Guys, what you should worry about is can you do good job with your (un)circumcised penis or not. I believe other things are not as necessary as you might think. If girl likes you, she will like you regardless of the fact you have more or less skin.

 

A man can't hold his forskin back forever! Lol

 

you are welcome. now a less condescending tone from you would be appreciated.

i have to prove that the best scientific minds in the world have been wrong in the past?

the world once was thought to be flat. now we know it is wrong.
at one time we thought that a glass of red wine was bad for you now we know that is wrong.
at one time we thought that coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad for you, etc...
science changes all the time. saying that a study has the possibility of being wrong does not need to be proven with a study. if you understand science in any way you will understand what i my point here is.

its like the god theory. you cant prove it 100% either way. so we are at an impasse. you cannot prove that 100% of the male population that is circumcised has PTSD and i cant prove to you that none of them do.

does it casue PTSD? there is some evidence, but as i said before, all the studies that i have read seem to show evidence that sometimes after circumcision the kid "shows some symptoms" of PTSD and sometimes they dont. this is a correlation, this is not causation. those two things are not the same thing.

so is claiming that someone has a mental disorder because they disagree with you.

it shows.
all you have are a few studies that show that SOMETIMES PTSD symptoms are seen after circumcision. there may or may not be other factors in that PTSD. this is hardly solid evidence. in a best case scenario, these studies show that some people react to things differently than others.
some people lose an arm in a car wreck and have fewer symptoms PTSD than others and deal with it better.
claiming that ALL Circumcisions cause PTSD 100% of this time is irresponsible use of studies.
here is a link to a side that says this:
"It is estimated that five million people in the United States are afflicted with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder every year. The differences only lie in the severity of the condition, age, gender and specific traumatic events that triggered the disorder.
This number is only a small portion of the actual number of people who were exposed to traumatic events."

this supports my assertion that not everyone gets PTSD from circumcision.
yes, it COULD cause it. BUT, so could almost any major event in life.

im assuming that the link promotes your side more.

frankly, i dont care to watch it. On the grand scale, i dont give a shit about if people are cut or not. no matter what your link says, it wont change my mind. its hard to change a mind when that mind doesnt give a shit.

what i do care about is people throwing around studies and scientific theory like they are experts and talking down to everyone that disagrees. the amount of condescension coming from you and others is staggering. all of it over a few studies that are not proven, rather theorized on.

there is no disagreement that there is pain involved. there is no disagreement that there is stress involved. there is no disagreement that the cleanliness issue is a non-issue. there is no disagreement that it may be difficult for some to watch.
the disagreement comes in on what percent of the population has negative side effects for the remainder of their lives, and if that negative side effect was actually caused by the circumcision itself. there are more factors here than just being cut. this leads then to the conversation about the word "mutilation"

this is a scare tactic word designed to evoke emotions.
i am not mutilated. Again, it is not "mutilation" if you like it.

life causes PTSD. do you think it is right to subject an innocent child to the world knowing that there will be stress in their life?
about 65-75% of the population in the US has been cut. 75% of the population according to this study does not develop PTSD. only about 7-8% of the population.

get over it and yourself.

seriously.

 

hahhahaha....thanks for that. just for shits and giggles I will try and see how long can I hold it back for

 

Yes and it's irrelevant.

I never claimed 100%. I have provided studies which bolster the claim that male genital mutilation has negative consequences on sexual function and mental health and you're telling it doesn't because the world is not flat.

Elaborate.

You're taking my quote out of context. I will not be taking this issue up further.

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that mutilating the genitals of minors is not your decision. I have produced supporting evidence that it is dangerous to mutilate babies.

I'm aware of this, what are you trying to say?

Again, I'm strongly advocating against gambling with an infant's psychology. You seem to think it's no big deal. I disagree.

Fine. Thanks for sharing.

You've made this point several times now. I referenced medical studies showing the traumatic effects of genital mutilation on infants and you tried to counter that by telling me there is no scientific evidence proving whether coffee is good or not.

I can argue "circumcision" is used to justify mutilating genitals. To make the procedure seem normal. It is not.

Please answer my question, would you subject your child to a traumatic event that could affect their psychological well-being?

Not sure what you're saying here. It's irrelevant anyway.

 

Castrated is better.

