I realized I was circumcised for the first time today. Despite living in America I was largely ignorant to this and thought I was normal among all males. In short, it was partly misinterpretation of the pictures and secondly deluding myself not to look further into it. I was always glad I wasn't circumcised because I heard all the bad things I heard about it.
I've been feeling very distraught to say the least and not functioning properly for pretty much the entire day. I feel violated, abused, and am very pissed off. I will never experience what intercourse was meant to feel like because of this. It cuts out a substantial number of penile nerves (10 to 20 thousand I think) . I feel sad for all the people (primarily Americans it seems) who have this and will never know what real sex feels because of this crap. Apparently this was started by some anti-masturbation/religious dogma.
Also, I saw a news report on MSNBC today about the CDC's potential to start 'urging' Americans to do this which infuriates me even more that this is being advocated. I'm sorry, I do not think medical 'benefits' justify doing this against an infant's will. Could someone give me a good explanation why there isn't an out roar about this?
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
After reading your comments and reading wiki's page on the subject, you don't have to worry about it. Have you asked your parents why they decided this for you. This was done to me as well, and it never bothered me. my parents chose it because of health benefits.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Spiderboy4 at High Light Studios
"That's what the Internet's for, slandering others anonymously" - Banky Edwards
There is nothing wrong with being circumsized. I was more for religous reason's than health reasons. my son is as well only with him i did it the proper way.
I have no problem with intercourse nor the feeling of intercourse this is a false presumption. I enjoy it just fine.
Some people are in an out roar about it. others are not. The fact that people consider this genital mutilation is well rather absurd.
if done properly and correctly it is just suppose to be the small flap of skin near the top. the rest of it stays in tact.
yes there are some health issues involved but not if you wash yourself properly.
non-circumsized ones can carry more bateria is not washed properly or correctly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Circumcision makes sex suck? What WHAT? I've never, EVER not enjoyed sex. That is positively absurd.
Also, your reaction seems kind of... over the top. By a mile. Its not like the chopped a few inches off the top. Moral of the story: Unless you actually DONT enjoy sex, be quiet and be happy that you can last longer in bed because its not overstimulating
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I've officially quit magic. Don't like the crap that WotC's been taking on us.
Yes, most Americans are circumcised. No, it's not a bad thing.
It's pretty much healthier that way, actually, and that's the main reason people do it. My father is a doctor and he's done it. I don't think I'll ever do it, since I grew up with my cap on and my religion doesn't demand it. But I agree, it should be done only if the man agrees 100%. Like in Nip/Tuck's first episode: the son BEGGED to be circumcised but the surgeon father vehemently refused.XD I think it would feel extremely uncomfortable, but I can definitely see its benefits.
Cheer up about it, man. You're not weird. I heard many girls dislike foreskins... I don't know what you're complaining about.XD
I post on a sex dedicated site. This topic comes up alot. I have yet to hear a testimony from a man, who grew up uncircumsized, and then got circumsized as an adult, and regretted it. I've always seen them say sex felt better, cleanliness felt better. It was just better overall. I mean, what other reason would there to think it was bad, if it decreased your pleasure?
Theres no reason to worry man, your not missing out on anything. Take it from grown men who have experienced both sides, it does not decrease your pleasure whatsoever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INTO THE RAY OF THE SUN, MARCH OUR HERO, HUNTING THE DARKLORD, REBORN FROM THE BLOOD OF HIS GOD... HIS GOD... THE WARMASTER KRON.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
I wonder if the guys here would feel the same if they knew what they were missing, who knows. I've read the stories of guys who did it as adults and their sexual pleasure drops dramatically and saw people comparing it to vision without color and such.
Regardless of whether I am overreacting or not, this is clearly a decision older males who are ABLE to consent should make the choice because I know I sure as hell would not have consented. I realize it's more difficult to do as an adult but that's beside the point as this shouldn't be happening to infants.
Ultimately, I don't see this surgery as necessary seeing as how 85% of males worldwide seem to managed and our aids rate is through the roof despite STDs being less likely to spread apparently. I don't see evolution selecting for us to have something if it's better off for us to routinely have it cut off, especially foreskin being related to a reproductive organ. Also, I hate how the terms circumcised and uncircumcised are used here as if 'circumcised' is normal. Uncircumcised is the natural state and it's what nature intended us to use for intercourse yet culture spins it around with these terms to seem as if it's abnormal when in fact we're the ones who are different.
