Why are people so angry about circumcision

[Sapien]

I've never bought into the decreased sensitivity argument. It's exactly like the HIV or cleanliness argument on the other side.

I've experienced both there is no difference. I think its a mental thing and totally depends on how you identify with your own penis. If you think you should have a foreskin and dont, restoration will mentally change your outlook and of course you will enjoy sex more. Its the same thing with a guy who is gay and has sex with a woman. He may never cum or even get aroused but with a man he may cum explosively and need to go multiple rounds. Personally I feel sexual response is more a mental thing and less of do I have this part of skin or not...

I agree that there is likely a mental aspect at play here as well. However, my positive results are not only associated with improved sensitivity. I feel a greater interaction and response between my skin and my glans. Greater, skin mobility has contributed to this as well as changing the dynamic mechanics of unprotected heterosexual style of sex (not sure if similar results would be obtained in other styles).

 

[herkimer snow]

Since circumcision is not compelling and offers virtually no benefits when done to an infant, every male should be able to choose whether or not to be circumcised. Until that happens, some of us are going to remain upset.

 

[Sapien]

I never said my kid needed the surgery but if I ask him if he wants and he says yes then I will give it to him...I think you are still stuck on the age of two. I said in an earlier post we are thinking between 2-10...leaning towards 5...my girlfriend wants like 7 or 8, obviously at 2 it wont be much of a discussion.

I am not sure how much experience you have had with children. As a parent I know that children are called dependents for a very good reason. They are dependent on us to provide them with the necessities of life, nurture them and guide them. There are various stages of maturity the our children go through. You definitely can have good conversations with 8 year children but they are children and it is limited. At this age their values are very much intertwined with that of the parent. At this age it is impossible for a decision of this sort to be independent from the parents values.

When child starts maturing around 13-14 they start becoming more independent from the parents. This is a long process that takes many years. By the time the child is 18 they have probably have a significantly developed independent value system (still influenced by the parents values since that will last a lifetime).

However, even at this age the mind is not fully developed (I have heard that medical studies indicate the brain itself is not fully developed until age 25). The level of maturity at the 18-21 age range varies significantly.

I really don't know what the best age is for a discussion with your child regarding circumcision should be but I am sure that when you do have children you will better understand what I am trying to say.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There is no question that circumcision reduces sensitivity but the effect of the degree sensitivity on the enjoyment of sex is not understood and may not be significantly detrimental.

Actually, sargon20 posted links previously that counter these claims. So this is just as up in the air as the need to circumcise itself.

The point of the links was to show evidence that the foreskin itself is erogenous and capable on its own to induce climax. Since I am circumcised I no longer have that option shown in the videos. Also, the point is that penis can be stimulated simultaneously in a number of different ways during coitus/masturbation. The frenulum and frenar band are highly erogenous contributing regions of foreskin. If they are not there, they can't contribute and that is a loss.

I saw that... and believe me I was so heartbroken that after the few decades of being sexually active that these few things thing I can't do. Oh, woe as me. Guess I'll just have to stick with what I know which has been getting me by for so long (with results that I have no problem accepting and living with).

I agree that our tastes, methods of coitus, masturbation etc. are different. We all have our preferences. I definitely prefer to have more skin and I would have preferred it if my parents didn't make this choice for me.

That's fine. My parents had me circumcised when I was born. The only real difference is that I don't fault them for their decisions. Regardless of a few penile "techniques" that are supposedly lost when you're circumcised, I think my mom and did an amazing job raising myself and my 5 older brothers and sisters.

Yes, they were within there legal rights, that is not what is being debated.

I know that... just making a more thorough statement because there are people on this and every other circ thread acting as if our government should step in and outlaw the practice.

The debate is now that we understand the function and purpose of the foreskin is it ethical to continue to make this choice for infants.

I think I can pass on this science lesson, since there's evidence to the contrary already posted and its impact is so insignificant to my life that I don't feel as if I'm actually "missing something". But thanks... I guess.

I would have preferred to be left intact and there is a significant percentage of the male adult circumcised population that has the same preference. Surveys from members on this site show the percentage to be around 60%. In the general population it would likely be less since they are less informed.

I don't take too kindly to any poll or survey (even in the Politics threads), so I won't even try to twist its results as to being some kind of reflection of any particular consensus.

It wasn't like my mom and dad thought about this decision. They blindly followed family tradition believing the "its more hygienic" crap (I did discuss it with my mother - father deceased). I do not hold any resentment whatsoever against my parents for their decision since I understand they really believed it was the best choice.

