Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Circumcision - a serious discussion
- Thread starter Lestat
- Start date
strangebrew
New member
I can't fucking wait to barbarically mutilate my sons penis.
Okay, that sounded weird.
Okay, that sounded weird.
Yarg! said:
How can removing tissue make a penis larger? You're dreaming. The only effect circumcision can possibly have on penis size is to make it smaller, if so much skin is removed that the skin is too tight to allow the penis to expand to its full size.
Yarg!
Platinum Membership gift from THE BOMB SQUAD!
Mr. dB said:
dude, i dont know the physics behind it, but it works. it just does... havent u seen south park where kyle's parents wanted to circumsize his brother, so kyle thought it was to chop of the wang completely, so he ran away with his brother? but his parents tell them later that its just cutting of the fore skin, and one of the benefits is a bigger cock, and suddenly everyone wanted a circumcision? south park never lies, dude!
Yarg! said:
You're taking your medical information from a cartoon?
They didn't say it'd make Ike's penis bigger, they said it's make it LOOK bigger.
Which is a lie. It just looks like it's erect all the time because the glans is exposed.
If you believe this, you are delusional.
CrazyRussian
Banned
OK let's put this "barbaric practice" crap to rest. Surgically removing an unnecesary piece of skin from the penis is not barbaric.
Some may deem it unnecessary, and it may well be. However, it is now a norm in our culture.
If you value the extra sensitivity over the look, you'll prefer being uncircumsized. If you value looking like "everyone else" and not freaking out the high-school chick, you'll prefer being cut.
Myself being uncut, I'm kinda undecided. I'm sure a chick that's willing to screw me isn't gonna turn me down because of an extra flap of skin on my penis. Not having to use lube while jacking off is nice(the skin acts as lubrication) especially for people who do it 3-4 times a day. Jacking off also feels better, because the head is way more sensitive in uncut men. This is a fact. Most uncut men can't even touch the glans with a finger because it creates a pain similar to touching raw skin. Cut men can rub their head with sandpaper and they won't feel a thing.
However, with all this being said, I'd still rather be cut.
Some may deem it unnecessary, and it may well be. However, it is now a norm in our culture.
If you value the extra sensitivity over the look, you'll prefer being uncircumsized. If you value looking like "everyone else" and not freaking out the high-school chick, you'll prefer being cut.
Myself being uncut, I'm kinda undecided. I'm sure a chick that's willing to screw me isn't gonna turn me down because of an extra flap of skin on my penis. Not having to use lube while jacking off is nice(the skin acts as lubrication) especially for people who do it 3-4 times a day. Jacking off also feels better, because the head is way more sensitive in uncut men. This is a fact. Most uncut men can't even touch the glans with a finger because it creates a pain similar to touching raw skin. Cut men can rub their head with sandpaper and they won't feel a thing.
However, with all this being said, I'd still rather be cut.
JayC9
Well-known member
I'm laughin at all the cut blokes slaggin the uncuts......how the fuck do you know, not having possesed a foreskin past your first birthday?
At the end of the day, if any problem presented itself from being uncut then it can be rectified through a minor op, whereas with the cut guys, there's no going back!
At the end of the day, if any problem presented itself from being uncut then it can be rectified through a minor op, whereas with the cut guys, there's no going back!
JayC9
Well-known member
pintoca
New member
I'm uncut... never had a problem with bacteria, smegma, a girl telling me it looked funny or weird (even American girls...).
4 months ago, when my son was born in Germany, the German Dr. asked us if we wanted him cut (he actually asked before the c-section) and without having discussed this previously, my wife and I (both venezuelans) said No.
Probably, for most of the US Population, a cut one is "normal" since it is the norm of what they see and misinformation vilifies those who are uncut as "dirty, smegma-ridden, weird-looking".
People, when will you lean that being different does NOT equal being evil or inferior or whatever?
My brother was born in the US and was CUT without even asking my parents. We are three brothers and he is the only one cut.
Probably part of the American Dream
4 months ago, when my son was born in Germany, the German Dr. asked us if we wanted him cut (he actually asked before the c-section) and without having discussed this previously, my wife and I (both venezuelans) said No.
Probably, for most of the US Population, a cut one is "normal" since it is the norm of what they see and misinformation vilifies those who are uncut as "dirty, smegma-ridden, weird-looking".
People, when will you lean that being different does NOT equal being evil or inferior or whatever?
