Yes i view it as totally unneeded bar for medical necessity.
No, i believe parents should ultimately have the choice to decide.
This is a non-issue for me and i have no real opinion.
Popcorn time.
It still doesn't matter. Whether it's not as big a deal as people are making it out to be. It's still something unnecessary, and parents who do it basically take that choice from their children. It doesn't add anything, and you decide something your child should be able to choose for himself. You wouldn't cut any other part of your kid off without their consent. (which they can't really give until 16-18 (depending on where you live, under and over that number)
So it's simple: it isn't necessary, you're removing a part of your child's body without your child having any choice in it, it's bullshit; don't do it.
Urologists are specialists in pathology, not pleasure. I question their place at the top of the specific list we're creating.
Cut American urologist vs Intact European gay guy? Pretty sure I know who knows more about what you can do with a foreskin.
And the other knows more about how much you can bill an insurance company for slicing one off.
You very way might know more than he does about that particular subject. But I bet he knows far more than you do about what the risks and benefits are - from a medical standpoint - than you do. Since, you know, it's kind of his job to do nothing but deal with the Urinary tract and everything that affects it.
I did not attempt to define the specific qualifications for the list, but it started with some troll and Rich disagreeing over the assertion that a foreskin was a disgusting, vaguely malevolent entity that all women should be in favor of amputating lest they be attacked by a confusing penis. (And I'm the one with the weird position?)
Urologists are certainly qualified to discuss the health and care and potential problems with said part of the body (I think...that the foreskin exists in American medical textbooks, not entirely sure), but seeing as our medical experts don't generally list the actual, lifelong loss of said part as a drawback to the procedure, I'm tempted to laugh their evaluations out of the room, and go with the majority of men in the world.
If only.
Last edited by Mnevis; 2014-04-15 at 02:54 AM.
Generally speaking, physicians are first concerned with you living at all, and only next concerned about quality of life. Of course, this is going to vary from physician to physician. On the other hand, there seem to be plenty of circumcised men in this thread alone saying they haven't experienced an extreme loss - including one guy who had it done in his teens, so can compare before and after.
- - - Updated - - -
Nixx, what the hell. You changed your forum avatar. I don't even know you anymore.
Well, I never had a choice. I know intellectually that there are nearly infinite things you don't have a choice about, but that doesn't mean having had part of my penis cut off, before I could do anything but scream, sits well with me.
We've had people who've experienced both post on both sides of the issue:
It's a scientific fact that the part missing is highly sensitive and pleasurable, the most sensitive part in fact. I don't deny that it's a procedure that leaves intact the baseline function (complications and malpractice aside), and though technically I agree the term 'mutilation' fits, I don't have that reaction to my own; it works just fine, and if I'd have managed to live my whole life believing the 'useless flap' propaganda, I'd have no objection to my own circumcision.
To me, it's as if a whole society had decided to slice off the front half of the tongues of their children. Their culture would have a language that worked perfectly well with what they had, so they'd be satisfied that the missing part of the tongue was really quite irrelevant. There would be certain things they couldn't do: stick their tongues out, lick an ice cream cone, use the tongue for foreplay, but they'd have no problem disregarding another culture's exhortations that those things, and the increase in linguistic possibilities, were worth more than their tradition. They'd probably think those things sounded disgusting and dangerous.
I feel like I've been robbed, but I get it, it's just the end of my penis, not the end of the world.
I think a lot of posters are of the opinion that it's unnecessary but not a big enough deal that it should be repressed, maybe that allowing the individual the choice would be preferable given their own personal ethical code. I'm of the opinion that it's unnecessary and the sooner it's gone, the better.
And I do believe that it will be gone from the modern world before too long, even though on most things, I'm a bit of a pessimist.
We let parents make all kinds of decisions for children every day until they are fully adult. Where they go to school, where they live, where they are raised, how they are raised, all thse issues are more likely to be life changing than a circumcision. I'm skeptical of the medical evidence both ways. Seems to hop around quite a bit.
As for sensitivity, given the amount of effort devoted to prolonging climax in men, you'd think having a less sensitive penis would actually be an advantage.
I had it in my 20s and it did not. The sensation changed and there was a period of adjustment, but after that it was about the same pleasure-wise.
A certain percentage of people who are circumcised report reduction of sensation, but I don't think it's that common.
I would not recommend removing the foreskin unless there's a good reason to, but it doesn't cause reduction in sensation most of the time.
- - - Updated - - -
Don't tell them you'll freak them out!
Do I personally? Will just leave that as a non-answer. Really feel that (as a woman) that those matters are guys' business and had I a son I'd personally leave the decision up to the father.Do you support legislating against circumcision?
While woman of certain cultures where it's more prevalent maybe be used to guys having had it done and might prefer it because it's what they're used to, ultimately I don't think we really have a place to have any actual say in that. No more than men should have in matters involving our bodies, it's only fair that respect for bodily matters goes both way and we women just take a step back and watch what happens with this.
That said, good on Finland if they've decided it's a barbaric tradition that's outlived it's welcome.
It really is quite horrible. A child is taken against its will and done damage to, most often resulting in lasting damage and swelling and the possibility of infection. I tend to think of this area in particular as personal and more important than something like an ear lobe don't you?
In the FGM cultures, it's quite often (usually?) the women who propagate it. I don't know whether you're implying that men are the ones cutting the girls in Africa or not...
If someone had, I'd be extremely grateful to whoever said 'NO' to my circumcision, and it's my mother I'm most resentful towards for handing me over. Like I've said in this thread, I try really hard not to fault her for it, given the culture, but the facts on the ground (so to speak) tell me they didn't care what I, the adult man, the owner of the penis in question, might want.
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intac...gnificant.html