This is such a tell... really it is.
Although you say that you don't hold any resentment, that sentence does seem as if you still do to some degree. But that's just me. I know that my mom and dad did things to their best ability so I can easily get over the fact that I may not have a small flap of skin on my dick to instigate random, hand free orgasms. Besides, I tend to be more excited when someone is kind enough to use their hands, mouth or other body parts to get me off. :tongue:

Also, I don't feel as if they robbed me from some choice that would change my views of the world, nor do I think they were engaging in some sadistic ritual of perversion just to satisfy their own barbaric narcissism... all ideologies that some anti-circ people have been alluding to. And I'm sure if we saw less of that around here, these discussions would be less vitriolic.

 

[mandoman]

The problem with my foreskin has really nothing to do with here and the it wasnt my choice to be circumcised young, my mother wanted it done and the doctor said I didnt need it. To me this goes hand in hand with really not listening to the doctor.

I never said my kid needed the surgery but if I ask him if he wants and he says yes then I will give it to him...I think you are still stuck on the age of two. I said in an earlier post we are thinking between 2-10...leaning towards 5...my girlfriend wants like 7 or 8, obviously at 2 it wont be much of a discussion.

I dont know what I had when I was young. The only thing in my records was UTI. This is less about me than you think. I've always said that I dont see anything wrong with circumcision or a circumcised penis.

You may not see much difference.
Your son may see a world of difference.
You've grown up with the fact that your father had to be circumcised, and that has been an accepted part of your world. Perhaps you were even looking forward to it.
They don't circumcise for UTIs. You didn't list the classic symptoms of UTIs...urinary immediacy, bladder pain. You listed the classic symptoms of yeast...tightening foreskin, scarring.
Your son may be talked into a circumcision by you and your lady, and then grow up very angry, when he realizes what comes afterward.

 

[darkbond007]

I am not sure how much experience you have had with children. As a parent I know that children are called dependents for a very good reason. They are dependent on us to provide them with the necessities of life, nurture them and guide them. There are various stages of maturity the our children go through. You definitely can have good conversations with 8 year children but they are children and it is limited. At this age their values are very much intertwined with that of the parent. At this age it is impossible for a decision of this sort to be independent from the parents values.

When child starts maturing around 13-14 they start becoming more independent from the parents. This is a long process that takes many years. By the time the child is 18 they have probably have a significantly developed independent value system (still influenced by the parents values since that will last a lifetime).

However, even at this age the mind is not fully developed (I have heard that medical studies indicate the brain itself is not fully developed until age 25). The level of maturity at the 18-21 age range varies significantly.

I really don't know what the best age is for a discussion with your child regarding circumcision should be but I am sure that when you do have children you will better understand what I am trying to say.

No I wont understand because I have a different outlook with regards to treating a child and discussing things with a child.

I disagree with the logic here. Simply put it goes back to one point: You guys wouldnt make a big deal of this if the child said he wanted to remain uncut.

However lets stay on topic, I really do not want to make this about me and my unborn child.

You may not see much difference.
Your son may see a world of difference.
You've grown up with the fact that your father had to be circumcised, and that has been an accepted part of your world. Perhaps you were even looking forward to it.
They don't circumcise for UTIs. You didn't list the classic symptoms of UTIs...urinary immediacy, bladder pain. You listed the classic symptoms of yeast...tightening foreskin, scarring.
Your son may be talked into a circumcision by you and your lady, and then grow up very angry, when he realizes what comes afterward.

Why do you keep saying my father had to be circumcised. My father was RIC. My uncle is the one who got circumcised for phimosis as well, and I found this out like when I was 20 or so but at the time like many of you I was very much anti-circ. Hell I was anti-circ until I actually had sex with my circumcised cock. The first few weeks I found myself to be an unfortunate case but after sex that all changed. I never said they circumcise for UTI, however as I stated earlier every checkup I had up to age 16 the doctor described my penis with the word phimosis. I found this out after I had been circumcised.

To me this is blatant negligence because while circumcision is a solution it isnt a primary solution and the doctor(s) should have done something about it. I feel they dont and its best you live with a jacked up foreskin than get cut or do anything about it. I disagree 100% with this.

I am not sold on it being a Yeast infection. The scarring came from the cuts from masturbation. That didnt start happening til around 14 yo.

Why would he get angry with what comes afterward? Again I am not sold on this desensitization propaganda you guys spew. I have experienced both and I could literally live with either. I couldnt live with the after sex discomfort and occasional cutting/blood from sex.

