You got me. Brb, circumcising some Canadian I kidnapped

This thread is just loaded with quotable posts.

Anyway, it has also turned into a giant facepalm, so I'm finished. Maybe one day I'll find the long lost jar containing my foreskin, sew it back on, and test it out for myself.

The only way we're going to be able to say for certain is by choosing an uncircumcised poster to get circumcised, and then make weekly reports back to us. Being the originator of this plan, obviously I would be exempt from selection.

Also, it needs to be someone who gets sex regularly, so you're excluded anyway.

I will do it. But I expect to receive 10 euros for every MA member in existence. Plus, an hippos weigh in subway sandwiches.

Shit. I just got slammed.

What, you mean with your band your not swimming in sexual organs of preference?

Nah, I’m shacked up. Though the other guys both just got out of LTRs and are on an absolute tear.

Sweet, sweet sig material.

I myself am partially circumcised (Medical reasons) but fuck it, I could care less about how I allegedly "won't be able to be as good a partner as an uncircumcised man", and "will be doomed to a life of lousy sex".

It would appear that the Broscience is strong in this subject.

A what?

Isn't that the basis of every argument ever?

Personally, I was another person that underwent circumcision as an infant and don't get too worked up over it. Sometimes I wonder what'd it be like if I hadn't gotten the modification though I still have sex and masturbate just fine. At any rate, I wouldn't allow it to be done to any infant that I ever have responsibility for due to the impracticalities of it.

Wait, what? Partially circumsized? So your junk looks like Harvey Two-Face now? I don't get it.

I had some of my foreskin removed, there's some left, but not nearly enough to cover the head.

EDIT: @Under_Starmere: Popped collar.

So it's more of a popped collar than a hood.

I suddenly find myself thinking of "Harry Hill".

http://blog.escapade.co.uk/wp-content/u ... 13_300.jpg

Jewish zionist bullshit.

I just got off work and come home to find this comedic goldmine of a thread. Thank you gentlemen.

I'm circumsized. Not really a big deal at all to me, as most guys I know are as well.

I probably won't circumsize my kids, though. Just doesn't seem necessary.

Keeping it classy, just like every other Argentinian!

I can't be bothered getting into the medical side of the debate, but I will express my opinion on the religious side of things, because this is what angers me the most and I find to be the least justified reason to amputate a babies foreskin...

What makes a person "Religious"? Does merely being born into a Jewish family make a baby "Jewish" (I'm talking in the religious sense here)? I personally don't think so, so why should infant circumcision be justified as "religious freedom"? Who are the parents to say their baby believes in the Jewish faith and will so for the rest of his life (which is how long he's going to be without his foreskin)? Only once the baby has grown up and is capable of making his own decisions can that question be answered. The idea people seem to have is that religion is somehow genetic and is passed down from generation to generation, which is bullshit, but it gets particularly sinister when part of the Indoctrination process is cutting off a healthy piece of a babies penis, and for WHAT? It's really frightening the things that can be justified as religious freedom, and how it appears to take precedence over the babies basic human right of a healthy body part he was born with.

To those of you who argue "it's the parents right to make an informed choice on what's best for their baby", I would agree, but how can anyone convincingly argue cutting off a babies foreskin for religious reasons is beneficial to the baby in any way? It's superstitious nonsense, yet many in America treat it as if it were perfectly okay.

For the record, I'm intact and I believe being intact is the best, but I'd never react harshly to someone who genuinely thought circumcision was healthier (I'd think they were wrong though). On the other hand, I'd take issue with someone mutilating the penis of a baby because it's a requirement to be a member of some damn religion!

I'll also add cleaning an intact penis is anything but difficult. How does this myth still exist?

It doesn't "greatly" reduce the chances of transmitting AID or STD's. Even if the few studies that claim circumcision might have a minor impact are correct (which is doubtful, considering the methods they used during the study) the effectiveness of circumcision is still dwarfed by the effectiveness of a condom.

I dunno, I'd say 60% is 'greatly'. I'll certainly agree that condom use is more effective, though. Regardless, my point wasn't "circumcisions for all!!" but rather that having a circumcision isn't a bad thing at all. The crux of the issue, and where it should stay, is that it's usually a medically unnecessary cosmetic surgery, which in general shouldn't be performed on infants except in the case of serious deformity.

Anyway it's funny that people seem to care way more about a tiny, inconsequential flap of skin than the rest of the religious indoctrination that goes on in the US and other countries. You know, the psychological part that's way way way more harmful, not just to the individual but to society at large.

Certainly circumcusion is a fairly minor element of religious indoctrination but it attracts a lot of attention because it is a physical manifestation of said indoctrination. A Jewish child may escape his parents' indoctrinations into the faith of Abraham, but he may never escape the physical marking of him as an adherent of the Hebrew faith (barring plastic surgery). It's like a branding mark on cattle, almost. Certainly, the way the Torah speaks of the uncircumcised "gentiles" such as the Philistines indicates that it is meant for much the same purpose as branding.

