| Male circumcision |
| Wrong |
|
73% |
[ 39 ] |
| Right |
|
26% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 53 |
|
The_Face_of_Boo
A savage
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
Age: 31
Posts: 9308
Location: Beirut ,Lebanon
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: Male circumcision |
 |
|
Ok, this was inspired from another thread.
Do you think it's right? Do you think it's ok that media isn't making a fuss of it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:09 am Post subject: Re: Male circumcision |
|
|
| The_Face_of_Boo wrote: | Ok, this was inspired from another thread.
Do you think it's right? Do you think it's ok that media isn't making a fuss of it? |
Some of the worlds greatest people have had their wicks trimmed. What is not to like about it?
A clean wick is a happy wick, free from the curse of smegma.
A clean wick is less likely to become a cancerous wick. Oh joy!
A clean wick stays up longer. Whooopieeeeeeee!
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gedrene
Never give in. Always find a way.
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Posts: 2725
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Could you add a doesn't matter option? Or other at all? I don't like false dichotomies and want to be able to vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The_Face_of_Boo
A savage
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
Age: 31
Posts: 9308
Location: Beirut ,Lebanon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Silence/don't care = you agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Face_of_Boo wrote: | | Silence/don't care = you agree. |
Only in some legal systems. In other context silence means contempt and rejection.
When a position is not even wrong, silence is the appropriate response.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lecks
Face Romancer
Joined: May 12, 2009
Age: 26
Posts: 4987
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pointless and invasive procedure unless done in response to a medical issue.
I don' tknow which option to pick here. It's "wrong" when unnecessary but it's "right" when there's a medical problem.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29311
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lecks wrote: | | Pointless and invasive procedure unless done in response to a medical issue. |
Whatever the motive the results are good. A clean wick, a happy wick, and a wick less likely to become cancerous, a wick forever free of the Curse of Smegma. When the results are good, who cares about the motive?
To you Christians out there. Your boy Yeshu was circumcised. Think about that. If God Himself was circumcised (on His own orders, by the way) why object to it?
Muslims and Jews do not need convincing.
Atheists and Agnostics should do it simply because of the favorable statistics and the obvious cleanliness.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lecks
Face Romancer
Joined: May 12, 2009
Age: 26
Posts: 4987
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | Whatever the motive the results are good. A clean wick, a happy wick, and a wick less likely to become cancerous, a wick forever free of the Curse of Smegma. When the results are good, who cares about the motive?
To you Christians out there. Your boy Yeshu was circumcised. Think about that. If God Himself was circumcised (on His own orders, by the way) why object to it?
Muslims and Jews do not need convincing.
Atheists and Agnostics should do it simply because of the favorable statistics and the obvious cleanliness.
ruveyn |
I'm under no smegmic curse, the power of soap and proper hygiene shield me from such uncleanliness. The happiness of my wick is quite high aswell. I'll have to read up about the cancer preventing power of circumcision.
_________________
Chances are, if you're offended by something I said, it was an attempt at humour. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Moog
Pussycat
Joined: Feb 26, 2010
Age: 34
Posts: 17637
Location: Untied Kingdom
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've never actually heard of bell end cancer. Cancer usually starts in other organs.
I'm with Lecks on this one.
_________________
Not currently a moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: Re: Male circumcision |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: |
Some of the worlds greatest people have had their wicks trimmed. What is not to like about it?
A clean wick is a happy wick, free from the curse of smegma.
A clean wick is less likely to become a cancerous wick. Oh joy!
A clean wick stays up longer. Whooopieeeeeeee!
ruveyn |
given that this is a rather contentious issue, there seems to be mixed opinions on all of these statements you've made here.
the cleanliness issue is only a problem for those who lack adequate personal hygiene.
the cancer issue is not at all clear and some studies suggest the opposite of your assertion. see below for the opinion of the american cancer society (even in a country where circumcision is commonplace, circumcision as a negative risk factor is highly questionable). added to this, penile cancer is an exceptionally rare form of cancer, and i personally wouldn't consider the risk adequate to justify having half my penis lopped off.
in terms of erectile function, once again opinion is divided, with some studies indeed suggesting that circumcision in fact is a causative factor in erectile dysfunction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Erectile_function
there is indeed also evidence to suggest that pleasure derived from sex is lessened among the circumcised. here is some anecdotal evidence from uk.answers.yahoo
| Quote: |
Mine is with the skin on (uncut version) and its FANTASTIC feeling all the way.
|
in fact, given that you mention religion in this respect, a primary reason for circumcision in this area was in fact to DECREASE sexual pleasure.
| phil judaeus wrote: |
To these [reasons for circumcision] I would add that I consider circumcision to be a symbol of two things necessary to our well being. One is the excision of pleasures which bewitch the mind. For since among the love-lures of pleasure the palm is held by the mating of man and woman, the legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse, thus making circumcision the figure of the excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure, not only of one pleasure, but of all the other pleasures signified by one, and that the most imperious.
