Why are so many american cocks cut?

[nineinchnail4u2c]

Still gonna get my sons cut. If not, I'll do it myself.:smile:

Willfull ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Snozzle]

Blame it on England's Queen Victoria and her abnormal fear of masturbation.

Queen Victoria was quite a lusty lady. That's undoubtedly a major reason she went into such deep mourning after Prince Albert*'s premature death. I don't know if she knew or thought anything about masturbation (are you thinking of her reputed ignorance of lesbianism?)

*The perifrenular-periurethral piercing was named after him as a marketting ploy, not because there's any evidence he actually had one.

Or on doctors discovering a quick & easy way to make bucks for a useless operation that has a low failure rate.

Well it has a low death rate, but the lesser failures are often not discovered until adulthood, and then often not correctly attributed to the operation that caused them. After all, every man has only one penis and, unless things are badly wrong, imagines that however it works is the way they all work.

 

[Hairylegs]

Puhleez!!! I'm an MD, and no, I don't make a dime circing little baby boys. I strongly discourage grown men from getting snipped, hell, it is going to HURT big time! But until you've seen a guy with diabetes (16% of the American population) endowed with a foreskin, and then have to try to push it back over an infected head, you haven't lived! It's mega gross-swollen, smelly (putrid, actually), infected, barf city to the max. If that were the only reason to clip little boys, it would be sufficient. And please don't tell me that you can teach little boys to wash under their prepuces! Ever try to get a little boy to wash his hands? Any parents out there?

The historical reasons we snip is almost irrelevant at this point. The only people on Earth who think circumcision is barbaric are gay guys and Europeans. Give me a break! Circing is an unspoken American tradition, much like eating snails in France, or wearing your best for the Queen's birthday. No it does not detract from sexual enjoyment, it does not cause irreparable psychological harm to the child, and yes, it most certainly distiguishes us in the bathhouses, if we choose to go there!

It is cleaner, safer, and I'm very sorry boys, but it DOES reduce HIV transmission by 50%, which is better than ANY vaccine that will ever be produced. And did I mention, prettier? Elephant trunks, flabby foreskins, and (gasp!) smegma are not sexy, certainly not in the month of July. If you are graced with a foreskin, and you, your girlfriend/boyfriend enjoys it, fantastic! Keep it, but please, keep the damn thing clean. But if you had the good fortune to have sane parents, and that ½cm of skin was removed, for heaven sakes, be grateful for that pretty brown halo at the end of your dicks! It means you were loved!

 

[Ed69]

^^^Wow another ass wipe!

 

[herkimer snow]

My parents loved me and left me intact. They were not insane. Get a life, doc.

 

[mouettefolle]

That guy is not a doctor !

 

[SteveHd]

... I strongly discourage grown men from getting snipped, ...

You claim to be an "MD" and yet you state the above? It appears to me that you're a rabid advocate of infant circumcision. Many of the pro-RIC types I've encountered dismiss adult circ. as "too late" to be useful. Or have other reasons to dismiss it.

Nothing in your rant supports a case for infant circ. over adult circ.

Diabetes? That's generally an older mans disease. An 18 y/o will have plenty of time to decide upon a prophylactic circumcision.

Reduce HIV transmission? I don't buy into that but even if it does it still doesn't support infant circumcision. Infants aren't sexually active. An adult can decide for himself if the "reduced risk" is plausible and worth cutting of part of his sex organ.

... pretty brown halo ...

That's something a circumsexual is likely to say. Glorifying a scar is rather perverse.

 

[surferboy]

the whole "cut vs. uncut" debate is tired.

but, a brief history of why most americans are cut. america has a lot of conservative religious types, yah? because they're religious conservatives, masturbation is a no no. so, back in the day, they were told that if you circumsize your son, he won't have the urge to jerk off.

well, that clearly didn't work. so, the next thing that they came up with was that it was cleaner. they're correct, to a degree. a cut cock doesn't gather smegma. that's not to say that you don't have to was a cut cock - of course you do!

so, eventually, the peoples of america wised up. then came the AIDS epidemic back in the 80s. so peoples decided to use it to their advantage. they started telling parents that cut cocks are not as likely to get the HIV virus.

but anyway, who gives a shit? is it barbaric to circumsize an infant? yes, it is. but it's not in your control. if you don't want your son to be cut, then don't cut him.

conversely, who gives a shit if parents don't cut their kids? if you think being uncut is ugly, then have your son cut. why are peoples so concerned about the bodies of other people?