My brother was born in the US and was CUT without even asking my parents. We are three brothers and he is the only one cut.
Probably part of the American Dream
Mandinka2
New member
BrothaBill said:
Are their studies to back this up ? Infants cannot feel pain... so you are saying all post-birth infants should undergo surgery without anaesthesia ? You are saying that shock caused by trauma is impossible. Colour stimuli to a colour blind person ? That effect would be zero ... so you are effectively saying that the usual mechanisms by which we identify pain response in an adult are inappropriate and therefore the child's responses are entirely random. That seems to be contradicted not only by intuition (Zen like) but vast amounts of evidence from most parents - kid falls - kid starts to cry - absolutely bizarre ideas but I'd love to read studies presenting evidence for the inability of the child to register pain. Genuinely
How does one objectively measure pain if not by pain response ? Genuinely interested.BrothaBill said:
CrazyRussian
Banned
Guys this is totally unrelated to circumcision; but surely I'm not the only one who hates it when people preface an argument with "so you're saying that" or "what you're saying is...". Usually, the person making the argument gets your words, contorts them to the highest extreme, and spits them back out at you.
Bob: "I don't think you should drink that beer, Jim"
Jim: "OK, so you're saying that if I was to drink this beer, something would happen?"
Bob: "Not necesarilly but who knows...we have to drive home, and you could get into a car accident"
Jim: "Wait, so you're saying that everyone who drinks and drives gets into an accident?"
Bob: "No, I'm just saying that it greatly increases you chances to crash"
Jim: "So you're saying that I can't handle alcohol? Or are you saying that I'm a bad driver"
Bob: "Neither, you'd just be safer off not drinking that beer. It impairs your ability to drive, even if it only causes an accident 1% of the itme"
Jim: "OK...so are you saying that if I drove 100 times drunk, I'd HAVE to crash once? I've driven drunk 400 times, and nothing's happened."
By this time the argument has become a moronic yousaid/Isaid/hesaid/shesaid shoutfest in which nothing productive can be said or done. I think that a different "technique" can be employed when arguing a point and that generally "wait, are you saying that..." should be avoided.
Sorry, had to get that off my shoulders...God I hate that damn line.
Bob: "I don't think you should drink that beer, Jim"
Jim: "OK, so you're saying that if I was to drink this beer, something would happen?"
Bob: "Not necesarilly but who knows...we have to drive home, and you could get into a car accident"
Jim: "Wait, so you're saying that everyone who drinks and drives gets into an accident?"
Bob: "No, I'm just saying that it greatly increases you chances to crash"
Jim: "So you're saying that I can't handle alcohol? Or are you saying that I'm a bad driver"
Bob: "Neither, you'd just be safer off not drinking that beer. It impairs your ability to drive, even if it only causes an accident 1% of the itme"
Jim: "OK...so are you saying that if I drove 100 times drunk, I'd HAVE to crash once? I've driven drunk 400 times, and nothing's happened."
By this time the argument has become a moronic yousaid/Isaid/hesaid/shesaid shoutfest in which nothing productive can be said or done. I think that a different "technique" can be employed when arguing a point and that generally "wait, are you saying that..." should be avoided.
Sorry, had to get that off my shoulders...God I hate that damn line.
Fast Twitch Fiber
New member
This is hilarious!!! 17 pages on a penis thread and it has nothing to do with guys bragging about how they have 12 inches either!
B
BrothaBill
Guest
What do doctors do with foreskins after the circumcisions?
They sell them to AAP for chewing gum, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
They sell them to AAP for chewing gum, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Lestat said:
I think I covered this with ulter, as someone that studied psych you should know that the baby has a tabula rasa and they have no reference or attachment to assign to the lil electrical impulses conveyed to the empty blank slate of a mind. They simply register on a voltometer as minute electron transfers from the nerve endings. They dont mean anything to them as they dont know what pain is. As a cognitive researcher I can pick apart any junk science study that says they can measure the pain of an infant, it simply is impossible, junk studies only measure observers opinions of what the pain is that the infant is feeling, its their perception those studies measure. Its crazy the junk that people throw up on this subject and used to bolster an untrue biased position. The lasting effects on the psyche is even farther afield from the notion of an infants pain. There is absolutely no way using psyche research to make such a statement. It simply cannot be studied. Give me an example of how you can design an experiment or study that could measure that. It simply is impossible and I have experience with setting up real world cognitive studies that have been published, Im telling you that its impossible to design one at all. People throw up these bogus studies as if they are the truth but it is just another form of lying using scientific terms. The methodology is utterly ridiculous.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
spongebob said:
At that point it is biological wiring nothing more, its a simple algorhythm based on tiny electrical impulses, these very same impulses are generated naturally invitro, sorta testing the system, the actual conclusion that one can infer is that the growth of the fetus scars the psyche as all of the systems fire and refire in the womb. The very act of being scars the psyche. Does that make sense?
