anything to add besides poking fun at my opinion/nationality?

You're really serious about your cock aren't you.
"Hot button issue", that should be on the "Favourite engineering terms" thread.

 

[Txiki Vimto]

I find the level of passion on show here quite disturbing.

 

[the goats backside]

I find the level of passion on show here quite disturbing.

Me too, as long as i dont trap it in my zip its all good

 

[Manchestercitychorlton]

OK, here goes:

1. I'm as atheist as the day is long. I believe religion is generally a force for evil in the world, as it makes humans commit atrocities they would never otherwise consider against their fellow man.

2. While it has religious origins, I don't feel that circumcision is one of these atrocities. As I said, I could give a damn about abrahamic traditions. However, like a lot of things in a lot of holy books, I think circumcision probably got in there more to protect a group of nomadic bronze age tribesmen from themselves and their surroundings (dietary restrictions anyone?) moreso than to cripple them sexually. It was important that they were able to be fruitful and multiply, after all.

3. I am circumcised. My son is circumcised. In both cases, the reason is simple: cleanliness. It seems self evident why this sort of thing is done. I will grant that with proper cleaning and attention to detail, it probably doesn't make too much of a difference, but if it comes down to it, I'd rather that my son not have some dirt trapped under his foreskin, simple as that.

4. I can only speak from my own experience and logic, but claims that sexual pleasure is greatly reduced or that some great psychological harm is done seem to me to be greatly exaggerated at best, or completely fabricated at worst. Of course the easy thing would be to ask adults who have undergone the procedure, but for obvious reasons they are few, and they are all going from uncircumcised to circumcised (and probably have a vested interest/mental desire to be that way in the first place, so we mostly can predict what they will say). Until it can be done the other way around, we may not truly know. (Yeah Yeah, I know some wacky one time reverse circumcision may have been done somewhere and skin put back on, but you know what I mean.)

5. I think it is utter and absolute bullshit that people refer to circumcision as "mutilation". While I was always a big fan of free-thinker and prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, this was one area where he absolutely lost me. He used to compare circumcision to clitoral removal! If one cannot see the distinction between those two things, then I don't even know what to say...



Lastly, I'm always curious if those who are against it are circumcised. Are there any who are uncircumcised and speak out against the procedure just because they like their foreskin that much? Just curious. I suppose it doesn't make a difference since ostensibly you didn't have a choice, but I do oftentimes sense that latent anger over being cut themselves in there somewhere. Not that you aren't entitled to feel as you like about your knob and all...

Are you gay ????????????????

I honestly believe that your real name is "green penis" as there is NO significant theory that a circumcised penis is cleaner than one that isnt.
I have the old hanging skin attached at 61 years of age and so has my son who is 20 years of age.
However,even from the age of 5,I have taught him to pull back the foreskin ( as best he can) and wash,telling him the reasons why.If parents cannot discuss sex/hygiene with their kids even at an early age in their lives,then you as an individual are either frightened of discussing sexual behaviour and the importance of growing up,or you regard it as taboo.
Thankfully all our children (two girls and one boy) have understood the need for sexual discussion between Mother & Father and we are/have some great and open minded discussions over sex and teenagers needs,as we can relate to our own individual sexuality some 40 years ago.
Embarrassed ?? Definately not us and our three kids have stated that as parents to be,they will discuss, as and when the time is right,with their kids,their upbringing and how it should not detract from an open and honest opinion between parents and their kids.

OK, it looks like I have offended you somehow? You call me names and make a sweeping generalization that I am "embarrassed" to talk to my son about sex. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Upon what do you base this? I never said circumcision was a substitution for knowledge and good hygiene, just that it helped. I want to make it clear that I am not against those who choose to not circumcise, in fact I even considered not having it done to my son myself, but in the end it was right for my family. OK, I can't believe I even have to refute this, but yes, there is a mass of "significant theories" aka scientific evidence that circumcision:

-decreases the risk of urinary tract infection.
-reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men.
-lowers the risk of STDs.
-protects against penile cancer.
-reduces the risk of penile HPV infection and the risk of cervical cancer in female partners.
-prevents chlamydia infections and subsequent pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy and infertility.
-decreases the risk of balanoposthitis and phimosis and the later need for postneonatal circumcision.
-improves sexual function and creativity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/

No i do it because it is done before the child is old enough to decide themselves if they want it doing. I find it immoral.
I find such an imposition abhorrant if i'm honest.

If you check the definition for "mutilation" you will see it's use in reference to circumcision is accurate, especially for females.

Could you show me scientific studies that show a circumcised penis is better than un-circumcised penis regarding cleanliness and therefore i presume less prone to complications also. ?

I respect your honest answer and my rebuke is not meant to be venomous, just concise :)

I thank you for your respectful response. As I said above, I’ve no issue with those who choose to not go for this procedure. However, the reason I jumped into this discussion in the first place is because I’m troubled that people assume this is always done for blind religious reasons, or worse, because we have some egotistical need to “make the lad look like dad” and mutilate him to achieve it. Now as far as your definition of mutilation; I did look it up and this is what I got:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Now this could get into semantics here, but I still think I have a leg to stand on even there. Definition 1 is probably your best bet, as it can be considered an injury because there is a brief bit of pain.. a disfigurement? Some would say it’s an improvement, but that’s eye of the beholder stuff, I suppose technically we have changed its figure, so I’ll even give you that. Make imperfect? Eye of the beholder, don’t know about that. But the second part is the kicker: have we IRREPARABLY DAMAGED the part??? I would argue no.

And as for Definition 2? I think that falls short too, because we have not removed an ESSENTIAL part.

Now, not giving the child choice? By that standard the kid would have no immunizations, medical procedures, or even a name, etc. until he was older! I kind of see what you are saying but some (actually a lot) of choices simply must be made by the parents. It is a fair point though, and perhaps one of the hardest to argue.

As far as the scientific proof, see the stuff here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/ in my response above.

And this:

http://www.circinfo.net/


Of course, this is a hot button issue today, especially in America, where rates of circumcision have dropped from around 90% to near 60%. It’s one of the most popular procedures to hate today. Just ask Russell Crowe.

You can find just as much stuff trying to rip these findings apart, but don’t act like they don’t exist in the first place is all I ask. The simple truth is that both sides may have some valid points, but it is often the anti-circumcision folks who seem to be the most… “in your face” shall we say.

You'r American, correct?

Yes. So you must know everything about me based upon this, eh?

Look, it’s true, circumcision is kind of a normal thing in America, though that is changing fast as I mentioned above. I grant that things are different in Europe and indeed, across the rest of the world. I’m open to debate on the issue and even changing my mind (!!!) But for now, this is where I am at. Anything to add besides poking fun at my opinion/nationality?

It reduces the risk of a lot of things but that is because you have less skin to cut/get infected?
It's like saying it's less likely you will cut your finger if you cut half of it off.

It increases sexual function and creativity? What ?