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

if you think being uncut is ugly, then have your son cut. why are peoples so concerned about the bodies of other people?

If one does not like the appearance of the clitoris or labia minora of his daughter, is it his prerogative to have either or both removed?

 

[SteveHd]

the whole "cut vs. uncut" debate is tired.

It may be "tired" but you helped to stoke it by posting to this and other related threads.

... why are peoples so concerned about the bodies of other people?

In my view, dissuading others from infant/child circumcision is the right thing to do. It's ethics; all other reasons are subservient. It's likewise for most others who oppose infant/child circumcision, I assume.

 

[deleted15807]

Still gonna get my sons cut. If not, I'll do it myself.:smile:

:lmao::lmao: :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:​

 

[surferboy]

If one does not like the appearance of the clitoris or labia minora of his daughter, is it his prerogative to have either or both removed?

male circumcision is not the same thing as female, and you know it.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

male circumcision is not the same thing as female, and you know it.

By all means, detail how male and female circumcision are fundamentally different.

 

[deleted15807]

By all means, detail how male and female circumcision are fundamentally different.

How about #1 it's official name is Female Genital Mutilation not circumcision.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

It may be "tired" but you helped to stoke it by posting to this and other related threads.In my view, dissuading others from infant/child circumcision is the right thing to do. It's ethics; all other reasons are subservient. It's likewise for most others who oppose infant/child circumcision, I assume.

it is NOT ethical.

You can not demonstrate genuine ANY ill effects other than the fact that those obsessed over their own penises might get histrionic over it as adults.

It became common in the US as a preventive measure to help curb the spread of syphilis. And it worked... the incidence of syphilis in the US dropped dramatically after the adoption of routine infant circumcision.

has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the spread of HIV as well.


In that sense alone... the "harm" done thru circumcising is inconsequential to the harm done thru NOT circumcising/

Your emotional drama over the flap of useless skin at the tip of your dick is less than nothing compared to the spread of deadly and disfiguring disease theu an entire community.

Try taking a philosophy of ethics class and lean how to discern a fetish from real ethical analysis.

 

[jjsjr]

OK, so pardon my late participation in this thread,
I still don't understand the reasoning for the debate.

I hope most people can at least understand that every male born is born intact.
Why bother altering that?

For cleanliness? The medical world claims that the inside of the mouth can harbor the worst bacteria out of all locations on the body... Should we remove the tongue at birth too?

I understand its a religious symbol of one's Christian status, but I don't need to whip it out to prove my religiosity.

I'm Christian, circumcised and finished with my rant. :indifferent:

Thanks.

 

[surferboy]

fucking hell peoples, there is no "bettter." for the most part, circumcision is part of a religious ritual. do you also go after that one sect of christianity that practically drowns a baby during their baptism? do you chide the rituals involved in ramadan because you don't agree with it?

How about #1 it's official name is Female Genital Mutilation not circumcision.

also, THIS

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

it is NOT ethical.

By all means, detail how respecting the right to bodily integrity of another is not ethical.

You can not demonstrate genuine ANY ill effects other than the fact that those obsessed over their own penises might get histrionic over it as adults.

In that sense alone... the "harm" done thru circumcising is inconsequential to the harm done thru NOT circumcising/

Your emotional drama over the flap of useless skin at the tip of your dick is less than nothing compared to the spread of deadly and disfiguring disease theu an entire community.

How would you characterize urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias, impotence, secondary phimosis, meatal stenosis, meatal ulceration, urinary retention, venous stasis, concealed penis, adhesions, skin bridges, and painful erections?

It became common in the US as a preventive measure to help curb the spread of syphilis. And it worked... the incidence of syphilis in the US dropped dramatically after the adoption of routine infant circumcision.

has been demonstrated to be effective in reducing the spread of HIV as well.

Circumcision is such a successful preventative measure that the syphilis infection rate of in men in the United States increases every year, and the HIV infection rate of men in Africa is the highest in the world.

How about #1 it's official name is Female Genital Mutilation not circumcision.

also, THIS

This does not detail how male and female circumcision are different.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

By all means, detail how respecting the right to bodily integrity of another is not ethical.

Study ethics...it is not the science of your relation to yourself- its the sciense of your relation to others in a society.

The greater ethical good can be determined by the effects of an action on society.
NOT circumcising your child may be "better" for that individual child... ( though you have zero evidence that it is better )
However, it does NOT accrue to the benefit of anyone ELSE.