spongebob
New member
BrothaBill said:
yes.
i think your saying it is just a programmed response, at this point learned in the womb.
but i think we need to still define what pain is. right. at what point does an infant begin to feel pain the way that i feel it today?
and would it be difficult to do a foreskin removal procedure in the womb. probably stupid and really not neccesary but im curious.
from your explanation the following can be concluded.BrothaBill said:
You can no more say that it does NOT permanently scar the baby's psyche anymore then I can say it does, since you said yourself it cannot be studied or measures.
Therefor, I would error on the side of caution with my child, and NOT go slicing off pieces of living tissue from my newborn.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
spongebob said:
Yes, we can perform micro open heart surgery in the womb without anesthesia, you certainly can perform a simple procedure as circumcision in the womb and their is no scarring from surgeries when performed in the womb.
Developmental cognitive psychological stages define how consciousness develops in classic accepted literature and research. I dont have off the top of my head when "theories" of consciousness of pain as we might interpret it form but I do know that it doesnt exist in classic thought at the time a circumcision is performed. Arguing with that is arguing against the body of validated research, people can throw out a single opinion against it but peer accepted studies can throw water on those claims. The act of one person screaming into the woods their opinion does not mean that it is true, but Im sure some will do that with junk science to back it up.
Defining pain, how do you define what a color looks like? What exactly is it? What is color in the mind of a colorblind person. What is the pain of the electrical signals sent from leg trauma to a paralyzed person from birth. You see if the person has never felt sensory information, it doesnt exist in their reality. They have no reference, no attachment to it, it simply doesnt exist, never did, a person looking at injured leg can say that looks painful, but if that leg is attached to a paralyzed person with no sensory information moving up the spinal cord to the brain then that is incorrect, it is not painful, it is not true in reality except in the mind of the person who attributes the notion of pain to what an injured leg looks like. All of this is created by the mind, sensory information is just an interface with this ooze that surrounds us, there are no such things as color, corners, right angles, all of it is just a fabrication of the mind. Its simple sensory and perception of electrical impulses that we assign certain meanings to. At birth you come in with a Tabula Rasa or a blank slate. The empty mind has not yet defined the variables as to what to assign the base electrical impulses, that comes later. The most traumatic experience in that period is the process of being born. All of the sensory information relays is activated as it is suddenly thrust into a completely new environment. One could argue that the act of being born scars the psyche. In fact, all experiences good or bad scar the psyche, each experience in life leaves an indelible impression. You see, it boils down to how you define things. If you look at screaming of a baby, the definition of what the baby is going through is created in your mind, not the baby's mind. Thats why when people try and measure the babys' perception of pain what they are actually measuring is the researcher's perception of the infant's level of pain. That is why we conduct double blind studies, so that the bias and perception of the researcher isnt measured. IT simply Cannot be done with an infant so stating the level of pain an infant feels and what it exists in their mind is an impossibility. Anyone that puts up a junk science study that says it can, I can easily pick apart, it quite simply is impossible to do so. Pain as we know it does not exist in the mind of an infant yet, the attachments and references havent been formed yet, they are still just base electrical impulses generated by biochemical reactions along biological structures. Dont get me started on figures of light playing out in our minds.
Do you remember what happened to Socrates?
scriptfactory
New member
Awesome post, man.BrothaBill said:
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Lestat said:
You are correct, and that is my point, only its up to the parent to decide. But making a stand against society alone is the parent's issue in their own mind and making a decision to make them different b/c they want to make change in the world is a selfserving act. WHen making stands against societal norms, lets leave the children out of it. If you approach it from the perspective that you have stated as to not wanting to cause the unnecessary injury or pain then that makes more sense. But, one can deduce that the infant does not feel pain through deductive reasoning and thought which ultimately can be dismissed as well. Like Ive stated previously in Descartes discourse on method, you can doubt everything except for the fact that there is a doubter, then you discover the innate ideas that are there. What are innate ideas, things that are present and real in the mind without ever observing them. Things like a perfect circle, its never been seen but yet we know what it is innately, a straight line, we know what it is but have never seen one, perfect justice etc...The ultimate innate idea is God, something present in every single human no matter where they are born or what they are exposed to. SO God is universal. The definition of Rationalism flows from that. Im not going to go into the antithesis of rationalism with British Empiricist Locke but self is the only truth that can be had.