I agree that there is likely a mental aspect at play here as well. However, my positive results are not only associated with improved sensitivity. I feel a greater interaction and response between my skin and my glans. Greater, skin mobility has contributed to this as well as changing the dynamic mechanics of unprotected heterosexual style of sex (not sure if similar results would be obtained in other styles).

Still a mental trait. Some guys like to be beaten or sound their penis. Some guys like to pump and get off on that. You like the skin moving across your head. It really comes down to whatever floats your boat.

 

[deleted15807]

Actually, sargon20 posted links previously that counter these claims. So this is just as up in the air as the need to circumcise itself.

No worries there VB they will insist that it does even though no researcher can or will step forward and unequivocally say it does. A laboratory experiment on 'fine touch pressure points' proves nothing. It might hint there could be a difference but do you have proof? No. The next step in a thesis is to prove in the real world that it does make a difference. Statements like 'there is no doubt' and 'irrefutable proof' are pure imagination.

 

[Sapien]

I saw that... and believe me I was so heartbroken that after the few decades of being sexually active that these few things thing I can't do. Oh, woe as me. Guess I'll just have to stick with what I know which has been getting me by for so long (with results that I have no problem accepting and living with).

The point isn't so much that it is something that circumcised guys can't do. It strong evidence that foreskin plays an important role in our sexual response. It is not about what you have to stick with; it is about why should we deprive future generations of the full gambit of the sexual inputs they are born with.

I don't take too kindly to any poll or survey (even in the Politics threads), so I won't even try to twist its results as to being some kind of reflection of any particular consensus.

The actual numbers don't really matter. Just the fact that there are a significant number of men circumcised as infants that prefer to be intact is reason enough to question the ethics of RIC.

This is such a tell... really it is.
Although you say that you don't hold any resentment, that sentence does seem as if you still do to some degree. But that's just me. I know that my mom and dad did things to their best ability so I can easily get over the fact that I may not have a small flap of skin on my dick to instigate random, hand free orgasms. Besides, I tend to be more excited when someone is kind enough to use their hands, mouth or other body parts to get me off. :tongue:

You left off the last line of my paragraph that you quoted (and perhaps my wording could have been better). The last line qualified the intent of what I was saying. I do not hold resentment against my parents for my circumcision. The negative tone in my original paragraph is directed at those that perpetuate the false propaganda that justifies circumcision for hygienic reasons.

And again, it is not about us nor is it about the ability to climax using these particular methods. It is about - is it ethical to continue the practice of RIC now that we know the foreskin is erogenous, is a significant contributor to the sexual response of males and also positively influences the sexual experience of female partners?

 

[Yeasallgood]

It angers me to know that I was circumsized with out having a choice. I have even researched ways to get the skin back. The skin is supposed o be there, bottom line.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The point isn't so much that it is something that circumcised guys can't do. It strong evidence that foreskin plays an important role in our sexual response.

And there's strong evidence to state the opposite. So right now, it's a question of belief and not absolute fact.

It is not about what you have to stick with; it is about why should we deprive future generations of the full gambit of the sexual inputs they are born with.

That is such a dishonest argument.
I don't know of any expecting parent who is concerned about whether or not their baby boy is going to have the best orgasms when they get older. Things, such as providing a nurturing home, food and a proper education takes much more priority. Making sure they don't feel inadequate by others due to their dogmatic prejudices is just as high.

Just the fact that there are a significant number of men circumcised as infants that prefer to be intact is reason enough to question the ethics of RIC.

The popularity of something does not dictate whether or not a minority's civil rights should be impeded upon to protect majority rule. People who support circumcision are entitled to the same rights as you even if their ideologies differ from the mainstream. That means parents should be allowed to choose what is right for their newborn boys. Babies do not have the ability to make these crucial decisions on their own, so somebody needs to be in charge over such a decision. Regardless of your moralistic stand, this is how it is and how it should remain.

At least, that's how it's supposed to be done in my country.

You left off the last line of my paragraph that you quoted (and perhaps my wording could have been better). The last line qualified the intent of what I was saying. I do not hold resentment against my parents for my circumcision. The negative tone in my original paragraph is directed at those that perpetuate the false propaganda that justifies circumcision for hygienic reasons.

You are not a doctor, so it's very arrogant and dishonest of you to suggest that there are no hygienic benefits to circumcision when there are several qualified medical professionals that support it. Come to your decision and word it as such so it comes off as a belief... not as if you're an expert on the subject matter.