I'm sure people are going to laugh at me and ride me off as ridiculous but whatever. My previous feelings about 'something not being quite right' seem to be true and I'm sure there's something wiring in our brain that on some level lets us know this isn't what sex is supposed to be. I guess there's not really much else to say. Myself and others who got screwed are **** out of luck I guess.
i think this card is Freakin' awesome just imagine zoo with this even on the draw u flex "Nutz" any mana drawing the extra card u can pitch and turning up the gas on tempo and it still taps for mana easily a 3 of most likely a 4 of
I guess virgins could feel the same way about being **** out of luck.
I'm short. I wish I was taller. Nature is cruel sometimes. It's just a matter of us getting used to the way we are and move on with our lives doing the best we can.
Some people are smart, others are athletic, we are all different. There's not much point in wishing to be different. We all experience different things throughout our lives and we all have different talents, personalities, and tastes. What nature intended was for you (everyone) to be comfortable with how and who you are and live with it. Many things happen that may screw you permanently and make you regret actions or inactions (I wish I exercised more so I could be taller, things like that), but life goes on the way it is. Nature also intended for us to adapt, so that's what I'd recommend doing. We can all fit somewhere (mostly since you're suggesting nature is supposed to fix itself). We all eventually find our niche, despite our seemingly unfair cosmical disabilities. People with Down Syndrome, for example, can accomplish great things and prove they're capable people. No matter how hard we have it, we can all overcome our circumstances.
Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people are displaying such a cavalier attitude here. Does no one but the OP think that the practice of cutting off bits of babies might call for a bit more defense than "Meh, it's not so bad"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
male is done for health reasons with is a lot different then female which is done to deprive them of sexual gratification and to be demeaning to them
male is not mutation and female is
also to the OP, your so pissed off about "what your missing out on" yet there is no way for you to know. sex with out foreskin is fine and feels good regardless. just use what you got and be glad you dont have to clean your part every time you take a piss.
i dont know about you but i piss more than i have sex so the Convenience of having it more clean down there out weighs the con of "not having sex feel right" when in actuality it feels fine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Current Fallen Angel (Anson Maddocks art) Count:449!!!
The second study is pretty convincing. 4000 men, half of which were circumcised first and half circumcised 2 years later. Sexual function was just about the same. Adult circumcision seems to do very little.
Frankly, I'm surprised that so many people are displaying such a cavalier attitude here. Does no one but the OP think that the practice of cutting off bits of babies might call for a bit more defense than "Meh, it's not so bad"?
While I agree that the cavalier attitude isn't necessarily called for in this instance, I do think the "they can't consent" is a bit of a stretch as an argument against. babies also cannot consent to vaccinations and those are given as well. I would wager that the vast majority of circumcisions performed in the US are done for health benfits rather than relgious reasons, making the vaccination point directly applicable.
Its a calculated risk. There is a very minimal risk of negative side effects for a much larger potential gain. I'm not saying that a parent who doesn't have their son circumcised is a bad parent, but I would argue that its not some horrendous act of violation like the OP is making it out to be.
In sum, if done for the medical benefits I don't see anything unethical or bad about having your son circumcised as an infant.
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[13][14]
So it appears to be at least minimally beneficial (while not as wildly amazing as some sources suggest it is also not as totally ineffective as other soruces suggest).
That there is an important difference between a cosmetic procedure and a medically necessary procedure should not be difficult to grasp. The infant's inability to give consent matters precisely because circumcision is so pointless. Your logic only holds if you consider cosmetic body modification to be just any old thing.
The only issue I have with this statement is the bolded part. It appears from everything I've read that there are a few definite (small) health benefits and some sepculated larger health benefits. So it wouldn't be a "cosmetic" surgery, but at the same time its obviously not a "necessary" surgery. Similar to a vaccine. (Although admittedly not as proven either way yet -- not sure why since its been around longer)
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[13][14]
In other words, if you wear a condom and you and your potential partners get tested regularly, the protection from being circumcised is dwarfed by other preventative measures. It's like saying we could reduce the incidence of skin cancer by a minimal amount if we all dyed our hair jet black. Or we could reduce it by a much greater amount if we wore hats and put on sunscreen. Let's not go crazy and turn all blonde babies into brunettes when we can simply give junior a cap.
