There should no longer be any debate that circumcision is a dangerous and unnecessary violation of a boy's right to choose. It is a disgrace that people persist in genitally mutilating their children.
circumcision
- Thread starter that#1kid
- Start date
B_josiah852
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Posts
- 1,957
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 76
- Points
- 183
- Location
- In the Rolling Hills
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
I have a son and he is not circumcised. None of my grandsons are cut either. And yes they have been taught how to keep clean.
So you're saying I shouldn't get my kid pierced and tattooed all over when he's 3 days old? How dare you!no..... he can wait until he hits 18, then he can have one. along with that tattoo or piercing he has been begging for every Christmas.<j>
Study: Circumcision Removes Most Sensitive Parts | LiveScience
Oops, a new study shows the vast majority of sensitivity is removed during male circumcision.
I think there's a lot of truth out there that circumcision began as a means of controlling a boy's sexual pleasure.
Oops, a new study shows the vast majority of sensitivity is removed during male circumcision.
I think there's a lot of truth out there that circumcision began as a means of controlling a boy's sexual pleasure.
Where do people get this stuff? Statistically there's no difference in overall health between intact and cut. The difference is circ takes ten, twenty or thirty years off your sex life, depending on how much the good "doc" amputates.
I could barely orgasm by the time I was thirty-seven and I am in excellent health.
Ed69
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2006
- Posts
- 2,889
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,336
- Points
- 258
- Location
- Oregon (United States)
- Sexuality
- 100% Straight, 0% Gay
- Gender
- Male
- Ed69,
All I need to know is that you are ignorant enough to mutilate a male infant.You sound just like my mother,and deserve evey bad night you've had in bed with a MAN!So you go on believing you're right,you will have to answer for your view.My mother still can't look me in the eye when she ask's how things are in the bedroom.
Oncamale28
Sexy Member
... i would not, and if he wanted to on his own, then that would be his choice, although in most cases there would be no need ...i would also educate on hygene so that he would be in the best of health and able to enjoy himself to the fullest...
Yeah, I definately would circumcise my son! It's much better being circumcised. My brother wasn't circumcised at birth but got problems with his foreskin a few years ago (at 15). He wished he was circumcised at birth just as I am. He's now circumcised too and is very glad he is. I've also read that 1 out of 5 boys get problems with their foreskin if they're not circumcised. So, yep, I would circumcise my son(s)!!
No, not at all! Now, the full-body tattoos on the newborn can present a few difficulties, but it's worth it. They don't feel it, and it saves them the agony of getting tattooed later in life. The facial tattoos have to be carefully cleaned until they heal.
Citation, please.
Is the source of that CircList? Even if we allow the "1 out of 5" as valid then 4 out of 5 don't have problems. In Finland adult circumcisions run about 1 in 16,600. Not many "problems" in non-circ'ing counties for some odd reason.
When i was born i had a problem, i cant remember what it was called, but my penis was conected to my skin, therefore leading to me having to have surgery, when i was 2. I suppose you could call this circumsision, also people say it is much healthier to be circumsised
Those aren't bad odds. I checked on the Centers for Disease Control of the US Government; this is a fact copied directly from their website and pasted here:
"During 1999--2002,among children aged 2--11 years, 41% had dental caries in their primary teeth. Forty-two percent of children and adolescents aged 6--19 years and approximately 90% of adults had dental caries in their permanent teeth."
For those of you who don't know, "caries" is the clinical term for "cavities." If you believe in cutting off part of a child's penis, because he may or may not have a 20% chance of "problems" in adulthood, how about pulling all primary and permanent teeth in all children and adolescents to prevent those 42% to 90% chance of having cavities? It is absolutely as logical, and at least with all the teeth pulled, prosthetics are available if desired. I'm not sure that I've ever heard of prosthetic foreskins.
I really get tired of statements like this. What people say this, how is it healthier, what studies were done... or is it just "people say, so I believe it, and I can make false statements without taking responsibility for them..."??
Another sad product of a culture where genital cutting is the norm. I do pity your brother. I'm sure he could have kept his skin. 15 years and off with it. A pity.
The vast majority of foreskins are attached to the glans, sometimes up until puberty. Either you had such a tight foreskin that you couldn't urinate, or you were unlucky to have a doctor who was ignorant of basic human physiology.
Circumcision has nothing to do with health and everything to do with ignorance . I'm sorry you got whacked.
D_Timmy Toelicker
Experimental Member
Why not circumcise them at birth? It'll save them the trouble of having to do it when they are older, circumcision is just better, easy to clean, looks nicer, and that's just the way it is.