And again, it is not about us nor is it about the ability to climax using these particular methods. It is about - is it ethical to continue the practice of RIC now that we know the foreskin is erogenous, is a significant contributor to the sexual response of males and also positively influences the sexual experience of female partners?

Arguments regarding ethics are nothing more than disguised attacks on a person's character with both sides trying to come up with the most effective, pseudo-moralistic sob stories to sway the debate in their favor. I have no interest in talking to another person over what is ethical or having a rhetorical dick measuring contest as to who has better ethics or morals. The fact that you are so zealous in protecting what you think is a "baby's rights" does not make you a better person than myself. Either we talk facts or don't waste your time talking to me at all.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

After numerous polite requests for members to try to remain on topic and not to threadjack it falls to me to point out to the members involved in the discussion in this thread that argumentatively picking apart individual replies, conducting grammar lessons and hostile personal attacks ad nauseam are not the subject matter which this thread was seemingly intended to generate. Certain members seem incapable of conducting this discussion without resorting to these tactics, and this amounts to a serious attempt to hijack this thread. This behaviour simply wont be tolerated any longer.

This thread should discuss the topic of the original post and related off-shoots of that. If members are incapable of doing this then the Moderating team will take action as per our new procedures which may include closing this thread.


hilaire. (on behalf of the Moderating Team)

 

[mitchymo]

Circumcision serves no practical purpose, it is also not detrimental to have no foreskin.

The issue about why really do it boils down to it being pointless. Its nothing more than body modification. As such, it should be the owner of the body that decides. The idea of some baby having its ears pierced might seem cute, but really its just icky. Imagine seeing a 6month old with a tattoo of the mommy on its arm.

Culturally i can understand why its a common practice, but the US? Its hard to understand how it ever took off there, and to continue to perpetuate for no good reason is just odd.

Do the right thing and let your kids grow as nature intended. Unless of course there is a specific medical problem requiring it, or your faith supposedly requires it.

 

[D_Mephistophiles Scatlicker]

Thank you Hilaire.

After numerous polite requests for members to try to remain on topic and not to threadjack it falls to me to point out to the members involved in the discussion in this thread that argumentatively picking apart individual replies, conducting grammar lessons and hostile personal attacks ad nauseam are not the subject matter which this thread was seemingly intended to generate. Certain members seem incapable of conducting this discussion without resorting to these tactics, and this amounts to a serious attempt to hijack this thread. This behaviour simply wont be tolerated any longer.

This thread should discuss the topic of the original post and related off-shoots of that. If members are incapable of doing this then the Moderating team will take action as per our new procedures which may include closing this thread.


hilaire. (on behalf of the Moderating Team)

 

[mandoman]

No worries there VB they will insist that it does even though no researcher can or will step forward and unequivocally say it does. A laboratory experiment on 'fine touch pressure points' proves nothing. It might hint there could be a difference but do you have proof? No. The next step in a thesis is to prove in the real world that it does make a difference. Statements like 'there is no doubt' and 'irrefutable proof' are pure imagination.

Last time I checked, medical ethics dictated that an operation be proven to benefit the patient, before it is performed. Why is circumcision the exception to every ethical rule? Shouldn't its efficacy be shown with 'irrefutable proof' before it is done to people too young to consent? I know it makes me angry that all the rules of common sense are thrown out, such as removing healthy parts.

 

[B_Lewis1]

rotf @ nothing wrong

Listen up u stupid bitch

1) they cut on babies without their consent & without anesthesia

2) 20,000 nerve endings are lost & penis dries out to adapt

3) the penis is a fucking organ that needs its skin to protect it like all the other organs you have



4) whats the fucking purpose of doing it ?

why would an innocent baby be subject to someone snipping at their dick at birth?
what is there to gain from it?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

rotf @ nothing wrong

Listen up u stupid bitch

1) they cut on babies without their consent & without anesthesia

2) 20,000 nerve endings are lost & penis dries out to adapt

3) the penis is a fucking organ that needs its skin to protect it like all the other organs you have



4) whats the fucking purpose of doing it ?

why would an innocent baby be subject to someone snipping at their dick at birth?
what is there to gain from it?

http://www.lpsg.org/2970985-post311.html


So are you saying this is why people cannot discuss circumcision without loosing their tempers? Because if you're not, or if you just wanted to register your disgust at practice of infant circumcision then I'd like to refer you to the my post above where as a Mod and on behalf of the Moderating Team of this site I gave all members posting in this thread a final warning not use this thread to do that.