If it's due to a medically-related necessity, then I'm fine with it

When it comes to performing it on newborn infants for other than medical reasons, on the other hand, I think it should not be allowed. In that case I believe it's a form of mutilation, which is still around for a very stupid reason. And to top it all off, these infants aren't able to have any say in the matter

60% would indeed be great reduction if it were correct. Just look at the rates of AID's and STD's in America and compare them to Europe. you can bring up all the studies you want, but it's evident that in practice circumcision has no real benefit when it comes to STD's/AID's.

You're also incorrect on the foreskin being a tiny, inconsequential flap of skin. I'm not being defensive here, I'm just giving you the facts. The foreskin has over 10 thousand nerve endings and facilitates the gliding action during sexual intercourse. Whoever tells you it's merely a "flap of skin" is either lying to you or is ignorant.

I agree that there're many other religious practices that have the potential to be more harmful than circumcision, but what exactly are you implying here? You seem to be redirecting the issue rather than addressing it.

Don't chicks dig scars? What's more manly than a scar on your dick?

A scar for a dick.

On the point of it reducing the risk of certain STDs, everything I've looked at says that circumcision only reduces the risk in populations which are considered high-risk for those STDs.

As for aesthetics, this has already been said but it bears repeating: dicks look fuckin' strange no matter what. I mean, just look at them.

So, what you're alluding to is that in high-risk populations, the more "civilised" of the bunch would be likelier to circumcise.

Seems to be a recurring theme of angst mostly coming from those who are uncicumcised (women excluded naturally ). Do they suffer ciscumcision envy?



I happened to be one of those infants, who did not choose, and I can only repeatedly say that this is not a fucking issue. If you had any sort of problem with your missing foreskin, I can guarantee that there is other "issues" at play... otherwise (sex) life is completely normal in every sense.

Nobody rational is saying that circumcised guys look at their dicks each day and lament, "what could have been..." The point is just this: don't clip a baby except for medical reasons, and if they want to later on they fucking can.

I still say that the practice would be extinct if every guy was faced with that choice.

Bullshit, you cannot guarantee that. There're problems that can occur from not having a foreskin, and obviously on the rare occasion the operation can go wrong leading to a range of issues, it can even lead to death. It may be a "low risk" surgery, but considering the number of babies who are circumcised in America, the number of botched surgeries add up, as if a single death should be tolerated for what is a twisted social standard masquerading as a medical practice.

The average American is completely and utterly ignorant on this subject it seems, they resort to pathetic arguments such as "it looks better" and "it's just a flap of skin" to justify this sick practice. You really shouldn't take offence to what I'm saying, you said so yourself you're fine and have a normal sex life, but the fact is many wont because of circumcision, and that's why I'm against it. It has nothing to do with "circumcision envy", as you put it, but it has everything to do with babies being subject to an unnecessary surgery based on false information and religious rituals.

Just because it's not an issue for you doesn't mean that's the same for every child. If you take a moment to read up on it, you'll find that complications are rare but do occur, to horrifying ends. Infections, haemophilia, botched operations, etc. The risk may be low, but it's still a risk for absolutely no medical reason.

Furthermore, there's plenty enough research into reversing circumcision to indicate that a lot of clipped dues out there must wish they weren't. Someone who wasn't circumcised can change that if they wish. Someone who was, cannot. Again, maybe it doesn't matter to you, but it clearly does matter to some.

It's unfortunate that the practice of circumcision is so common and hailed in the US. It's just another one of those idiotic we have left over from religion that people won't let go of, save the select few who get circumcised for real medical reasons.

I wasn't alluding to anything; what I said was pretty clear, I thought. Circumcision has been demonstrated to reduce the contraction of certain STDs among populations which are regarded as high-risk for those STDs, specifically HIV. To me, they don't seem to indicate anything conclusively about the general population of the world. I simply stated the results of the studies. Nothing I said made any sort of judgment about how "civilized" the recipients of the circumcisions were versus those who did not get them. I'm honestly kind of interested in how you arrived at that, because, literally, nothing in my wording said anything of the sort.

Anyway, I'm circumcised and don't really give a rat's ass. I'm sure my parents had it done because it was in vogue and nobody really questioned the validity of the procedure as a preventative measure against...whatever doctors thought they were helping prevent. I'm not mad at them or anything and don't see why I should be. Society has a funny way of making otherwise intelligent, sane people do stupid things just because they're "in fashion." Still, I'm in the camp who supports leaving the peckers of wee ones alone, except for the cases where it is proven to be medically necessary for the child. It's his body and it's his choice--let him consider it when he's old enough to actually have a clue about what's going on.

No homo right?

Would there be a problem if that were the case?

Uhh...that was a joke you know. Hmm I thought that was made rather obvious by the bolding. Oh well.

But no, I don't give two shits of you're gay. What gender you like to stick your dick into is really no business of mine.

I count my foreskin among my most prized possessions. I would rather die than have it removed.