Similarly, there are studies that show circumcision reduces the incidence of certain infections or cancer, but proper hygiene negates these effects.
It's a practice that predates clean running water, daily showers/bath, and condoms. Now that we have access to all these things, there's really no reason to continue the practice.
Essentially I'm asking for you to provide reasoning for why cutting a child's hair is moral when circumcising them isn't, without referencing anything that isn't the child's consent in relation to that action.
It's painful, useless, and unnatural.
So we should ask a child's consent before cutting their hair? Before feeding them pear-flavoured compot?
Obviously, hair will grow back, where as foreskin, to the best of my knowledge...
does not.
Also, the pear-flavoured compot will exit the body at one point or another, leaving no lasting effect.
As BS has said before, cutting off the skin of an especially sensitive organ of a child seems rather barbaric and gruesome. The onus should be on the supporters of practice why it is at all necessary or useful. I can see a argument for cultural inertia. That's about it. The health benefits in developed countries are insignificant enough.
Essentially I'm asking for you to provide reasoning for why cutting a child's hair is moral when circumcising them isn't, without referencing anything that isn't the child's consent in relation to that action.
Easy. A hair cut is only for 2 months at most. A circumcision is for a lifetime.
Circumcision should probably be fazed out. The health benefits aren't that significant and to surgery is more drastic than some of you make it out to be. It's a bid deal and it's irreversible. For me, surgery is almost always a last resort solution. It shouldn't be used lightly for something that is not life-threatening and only with incremental benefits.
Circumcision is not completely immoral, but the child should have a choice for such important decisions and should be able to experience things as nature intended. Don't fix what isn't broken.
I repeat myself: if you want to set up the consent of the child as the moral measure of seemingly inane action, tell me why cutting a child's hair is moral using moral language related wholly to the consent of that child. If you do not, you undermine your own argument.
Please stop with the irrational arguments. Parents or caretakers are morally obligated to make minor decisions for their children but the children should ultimately make the important, lifestyle decisions for themselves. I'm not going to establish an arbitrary scale but both you and I know that the decision to put your child on antidepressants and the decision whether to cut their hair is not the same. Parents are morally bound from making many important decisions for their child unless it is (1) urgent, (2) they are certain it is to the child's best interest, and (3) they know that their child would make the same decision for themselves given they were a mature adult.
Also, an issue with circumcision is that a child may always make the decision to become circumcised as an adult given they were uncircumcised. A child may not get "uncircumcised".
Reports about the negative effects of circumcision are conflicting at best. There seems to be no consensus on circumcision other than that while it may cause loss of sexual pleasure, it may also give health benefits.
People don't go removing their tonsils because it "may" give health benefits. Again, I assert the solemnity of surgery. It's taboo to have surgery for every random, small incident; hence, opposition to procedures such as plastic surgery.
I think the OP's problem is psychological and not physical. They feel damaged because they feel like a piece of them is (literally) missing, even though missing said piece isn't actually harming their life.
I have talked with people about this, and the best reason anybody can ever give for actually wanting to snip their (generally hypothetical) sons is that they would not want them to be made fun of for looking different. Seriously? Come on now. There is no GOOD (read that as religion not being a good reason) reason to disfigure a baby's happy bits. It is not a health issue if you teach the kid to wash themselves properly. Circumcision DOES make sex less pleasant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Everything is true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense. Repeat this 666 times and you will reach enlightenment.
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've been feeling very distraught to say the least and not functioning properly for pretty much the entire day. I feel violated, abused, and am very pissed off. I will never experience what intercourse was meant to feel like because of this. It cuts out a substantial number of penile nerves (10 to 20 thousand I think) . I feel sad for all the people (primarily Americans it seems) who have this and will never know what real sex feels because of this crap. Apparently this was started by some anti-masturbation/religious dogma.
Also, I saw a news report on MSNBC today about the CDC's potential to start 'urging' Americans to do this which infuriates me even more that this is being advocated. I'm sorry, I do not think medical 'benefits' justify doing this against an infant's will. Could someone give me a good explanation why there isn't an out roar about this?