BTW who are you calling a stupid bitch? Are you calling the OP a stupid bitch or are you responding to another member?

 

[Hoss]

rotf @ nothing wrong

Listen up u stupid bitch

1) they cut on babies without their consent & without anesthesia

2) 20,000 nerve endings are lost & penis dries out to adapt

3) the penis is a fucking organ that needs its skin to protect it like all the other organs you have



4) whats the fucking purpose of doing it ?

why would an innocent baby be subject to someone snipping at their dick at birth?
what is there to gain from it?

http://www.lpsg.org/2970985-post311.html


So are you saying this is why people cannot discuss circumcision without loosing their tempers? Because if you're not, or if you just wanted to register your disgust at practice of infant circumcision then I'd like to refer you to the my post above where as a Mod and on behalf of the Moderating Team of this site I gave all members posting in this thread a final warning not use this thread to do that.


BTW who are you calling a stupid bitch? Are you calling the OP a stupid bitch or are you responding to another member?

Yeah, I think he may of meant me:biggrin1: since I did say there's nothing wrong with being circed and nothing wrong about not being circed.
(I hope being called a stupid bitch doesn't become a trend towards me)

why are people so angry about circumcision and I mean from both sides? Theres nothing wrong with being circumcised and it even makes some men feel better and then on the other side theres nothing wrong about not being circumcised and some men feel that's the best way to be same as with shaving pubes and piercings. Why does everybody get so angry and mean about it all?

I want to thank all of the people who have posted and stayed on focus and to the moderators who have made attempts to keep things on track.

Now back to the question first posed, see the above quote from me and respond on that. Why the level of anger and meanness, which serves nobody?

In the words of Rodney can't we all just get along? Please?!?!?!?!?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

More on the rhetorical argument that is "baby's rights":

"A baby, by definition, is a physically and intellectually undeveloped human being, that because of its incapacity for consciousness has no means of pursuing life, liberty and property. A newborn does not pop out of a womb with an immediate and automatic understanding of the world around him. It is the moral responsibility of parents, who have embarked on that important and lifelong decision of child rearing, to develop the minds of their offspring, so that they too can live off the values they produce. A baby, therefore, is entitled only to the values earned by his guardians, whom, by definition, have decided for themselves that they are capable enough to raise a child. A baby, because of its nature, has no understanding of, and no use for rights."

For more philosophical chewing gum, click here.

 

[vince]

More on the rhetorical argument that is "baby's rights":

"A baby, by definition, is a physically and intellectually undeveloped human being, that because of its incapacity for consciousness has no means of pursuing life, liberty and property. A newborn does not pop out of a womb with an immediate and automatic understanding of the world around him. It is the moral responsibility of parents, who have embarked on that important and lifelong decision of child rearing, to develop the minds of their offspring, so that they too can live off the values they produce. A baby, therefore, is entitled only to the values earned by his guardians, whom, by definition, have decided for themselves that they are capable enough to raise a child. A baby, because of its nature, has no understanding of, and no use for rights."

For more philosophical chewing gum, click here.

Off topic VB. In fact it just shovels more coal on the fire.

http://www.lpsg.org/2970985-post311.html

The question is- Why are you so angry about it? Why are other's so angry? And why can't the topic be discussed in a civil way?

 

[D_Mephistophiles Scatlicker]

Off topic VB. In fact it just shovels more coal on the fire.

http://www.lpsg.org/2970985-post311.html

The question is- Why are you so angry about it? Why are other's so angry? And why can't the topic be discussed in a civil way?

Good point Vince, but I think it's a lost cause. Why do some people just find a reason to argue about everything and I mean everything. I am a fun person who likes life and enjoys life and thinks it is too short to spend your time depressed and hostile.



There are some people out there that no matter what you say to them it ends up in an argument and then you try to explain that maybe you both miscommunicated the conversation and they tend to argue some more. They delude themselves in the idea that argument means they are intelligent. You are left drained and wondering why you expended the energy.


I think it's a control issue and they are bound and determine to prove they are right. Or perhaps it is an inferiority complex. Some people have such emptiness in their lives the need to bring someone down daily so they feel comforted. We should feel sorry for them, but it's tough.


Check it out. Click on the profiles of some of these angry posters and then click the posts they've contributed to during their membership (I'm using the word “contributed” loosely here). You'll see what I'm talking about. No matter what the issue they don't agree with anybody and spend a good part of their day convincing you that they're right. I sure hope they're not doing it on company time. In closing, some people like to argue and some people are miserable bastards. I choose to walk away from both, thank you very much.