The truth of the reality of pain can thusly be stated that it exists as yes, no, always, never and both by deductive reasoning. It is the idea of what is the truth and the philosophies of life that one adheres to.
The question was raised: "If a man alone in the woods speaks, and his
wife cannot hear him, is he still wrong?"
I have considered this question in light of the principles of Modern
Physics and offer my thesis.
In the year 1900 Max Planck discovered that the energy of light is
quantified. In 1905 Albert Einstein used Planck's Constant to write the
theory of the Photoelectric Effect, that light behaves as a particle
when it comes to energy transfer. Louis de Broglie proposed that
particles can have a wave nature and this fact was later verified.
These discoveries led Neils Bohr to propose a radical theory of the
atom, which was partially successful in explaining the emission spectra
of the hydrogen atom. Neils Bohr was compelled to introduce the
Principle of "Complementarity," that light is both a particle and a
wave.
The modern theories were extended when Max Born showed that the
distribution of energy was a function of probability. Further, Warner
Heisenberg wrote the Principle of Uncertainty, which says that it is
impossible to determine the exact location of an electron and the vector
direction of its momentum at the same time.
This was followed with the master stroke penned by Erwin Schrodinger.
Using the "Psi function" of Quantum Mechanics, Schrodinger could map the
"wave field" of any particle, thus giving us a theoretical explanation
for the structure of an atom and the entire periodic table of the
elements.
The Quantum mechanics predicts that a wave of a single frequency would
stretch out to infinite proportions, the superposition of a narrow range
of frequencies produces a standing wave function which can be localized
to a much more precise location. Thus the electron and its position
within an atom becomes a cloud of probability.
From this I infer that there are such states as being right and being
wrong, within certain parameters of uncertainty. Applying the Psi
function, the more vague the statement of the man the greater the
probability of him being correct. The narrower and more specific his
utterance the greater the likelihood of his being wrong.
Also, the Principle of Complementarity assures us that if a man alone in
the woods speaks, and his wife can not hear him, he is BOTH right and
wrong until he comes out of the woods.
In the analogy of Schrodinger's Cat, the cat in the box is both dead and
alive until someone opens the lid. The act of observing the phenomenon
determines the outcome.
Thus, the inevitable conclusion is that it doesn't matter what the man
says only his wife can determine whether or not he is correct.
FOR THOSE WHO dont know the Famous Schrodinger's cat in the box thought experiment paradox.
Schrödinger's cat is a famous illustration of the principle in quantum theory of superposition, proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935. Schrödinger's cat serves to demonstrate the apparent conflict between what quantum theory tells us is true about the nature and behavior of matter on the microscopic level and what we observe to be true about the nature and behavior of matter on the macroscopic level.
Here's Schrödinger's (theoretical) experiment: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.
We know that superposition actually occurs at the subatomic level, because there are observable effects of interference, in which a single particle is demonstrated to be in multiple locations simultaneously. What that fact implies about the nature of reality on the observable level (cats, for example, as opposed to electrons) is one of the stickiest areas of quantum physics. Schrödinger himself is rumored to have said, later in life, that he wished he had never met that cat
U
Ulcasterdropout
Guest
So ,when can the infant feel pain?
Even if it can be done painlessly, doesn't mean it should be lopped off.
Even if it can be done painlessly, doesn't mean it should be lopped off.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
scriptfactory said:
Thanks, but less not be too obvious that you are me as Im logged in as you in Mozilla as you and internet explorer as Brothabill. LOL
scriptfactory
New member
Sorry. I forgot we have to keep it on the downlow...BrothaBill said:
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Ulcasterdropout said:
Exactly, thats why Ive stated that I have no position on circumcision, I simply dont care. Its up to the parent and what they decide for their child. That simple as Ive stated, its done for aesthetic reasons only, there is nothing more to this argument. Any arguments that pro or con should be limited to societal norms but people kept throwing words such as barbaric, Im just trying to keep the discussion honest, thats all. An exercise in thought is all this thread is. Im actually surprised how well in turned out. Props to Lestat. It boils down to parents rights and what they decide for their child
Mr. dB said:
Haa!! It only makes us last longer.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
spongebob said:
Yes, it really is that simple sometimes, history records he ended up dead.