Thanks to Spiderboy4 at High Light Studios
"That's what the Internet's for, slandering others anonymously" - Banky Edwards
Haves/Wants
I have no problem with intercourse nor the feeling of intercourse this is a false presumption. I enjoy it just fine.
Some people are in an out roar about it. others are not. The fact that people consider this genital mutilation is well rather absurd.
if done properly and correctly it is just suppose to be the small flap of skin near the top. the rest of it stays in tact.
yes there are some health issues involved but not if you wash yourself properly.
non-circumsized ones can carry more bateria is not washed properly or correctly.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Also, your reaction seems kind of... over the top. By a mile. Its not like the chopped a few inches off the top. Moral of the story: Unless you actually DONT enjoy sex, be quiet and be happy that you can last longer in bed because its not overstimulating
It's pretty much healthier that way, actually, and that's the main reason people do it. My father is a doctor and he's done it. I don't think I'll ever do it, since I grew up with my cap on and my religion doesn't demand it. But I agree, it should be done only if the man agrees 100%. Like in Nip/Tuck's first episode: the son BEGGED to be circumcised but the surgeon father vehemently refused.XD I think it would feel extremely uncomfortable, but I can definitely see its benefits.
Cheer up about it, man. You're not weird. I heard many girls dislike foreskins... I don't know what you're complaining about.XD
I like 4/4s for 7.
Theres no reason to worry man, your not missing out on anything. Take it from grown men who have experienced both sides, it does not decrease your pleasure whatsoever.
RIDE FOR THE FALL OF HIS POWER FIGHTING THE STORM, THE ROAR OF THE THUNDER, ALLY OF THE SUN AND THE MOON... GREAT SWORDMASTER RULE!
Regardless of whether I am overreacting or not, this is clearly a decision older males who are ABLE to consent should make the choice because I know I sure as hell would not have consented. I realize it's more difficult to do as an adult but that's beside the point as this shouldn't be happening to infants.
Ultimately, I don't see this surgery as necessary seeing as how 85% of males worldwide seem to managed and our aids rate is through the roof despite STDs being less likely to spread apparently. I don't see evolution selecting for us to have something if it's better off for us to routinely have it cut off, especially foreskin being related to a reproductive organ. Also, I hate how the terms circumcised and uncircumcised are used here as if 'circumcised' is normal. Uncircumcised is the natural state and it's what nature intended us to use for intercourse yet culture spins it around with these terms to seem as if it's abnormal when in fact we're the ones who are different.
I'm sure people are going to laugh at me and ride me off as ridiculous but whatever. My previous feelings about 'something not being quite right' seem to be true and I'm sure there's something wiring in our brain that on some level lets us know this isn't what sex is supposed to be. I guess there's not really much else to say. Myself and others who got screwed are **** out of luck I guess.
If not, it seems odd that you're so vehement about culture and naturalness and yet you only stop at your *****.
I'm short. I wish I was taller. Nature is cruel sometimes. It's just a matter of us getting used to the way we are and move on with our lives doing the best we can.
Some people are smart, others are athletic, we are all different. There's not much point in wishing to be different. We all experience different things throughout our lives and we all have different talents, personalities, and tastes. What nature intended was for you (everyone) to be comfortable with how and who you are and live with it. Many things happen that may screw you permanently and make you regret actions or inactions (I wish I exercised more so I could be taller, things like that), but life goes on the way it is. Nature also intended for us to adapt, so that's what I'd recommend doing. We can all fit somewhere (mostly since you're suggesting nature is supposed to fix itself). We all eventually find our niche, despite our seemingly unfair cosmical disabilities. People with Down Syndrome, for example, can accomplish great things and prove they're capable people. No matter how hard we have it, we can all overcome our circumstances.
I like 4/4s for 7.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Or are we talking about babies being mutilated against their will being a bad thing?
male is not mutation and female is
also to the OP, your so pissed off about "what your missing out on" yet there is no way for you to know. sex with out foreskin is fine and feels good regardless. just use what you got and be glad you dont have to clean your part every time you take a piss.
i dont know about you but i piss more than i have sex so the Convenience of having it more clean down there out weighs the con of "not having sex feel right" when in actuality it feels fine.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119420541/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The second study is pretty convincing. 4000 men, half of which were circumcised first and half circumcised 2 years later. Sexual function was just about the same. Adult circumcision seems to do very little.
