I have experienced sensitivity increase through restoration. I can speak from my experience.
Why the obsession with circumcision?
- Thread starter herbho
- Start date
- Wei,
People who are seriously debating this aren't treating it as a fetish at all. It's to do with having the right to make your own decision about your own body. Not handing that choice to hospitals for them to make money out of - or even to parents, who would be arrested if they arranged to cut off any other healthy body part from their babies....
- Wei,
The site didn't do the survey - it was done by medical professionals using internationally-recognized criteria and reported in the International Journal of Men's Health:
Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation - International Journal of Men's Health - Volume 10, Number 2 / July 2011 - Men's Studies Press
Classic misdirection. Totally irrelevant to the discussion of whether circumcision causes harm....
I was born not being rich and beautiful without my consent. I will cry until death about it.
I bet you have
Snake oil stuff.You are hilarious. Thanks for the laugh of the morning
Last edited by a moderator:
I was born not being rich and beautiful without my consent. I will cry until death about it.
I bet you have
You are hilarious. Thanks for the laugh of the morning
1. If I was born with Aposthia, I wouldn’t bitch. I was born with a foreskin and it was taken for no medical reason.
2. It’s nice that you hold up your arguments by saying cut as adult guys don’t talk about loss of sensitivity, but I, going the other way, don’t get that benefit.
Put yourself in a context where the medical community and sex books all say that X is better. So parents chose X for you because it is better. You grow up as X, feeling superior to those who didn't get X.
Years later, you learn there is debate on whether X is better or not. You start to question that original decision. And get mad. But go back at the time it was made, and it was the right decision based on information disseminated to parents at the time.
Taken to the limits, one could be mad because parents took proper care of foreskin which retracted early and boy grow out of it during puberty and no longer has full coverage. Refer happenes because make ends up with ugly long foreksin as adult.
You can go down a very long list of choices parents make on a child.
The big difference today with circ is that RIC is no longer pitched as "almost necessary" and parents make a more concious choise that they prefer it for their son because it looks better etc. (as opposed to blindly doing it because "it's just done to everyone automatically".
Years later, you learn there is debate on whether X is better or not. You start to question that original decision. And get mad. But go back at the time it was made, and it was the right decision based on information disseminated to parents at the time.
Taken to the limits, one could be mad because parents took proper care of foreskin which retracted early and boy grow out of it during puberty and no longer has full coverage. Refer happenes because make ends up with ugly long foreksin as adult.
You can go down a very long list of choices parents make on a child.
The big difference today with circ is that RIC is no longer pitched as "almost necessary" and parents make a more concious choise that they prefer it for their son because it looks better etc. (as opposed to blindly doing it because "it's just done to everyone automatically".
Make no mistake, SirConcis, the reasons are still blind. Maybe in your country it’s more informed, and that makes sense.
There is no reason whatsoever to modify a normally functioning baby, because it “looks better.” That’s blind, unnessary, and produces more risk.
My personal stance on the matter is simple. It is a matter if basic human rights, the right to bodily autonomy. Years ago, when some researcher discovered that 'female circumcision' was a thing, it swells up the public discourse for a few months, and a few months later the practice is banned in almost every country worldwide. There was a U.N. resolution or something on it. Since I believe that males and females are basically equal, or at least, should be treated as equals, it really isn't a stretch to imagine that I feel that men should also be equated the same rights.
People should have a say about what is done to them and their bodies.
This is primarily about optional and elective procedures. If you take it out to its logical conclusion, then this also includes relatively minor things like piercing an infant female's ears. But the fact remains that there are people out there who have tattooed prepubescent children, or done other similar things, and they have been prosecuted for it, because it is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Circumcision is no different. The studies that claim health benefits for males are faulty because they were done during the height of the HIV/AIDS 'pandemic' during the late 1970's-early 1980's, when fear pervaded and the disease was extremely misunderstood, and still commonly called 'gay cancer'. If you actually take the time to go look up these studies, and actually read through them, you should notice that the content and data of the studies is relatively inconclusive, and that the prevention of disease is only suggested as conceivable in the conclusions as a potential implied future hypothesis.
Furthermore, the prevention of phimosis is also a very poor idea, as the common medical understanding of the affliction is that it resolves itself in 99% of cases without medical intervention, and for the other 1%, there are many effective treatments without surgical intervention, and only in the most severe of cases is amputation necessary. In short, circumcision to prevent phimosis is akin to amputating a foot to prevent an ingrown toenail.
Lastly, when you look up the medical advice for or against infant male circumcision, almost every organization that has an official stance on the matter always includes a policy recommendation that includes something along the lines of "parents should weigh the medical advice against their "religious, ethical, and cultural" considerations. Period, no serious medical stance includes religious convictions. As a matter of fact, when Christian Scientists, or some other fringe religion refuses medical treatment of children because of religious convictions, they usually get hauled in front of a judge, and charges are filed against the parents or treatment is forced upon them. When females are circumcised, a procedure that in most cases is as close to the circumcision of males as possible, for religious reasons, the practice is equally challenged, and charges are filed against the parents and performers of the practice. Religion is not a rational reason to outweigh science and medicine.
There are many people asking for the routine infant circumcision of males to be looked at for many different reasons. I am not asking that everyone agree with me, all I am asking for is that conversation be allowed to happen, and that it be given equal consideration by the legal bodies as the infant circumcision of females.