 

i feel that you are purposefully not paying any attention to my arguments. therefore there is only one question you asked that i will even bother with:

i have no choice in the matter. a traumatic event will happen no matter what i do in life. people experience traumatic situations every day. simply by bringing a child into this world means that they will have a traumatic event in their life. so the real question you are asking me is "would you ever have kids?"

yes.
they will have difficulties in life no matter what i do. weather there is a little flap of skin around the tip of his penis or not is inconsequential.

if you have kids, you have subjected them to traumatic events. most parents have.
would you tell them that their grandmother died? thats a traumatic event.
would you let their best friend move away? thats stressful to kid.
would you let them play contact sports? that could cause PTSD if they got injured.
would you let them drive a car? teens cause more accidents than any other group. (about 12% of all accidents are caused by teens while only 6% of licensed people are teens) heck, they are more likely to get into an accident than they are to have PTSD from a circumcision.

all of those are traumatic events that may or may not cause PTSD. many of those are preventable. this does not mean that we should not partake in those events or look down on others who do.



i would like to restate that it is not mutilation simply because you do not like it. i love my circumcised cock. its beautiful to me and every girl i have been with. i have not been mutilated. i have been enhanced. and i love it. calling it "mutilation" is, again, an opinion of yours using harsh words to illicit a reaction to sway people to your side. using that word is just as invalid as using the argument that it is unclean.

 

I present you with medical studies backing my assertions and you tell me the world is not flat and now I'm purposefully not paying attention. I agree, let's not bother with this.

You do have a choice when it comes to mutilating your child.

You're trying to downplay the heinous act of male genital mutilation and then complaining that I'm describing exactly what it is, mutilation. You have no business mutilating your infant's genitals.

That's not a justification for mutilating a baby.

Male genital mutilation should not happen to babies. If a mature adult consents to it, no problem. I fail to see how that is "looking down" at others.

You can restate as long as you want, "circumcision" is genital mutilation. When a female's clitoris is removed, it's called genital mutilation. When a male's foreskin is surgically removed for no conceivable reason and WITHOUT his consent, that is mutilation.

You love it, good for you. Just because you love your mutilated genital does not mean babies have to be mutilated.

 

Hahahaha, it's funny how you dipshits are arguing over a public sex forum, let's put the egos aside here boys

 

there is a huge difference between male and female circumcision.

in the female version the clitoris is removed. this would be like the actual head of the penis being removed. the nerve endings remain in the penis in male circumcision and all that is removed is a flap of skin.

in female circumcision, it is common practice to remove the clitoris when they hit puberty as an act of dominance and obedience to the male portion of the population. this memory will live with the girls for the rest of their lives. in a male circumcision, the procedure is performed within days of birth. the brain is not fully developed and men do not remember the act in any way. the practice was initially done for cleanliness in a religious ceremony, not as a form of domination. (of course as we have discussed, the cleanliness issues is a non-issue anymore)

in female circumcision the point is to eliminate all pleasure from sex. in a male circumcision that is not the point at all. I assure you that i have plenty of pleasure out of sex.

comparing these to procedures does not compute on a few levels.



parents do have a right to raise their kids as they see fit. if the parent decides to remove a flap of skin in a procedure that the vast majority of the population in the US doesnt mind and the child does not remember, so be it.

again the religious implications apply. in some religions, NOT being circumcised will make them an outcast to their community, and that, in the long run may be WAY more traumatic than a cut that is made when one is far to young to remember.

 

I have not compared the procedures on both.

In both cases the genital is mutilated, the severity is much larger for one than the other, it is still mutilation in both cases.

Don't downplay the removal of the foreskin as if it is some trivial thing. It is not.

Can you back your claim up please?

I'm glad you've finally moved to the thrust of your argument. You're arguing that mutilating a baby is justified because of some religious belief. What can anyone say to that? Let's just dump all the medical studies and mutilate our children for a belief which cannot be proved.

That, kuzione, "does not compute on a few levels".

 

it is a trivial thing.
hundreds of millions upon hundreds of millions of people live (and have lived) a very normal life after having this done. it is trivial. i have had cuts on my finger that are bigger than the incision used to remove the foreskin.

you are making a bigger deal about it than it should be... and that is my entire point.

what? that a parent has a right to raise their kids as they see fit?

can you seriously claim that they don't? who does then?

ah, you see here we are now trying to argue philosophy with science.

medically speaking, a circumcised person can be just as healthy as a uncircumcised. you have yet to prove otherwise.

are you willing to violate the rights of parents to raise their children in a religions arena should they chose to do so?
i personally am not religious, but i do understand that many people are and this circumcision issue is a huge one for them. placing a ban on circumcision would be placing a ban on some of these religions. im not saying you want a ban on circumcisions either. im just saying you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.


also...
im not saying that religion is 100% logical. im not saying i agree with all of their practices, but i am saying that it is an issue that many take seriously. and they have a right to believe it. just like you have a right to believe that circumcision is wrong.

it does compute, just not on the level that you want it to. it works on the level that people have a right to practice their religion, and they have a right to raise their kids as they see fit.

im not sure if you do, or will see that.