Ergo. Non-circumcision= benefit to 1.

Circumcision DOES, however, reduce the transmission of deadly and debilitating diseases thru the entire population... Which also reduces the mutation rate and chances for more virulent strains...

Ergo, circumcision actually SAVES LIVES of others, in large numbers and reduces the likelihood of new, emergent diseases.

Thus circumcision benefits far more- it is the ethical choice.

Non circumcision is the selfish choice.


Got it?

By analogy, its the reason vaccinating your child is far more ethical than NOT vaccinating, even though there may be a vanishingly small risk to the individual child.

A population of UNvaccinated children increases the likelihood of a pandemic that can and will kill far more children that have ever died from vaccination.

While NOT vaccinating your child is a selfish act on the part of a parent imagining they are reducing their child's exposure to the tiny risk of vaccination related complications...IN FACT... they are significantly increasing their child's risk of being killed in an epidemic of the diseases for which they are not being vaccinated.


Vaccination, therefore, is ethical.
Refusing vaccination is UNETHICAL and an example of misplaced and mistaken self interest.

Really- bone up on what ethics is... its the application of logic to these questions, and it gives concrete answers that are defensible and provably true.

How would you characterize urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias, impotence, secondary phimosis, meatal stenosis, meatal ulceration, urinary retention, venous stasis, concealed penis, adhesions, skin bridges, and painful erections?

I would characterize them as statistictically rare and non life threatening complications that are, for the most part, correctible.

Contrast that to the death rate, world wide, from AIDS and syphilis.

Ethically... a few hundred per million minor and correctable complications are by far the better option if traded to save a few hundred per million lives.

Circumcision is such a successful preventative measure that the syphilis infection rate of in men in the United States increases every year, and the HIV infection rate of men in Africa is the highest in the world.

I just love it when you Pre-pucssies step right in your own shit...

The rise in syphilis in the US DIRECTLY FOLLOWS the gradual reduction of routine infant circumcision by 15 years.

Thanks to jackasses sexually obsessed over nothing... fewer and fewer parents are opting for circumcision.

As a result we are seeing a reversal of the drop in syphilis that was seen after the adoption of routine circumcision 60 years ago.

Thanks, guys... your efforts on the behalf of fostering STD's are appreciated.

This does not detail how male and female circumcision are different.

happy to oblige.

Female "circumcision" is NOT circumcision. The word means to "Cut around"- Circumcision removes a flap of skin that is a vestigial remnant of a what is the penis sheath in other species.
The flap of skin surrounds the glans.

In the female, the same fetal tissue develops into a "hood" of tissue that surrounds the glans of the clitoris. ( in fact, as female clitorises increase in size, they more and more resemble the glans of the penis)

Just as proper circumcision in males exposes the glans without damaging it... True female circumcision would remove the clitoral HOOD only, exposing the clitoris without damaging it.


This is not that happens in what is called female circumcision... in the procedure referred to, the entire clitoris is removed, and often, the entirety of the labia minora.

In some cultures, the labia Majora are, in addition, partially stripped of skin
and sewn together such that the labia will "heal" together, with just a small opening left for urination. This is the ultimate insurance of a future bride's virginity... although it does require the husband to literally SLICE the labia apart on his wedding night...creating a significant and slow healing wound.

The more correct term for what is being done to these women is clitorectomy.

The essential ethical difference is that male circumcision is predominately a social HEALTH issue that does not impair sexual function or pleasure.


Whereas female circumcision is a sexual NULLIFICATION of the female for the purposes of control and denial of sexual pleasure.
All nations practicing female circumcision are those that allow multiple wives to individual men.

The wives press their sons to only entertain wives who have been mutilated... and their goal is self interest... young women who enjoy sex are a threat to the position and status of older wives...
Older wives nullify sexual pleasure in young women to reduce the threat they would pose in terms of power and hierarchy among multiple wives.

For the men in a society, the lack of sexual pleasure in their wives reduces the risk that they will indulge in affairs with other men.


Circumcision saves lives at a very low cost to the individual.

Clitorectomy nullifies a woman's sexuality and sexual pleasure, which are significant costs to the individual, and it does not save lives, but merely reinforces a power hierarchy whose purpose is to keep women powerless.

Therefore... Clitorectomy is unethical.
Circumcision is ethical.

 

[deleted15807]

This does not detail how male and female circumcision are different.

Huum did you actually read what it says. And if you say you can't see the procedure must be different then my next question would be how old are you?.