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_eff ... e_functionthere 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
23 Oct 2011, 7:07 am