 

I just wanted to preface this post by restating that I am myself mutilated.

It is not a trivial. At this point, I think we have to agree to disagree.

Source: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/greg_boyle/11/

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/n125062974324260/

The physiological effects of removing the foreskin are not trivial as studies have indicated.

I'll leave you with this papers on "foreskin restoration":

Source: http://www.springerlink.com/content/l638051583754868/

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3812956

You claimed that the vast majority of the US population agreed with genital mutilation. I asked for proof.

Irrelevant. In the context of all my posts, I think it is quite clear that the answer to your question is an unequivocal "no".

No I'm not. You valiantly mentioned religion and I simply said that I have nothing to say to that. I was pointing out my frustration that parents opt to neglect medical studies about the traumatic side effects of mutilating children as a result of some theistic belief. In the information age, I thought that would be minimal but I regrettably concede, despite the instant availability of information, not much has changed.

Have you read the papers / book I referenced?

The parents are mutilating their child. What about the rights of the child?

I would like to point out that I'd rather avoid the whole topic of religion. I've given up on this ages ago.

Mutilation is wrong. It should not be done to minors. Why don't they mutilate the male after death?

They do, I question whether it is moral for a parent to mutilate their child?

I do see "that", but I strongly disagree with it. No one should decide what happens to another person's genital.

 

yea uh cant agree more with most of this haha. i was just asking a simple question and wanted some feedback didnt think this would be such a touchy topic.

I myself and i'm pretty sure all of my friends are circumcised (not mutilated) i honestly wouldn't care if my penis was either way it is what it is. I personally like the way it looks, but I'm sure if i were uncircumcised I'd still like it too. I was just curious because most peopel around me are circumcised.

Also i highly doubt that uncircumcised cocks are less clean, unless you don't clean them just like any other part of the body.

lol that is just my take

 

Title: Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation

Source: http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/248.short

Medical professionals use the term "genital mutilation". Are they all wrong?

 

ok, but you make it sound like its a bad thing and we should be outcasted or something?

 

Really, where? Why don't you quote where I stigmatize genital mutilation. I don't. Stop creating straw man arguments.

The premise of my argument is very simple really:

• Parents have no business mutilating their children. This should stop immediately.
• A mature adult who consents to having his genital mutilated is free to do so.

The argument always goes down the same route, first genital mutilation is no big deal, it is a very big deal then they move on to say that the world is not flat so medical research into the trauma caused by genital mutilation could be wrong then, after all straw man arguments are exhausted, they unleash the theistic stuff.

I hope I've provided parents with enough information to make an informed decision when deciding whether they should mutilate their children. I also hope I've provided consenting adults enough food for thought so that if they decide to mutilate their genitals, they're making an informed decision. Theistic belief is not a strong enough reason to mutilate anyone (including yourself).

Genital mutilation encouraged me to become irreligious. No one, I mean NO ONE has a right to decide what happens to another person's genitals [1]. Not even your God.

--
[1] Before another straw man is unleashed, only the owner of the genital has a right to decide what happens to it.

 

if you hate yourself so much, why dont you just restore it?

 

Jamas, you are an arrogant fuck! I doubt anybody cares about all your so called facts. This thread was asking for people's preference not a debate. I am cut and would have had myself cut if my parents hadn't saved me the pain and hassle by doing it when I was born. And no I am not traumatized. If think that a little cut is going to traumatize a baby after going through the ordeal of birth, you're crazy and illogical.

As far as my cock goes, I am worried about appearance, smell and how well and long I can fuck with it. Circumcision improves all of these aspects. By being less sensitive means that I can fuck her longer and harder until she cums. Who would want to have a sensitive cock?? They sell products to make your dick less sensitive. BTW it is still very sensitive.

In the end it is a cultural practice. In cultures where it is practiced it will probably be the preference of women. and vise-versa. Whoever said earlier that it was developed by cultures that don't bathe regularly is full of shit. The practice was started over 5000 years ago. No cultures bathed regularly at that time.

I love seeing the pleased/relieved look on a girls face as she pulls out my circumcised dick. In my opinion, These cheese dicks such as Jmas are traumatized by being ridiculed by their peers and sexual partners. I have you noticed that on threads of this topic the only passionate people posting about the topic are uncut men? Why the fuck would you care so much? Are you really worried about the psychological health of worlds future men. Or are you feeding your own psychological issues? All of the women and cut men seem pretty indifferent to the practice and just post their personal preferences.

I am cut and proud. I would also circumcise my son.