While I agree that the cavalier attitude isn't necessarily called for in this instance, I do think the "they can't consent" is a bit of a stretch as an argument against. babies also cannot consent to vaccinations and those are given as well. I would wager that the vast majority of circumcisions performed in the US are done for health benfits rather than relgious reasons, making the vaccination point directly applicable.
Its a calculated risk. There is a very minimal risk of negative side effects for a much larger potential gain. I'm not saying that a parent who doesn't have their son circumcised is a bad parent, but I would argue that its not some horrendous act of violation like the OP is making it out to be.
In sum, if done for the medical benefits I don't see anything unethical or bad about having your son circumcised as an infant.
The wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
The World Health Organization (WHO; 2007), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS; 2007), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2008) state that evidence indicates male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides minimal protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.[13][14]
So it appears to be at least minimally beneficial (while not as wildly amazing as some sources suggest it is also not as totally ineffective as other soruces suggest).
The only issue I have with this statement is the bolded part. It appears from everything I've read that there are a few definite (small) health benefits and some sepculated larger health benefits. So it wouldn't be a "cosmetic" surgery, but at the same time its obviously not a "necessary" surgery. Similar to a vaccine. (Although admittedly not as proven either way yet -- not sure why since its been around longer)
In other words, if you wear a condom and you and your potential partners get tested regularly, the protection from being circumcised is dwarfed by other preventative measures. It's like saying we could reduce the incidence of skin cancer by a minimal amount if we all dyed our hair jet black. Or we could reduce it by a much greater amount if we wore hats and put on sunscreen. Let's not go crazy and turn all blonde babies into brunettes when we can simply give junior a cap.
Similarly, there are studies that show circumcision reduces the incidence of certain infections or cancer, but proper hygiene negates these effects.
It's a practice that predates clean running water, daily showers/bath, and condoms. Now that we have access to all these things, there's really no reason to continue the practice.
It's painful, useless, and unnatural.
Obviously, hair will grow back, where as foreskin, to the best of my knowledge...
does not.
Also, the pear-flavoured compot will exit the body at one point or another, leaving no lasting effect.
As BS has said before, cutting off the skin of an especially sensitive organ of a child seems rather barbaric and gruesome. The onus should be on the supporters of practice why it is at all necessary or useful. I can see a argument for cultural inertia. That's about it. The health benefits in developed countries are insignificant enough.
Easy. A hair cut is only for 2 months at most. A circumcision is for a lifetime.
Circumcision should probably be fazed out. The health benefits aren't that significant and to surgery is more drastic than some of you make it out to be. It's a bid deal and it's irreversible. For me, surgery is almost always a last resort solution. It shouldn't be used lightly for something that is not life-threatening and only with incremental benefits.
Circumcision is not completely immoral, but the child should have a choice for such important decisions and should be able to experience things as nature intended. Don't fix what isn't broken.
Please stop with the irrational arguments. Parents or caretakers are morally obligated to make minor decisions for their children but the children should ultimately make the important, lifestyle decisions for themselves. I'm not going to establish an arbitrary scale but both you and I know that the decision to put your child on antidepressants and the decision whether to cut their hair is not the same. Parents are morally bound from making many important decisions for their child unless it is (1) urgent, (2) they are certain it is to the child's best interest, and (3) they know that their child would make the same decision for themselves given they were a mature adult.
Also, an issue with circumcision is that a child may always make the decision to become circumcised as an adult given they were uncircumcised. A child may not get "uncircumcised".
People don't go removing their tonsils because it "may" give health benefits. Again, I assert the solemnity of surgery. It's taboo to have surgery for every random, small incident; hence, opposition to procedures such as plastic surgery.
Trade Thread
Modern
RWGBurnGWR
GUInfectUG
GRTronRG
UWGifts TronWU
URBGrixis DelverBRU
RGWZooWGR
Legacy
BUWTinFinsWUB
UROmniTellRU
BURTESRUB
GElves!G
GBPSIBG
RGBelcherGR
UBRGWDredgeWGRBU
UBAffinityBU
RBurnR
Vintage
UBGDoomsdayGBU
0Martello Shops0
GElves!G
UBTPSBU
UBelcherU
0Dredge0
In some sense. The only good fnord is a dead fnord.