People should have a say about what is done to them and their bodies.
This is primarily about optional and elective procedures. If you take it out to its logical conclusion, then this also includes relatively minor things like piercing an infant female's ears. But the fact remains that there are people out there who have tattooed prepubescent children, or done other similar things, and they have been prosecuted for it, because it is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Circumcision is no different. The studies that claim health benefits for males are faulty because they were done during the height of the HIV/AIDS 'pandemic' during the late 1970's-early 1980's, when fear pervaded and the disease was extremely misunderstood, and still commonly called 'gay cancer'. If you actually take the time to go look up these studies, and actually read through them, you should notice that the content and data of the studies is relatively inconclusive, and that the prevention of disease is only suggested as conceivable in the conclusions as a potential implied future hypothesis.
Furthermore, the prevention of phimosis is also a very poor idea, as the common medical understanding of the affliction is that it resolves itself in 99% of cases without medical intervention, and for the other 1%, there are many effective treatments without surgical intervention, and only in the most severe of cases is amputation necessary. In short, circumcision to prevent phimosis is akin to amputating a foot to prevent an ingrown toenail.
Lastly, when you look up the medical advice for or against infant male circumcision, almost every organization that has an official stance on the matter always includes a policy recommendation that includes something along the lines of "parents should weigh the medical advice against their "religious, ethical, and cultural" considerations. Period, no serious medical stance includes religious convictions. As a matter of fact, when Christian Scientists, or some other fringe religion refuses medical treatment of children because of religious convictions, they usually get hauled in front of a judge, and charges are filed against the parents or treatment is forced upon them. When females are circumcised, a procedure that in most cases is as close to the circumcision of males as possible, for religious reasons, the practice is equally challenged, and charges are filed against the parents and performers of the practice. Religion is not a rational reason to outweigh science and medicine.
There are many people asking for the routine infant circumcision of males to be looked at for many different reasons. I am not asking that everyone agree with me, all I am asking for is that conversation be allowed to happen, and that it be given equal consideration by the legal bodies as the infant circumcision of females.
If teenage/audlt circ were pitched are simple cheap, affordable procedure, then it would make the "let him choose later" decision easier for parents. The fact that RIC is still picthed as the simpler procedure tilts the balance in favour of RIC once you remove ethical issues from the debate.
Anti circers made a mistake in attacking all circumcision as mulotilation. Had they focused on the right to choose only instead of attacking circ as mutilation and pushed medical communbity to offer simpler affordable adult/teenage circ, then ending RIC would have been much easier.
Anti circers made a mistake in attacking all circumcision as mulotilation. Had they focused on the right to choose only instead of attacking circ as mutilation and pushed medical communbity to offer simpler affordable adult/teenage circ, then ending RIC would have been much easier.
- Wei,
Superb post. So glad our parents gave my brothers and me the freedom to decide for ourselves....
From thread to thread they do it.....
How Circumcision Broke the Internet
A fringe group (intactivists) is drowning out any discussion of facts.
(hello @IntactMale)
Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)
Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost culticdevotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexlessexistence.
KEY POINT:
Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted.
A fringe group (intactivists) is drowning out any discussion of facts.
(hello @IntactMale)
Like most fringe groups, the anti-circumcision faction is almost comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia. The intactivists also obsess about sex to an alarming degree. Still, some of their tactics are shrewd. The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)
Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost culticdevotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexlessexistence.
KEY POINT:
Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Wei,
Anyone who claims that there is no sensitivity difference should read this post. I've never been circumcised, but it's just so obvious to me and to anyone else who looks at the international evidence, had a relationship with a circumcised guy as I have, or listens to the accounts of numerous restorers, who btw totally back up what Dildo Shwaggins is saying, that there's a really big difference in sensitivity between having a foreskin and not.
And if you just stop and think about it for just a moment, you'd realize, as DildoShwaggins and others who base their arguments on reason and evidence do, that foreskins protect and lubricate - and have enormous capacity to make sex more pleasurable, due to the tens of thousands of erogenous receptors on the inner side of the foreskin, including numerous nerve endings. The swishing of the foreskin back and forward on the moistened glans head during sex, like a sensation-rich gliding sleeve, is an amazing feeling in itself. And come on guys: aren't we constantly going on to each other/our partners about how important sex is for us? Anything to ensure it's as darned awesome as nature created, should surely be encouraged....
sargon20 is exactly the kind of poster who makes this board boring and repetitive. Nothing but endless, emotional defense of circumcision... to what end? This topic isn't even a circumcision debate and yet, here we are again, for the 10,000th time.
I'll head the author's warning and not dive into the rabbit hole with you.
comically bizarre, peddling fabricated facts, self-pity, and paranoia.
Oh dear I've bored you. The comedy in these threads is quite amusing. I shall work to up the ante and have a little fun with that flap of skin that is more valuable than silver and gold. It shall bring us goodness and light.
The biggest existential threat to the planet is climate change. Can it help that?
I see your point...but it's like that with anything.
People like to revel in certain things.
Baseball I followed in grade school but was done by junior high.
But some people follow it for hours and hours a day for their entire lives.
Guess this thread is just not for you.
Similar threads
