Circumcision - a serious discussion

[CrazyRussian]

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.

 

[Mr. dB]

OK let's put this "barbaric practice" crap to rest. Surgically removing an unnecesary piece of skin from the penis is not barbaric.

I call it barbaric because of its origins in tribal cultures.

 

[JayC9]

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!

 

[spongebob]

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!

no need to go back. and congratulatons on your penis power. you smell terific!!

 

[spongebob]

I call it barbaric because of its origins in tribal cultures.

i say its not barbaric because its part of modern day culture using more advance techniques. btw. i just put my penis in the mayo jar. sandwich anyone??

 

[JayC9]

no need to go back. and congratulatons on your penis power. you smell terific!!

lol...let me assure you my hygiene is impeccable

 

[pintoca]

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

 

[Mandinka2]

If you call fetal development in the womb "evolutional" then I suppose that could be right. The clitoris and the penis are derived from the same structure. Placental mammalian embryos of both genders start out with the same proto-gonads, sexual differentiation does not occur until a few weeks, at which time the presence of estrogen or testosterone causes those proto-gonads to develop into either female or male genitals. A clitoris is nothing more than an un-developed penis that has not fused with the urethra. The scrotum and the labia are also analogous structures.

That's good and very much part of the anti-circ argument - you cannot be pro-male circ, anti-female circ and consistent.

 

[SoKlueles]

dudes wheres the pics?

 

[Mandinka2]

LMFAO!! Now thats what I was referring to as junk science earlier in the thread, there are so many wrong with that study and what it was trying to measure. I also was going to ask you, since words are variables, what your definition of pain was since if we dont even understand each other's basic terminology then all discussion that flow are moot.

SO I was going to ask you to define the term 'pain'. Try and do so, what is it? Thats the first logical step in a discussion, set the variables to meanings. When I did research the overwhelming amount of work was the statistical analysis of how and what variables we were going to set. I mean we just could write in ebonics a set of criteria to question, we had to have it linked through setup research experiments to confirm validation and specificity.

So the question remains what it PAIN? What I was saying it was was at that point no attachments or frame of reference to know what it means b/c the brain was a tabula rasa or a blank slate, its like color stimuli to a colorblind person. It doesnt exist. The only concept of pain is that of another person and what they put the meaning of it based on their beliefs of what pain is. Clearly completely unrelated to actual truth of what pain is to the infant. Its a simple thought process of someone else. Thats how you have to approach research, what is that you are trying to study, there is no way to study pain perception of an infant, its just not possible, they might as well been reading an astrology book on how to conduct the junk science that you just posted for me. They can NOT even come close to knowing what pain is in an infant b/c at that point in the empty tabula rasa there is no reference to assign the simple electrical signals that flow from the nerve stimulations.

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

That whole article is where science is used to try and shade or bias the truth. Just look at how they assign the word "PAIN", its absolutely hilarious on how they assess the level of pain of the infant. I mean, hilarious, truly junk science classic.

Pain response was measured by monitoring facial expression, duration of crying, blood pressure, and heart rate. In addition, parents and the primary care physician completed a questionnaire regarding their perception of the severity of pain the infant was experiencing.

The studying was measuring the perceptions of the parents and PCPs, not the perception of the child. The other measurements are just as subjective as well if you dig into them, especially the "monitoring of facial expressions", LOL, I real objective way of doing research. This study fails wholly in specificity and validity. Gong!

How does one objectively measure pain if not by pain response ? Genuinely interested.