The other reason is that a man should know himself and banish from the soul the grievous malady of conceit. |
| isaac ben yedaiah wrote: |
When a woman makes love to an uncircumcised man, she feels pleasure and reaches orgasm first. When an uncircumcised man sleeps with her and then resolves to return to his home, she brazenly grasps him, holding onto his genitals and says to him, "Come back, make love to me". This is because of the pleasure that she finds in intercourse with him, from the sinews of his testicles -- sinew of iron and from his ejaculation -- that of a horse -- which he shoots like an arrow into her womb.
With the circumcised man it is different. He will find himself performing his task quickly, emitting his seed as soon as he inserts the crown. … As soon as he begins intercourse, he immediately comes to a climax. The woman has no pleasure from him. She leaves the marriage bed frustrated. She does not have an orgasm once a year, except on rare occasions. |
and another mildly amusing piece of anecdotal evidence with ramifications for the subject at hand:
| aristotle's master-piece wrote: |
The Yard hath a Skin, and about the head thereof it is double, and that men call Praeputium, and this skin is moveable, for through his consecration the Spermatick matter is the better and sooner gathered together, and sooner cast forth from the Testicles: for by him is had the most delectation in the doing. And the foremost part of the head of the Yard before, is made of brawny flesh, the which if it be once lost, it can never be restored again, but it may be well skinned. |
*******************
Circumcision: Whether or not circumcision is a negative risk factor (if it protects against penile cancer) is a very controversial issue.
Circumcision is the removal of a part or all of the foreskin at birth or later on in life. This practice has been suggested as conferring some protection against cancer of the penis by contributing to improved hygiene. However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is that circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis. It is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors -- having unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection) and cigarette smoking.
******************
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
YippySkippy
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 27, 2011
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The current prevailing opinion in the medical community is that circumcision provides no medical benefit. I don't see any issue with people doing it to fulfill a religious obligation (as long as it's done by a professional), but otherwise I think we should leave the little boys alone. It's an unnecessary procedure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
lilypadfad
Toucan
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
Age: 24
Posts: 297
Location: banned :(
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the main issue is doing it to infants, I think it should be illegal to perform it on anyone under the age of consent unless there is a valid medical reason (like a mechanical problem, easy cleaning and other wishy washy "benefits" like reducing the chance of X/Y is not a valid medical reason - you don't cut off a girl's breasts because it reduces the chances of breast cancer), regardless of religious beliefs. Those health benefits are sketchy at best, the main one cited is the AIDS one, that being circumcised reduces the chances of being infected. I mean, if that's true then ok. But should you really be having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive in the first place? It's still not a great reason to circumcise.
There's also the issue of sexual function, these things are often shouted down by men who were circumcised. You do lose a lot of nerve endings in the foreskin and the glans does dry up and lose some (sometimes all) sensation. There's also the mechanical action of the foreskin during sex, it's not unnoticable when it's gone. (Also circumcised guys can't really have a good wank without lubricant - don't forget that was one of the original motives for circumcision - to stop people masturbating). If you are planning to snip your kid before we come to our senses and make it illegal, do think about these things.
http://www.savingsons.org/2009/12/circumcision-secret.html
Here's a bleeding heart anti-circumcision page for your viewing pleasure.
_________________
Crom is a grim, gloomy and unforgiving god, ever watching from atop his mountain in dark clouds and obscuring mists, ready to pass disapproving judgment on any and all. But he is said to value courage and tenacity in mortals, even if they ultimately fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
peebo
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 07, 2006
Posts: 1627
Location: scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
good points made by the previous poster. as said previously, cutting off a substantial portion of ones penis in order to make it easier to clean seems rather absurd to me.
_________________
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Adam Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
The_Face_of_Boo
A savage
Joined: Jun 17, 2010
Age: 31
Posts: 9308
Location: Beirut ,Lebanon
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| D= I would never know how it would feel like to be uncircumcised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gedrene
Never give in. Always find a way.
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Posts: 2725
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Lecks wrote: | | Pointless and invasive procedure unless done in response to a medical issue. |
Whatever the motive the results are good. A clean wick, a happy wick, and a wick less likely to become cancerous, a wick forever free of the Curse of Smegma. When the results are good, who cares about the motive?
To you Christians out there. Your boy Yeshu was circumcised. Think about that. If God Himself was circumcised (on His own orders, by the way) why object to it?
Muslims and Jews do not need convincing.
Atheists and Agnostics should do it simply because of the favorable statistics and the obvious cleanliness.
ruveyn |
Obvious cleanliness? What? Are you nuts? I can clean mine just fine. What are you talking about anyway? It all sounds very strange and mroever based on a false premise. Foreskin doesn't stop you cleaning underneath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