spongebob
New member
BrothaBill said:
just for space saving purposes i edit the majority of your fine post sir.
so, we can not determine the time that an infant starts to associate pain as we percieve it. understandable and we'll conclude that it is not at the time of the circ.
i understand that these are merely words and definitions can be a matter of perspective i guess. but we can use reference to help us define terminology right. if we both look at a set of colors, we can both pick out the green from the red. if a blind man does not see the green does that mean it does not exist, for him yes, well maybe i should ask that. ill be directed to the cat in the box. which i understand. if we both stick a toothpick in our eye, we both descibe the same sensation right. we can even differentiate between various pains and degree of pains.
Lestat said:
Uncut guys probably blow their loads in mere seconds.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
Lestat said:
Yeah, youre right, I deleted it, if they want to see it they can search my postings from last spring
Mandinka2 said:
Hey dude you never emailed me the alleged proof that she wasn't who she said she was. If you did, I never got it.
B
BrothaBill
Guest
spongebob said:
If we both stick a toothpic in our eye it is impossible to describe the "same" sensation. People have different pain tolerances, perceptions etc... You cannot describe the same pain. You can "relate" the same notion of what it feels like but its not the same, there is absolutely no way to do that. Pain is just a fabrication of the mind dude. Its not "real", it is a hallucination using an apt analogous definition, figures of light playing out in the mind dude. The mind creates what is known as "reality", it is never the same between two individuals, not even close. There are relations that one can communicate to another, but its the other person who creates the figures of light that plays out in "his" mind and the creates "his" reality. Each of us is the "Creator". Hence, the Creator can never die, we cannot die and our psyche lives on through Samsara. No such thing as death silly, remember, its illogical.
I love the maturity level of some of the posts in this thread. 
Just a thought...
Just a thought...
spongebob
New member
BrothaBill said:
i know, that why i said we reference it, we can at least do that right. just reference it a little bit.
if i took you and your boyfriend on this thread, lestat and put you in seperate rooms and asked each one what its like to get the other ones penis stuck in your ass. wouldnt i get a very similar response.............small prick.
Ulcasterdropout said:Brotha, you have crucial insight into the medical field, that I do not...I can only reply with atricles that you can cut down. You have points, but it would take me till 4 in the morning to validate them.
If this was a court, the opinion of the credited doctor would supercede that of the anonymous chat room poster (you). You could be a diesel mechanic from Tulsa for all I know
So I'll drop the premise of if a child can feel/register pain that recent from birth, purely on the point that I don't have enough information to proceed, and I can't except your information expeditously to concure or dispute.
I've never heard these points till now....
But I wonder if they have any recollection of that pain after they've grown up.
CrazyRussian said:
It's kind of amazing to think that an uncircumsized penis with it's foreskin is the male equivalent of a clitoris with it's hood.
Amazing. Just.....biologically.......amazing.
scriptfactory
New member
That is interesting! Does the memory of pain become traumatic after the infant has established what pain is? Judging from the way I remember pain I would say no.hanselthecaretaker said:
scriptfactory
New member
You are right. I phrased the question wrong. It should be:spongebob said:
Does the memory of an experience that involves the stimuli that can be interpreted as pain become traumatic after the infant has established what pain is?
Eringobraugh
New member
scriptfactory said:
Im not sure, you'd think that so many things are traumatic to a newborn that this would just be one out of many and theyd soon forget it. I have no idea, I dont think anyone can
scriptfactory
New member
There has to be some kind of (noninvasive) machine that can tap into a childs nervous system and settle this once and for all. And if there isn't a machine like that they need to invent one. Dang.
U
Ulcasterdropout
Guest
True. And it can be worse. Of all the porn I've seen. I've never seen a circ scar as bad as mine. It's a large black ringMr. dB said:
B
BrothaBill
Guest
spongebob said:
That reminds me of Sherman and Dr Peabody, "Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to 1492.."
SpaceDragon is crrrrrrrraaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyy!!!! The Dude has like thirty flipping page thread, and they are LONG posts!! I could only read like the first two pages, actually just the first page and then I read that one time the last page and told him how fucked up he is, dude that's definitely not me!!
Similar threads
