Circumcision

Circumcision is sick. It is the concept that involves taking typically a newborn baby and mutilating the sexual organ for religious purposes, while there is no positive biological attributes given when mutilating the genitalia, only negative biological attributes are received.

There is also a homosexual-paedophile ritual called metzitzah b'peh in the Judaic religion which involves the rabbi sucking the blood from the recently circumcised penis of a baby boy. This is legal, why? Because religion. Babies have died due to this practice too from receiving disease.

Thinking of circumcision and metzitzah b'peh from a secular and humanistic world perspective, circumcision and metzitzah b'peh is something some sick psycho-maniac would do.

I'm interested in what your thoughts on circumcision are and what I've said, please discuss below.

I can't thing of a single girl I've met that would swallow or even blow an uncircumsized cock, mainly because of

"The un-cut can store sweat and such under the skin and that can turn into nasty-ness"

Yeah that sounds pretty disgusting. Why would anyone do that.

Wanted said:

I can't thing of a single girl I've met that would swallow or even blow an uncircumsized cock, mainly because of

"The un-cut can store sweat and such under the skin and that can turn into nasty-ness"

Click to expand...

Your balls still sweat.. pubes harness sweat.. do you have balls my friend? Lolol

Wanted said:

I can't thing of a single girl I've met that would swallow or even blow an uncircumsized cock, mainly because of

"The un-cut can store sweat and such under the skin and that can turn into nasty-ness"

Click to expand...

A circumcised penis is as clean as an uncircumcised one. However, if you're referring smegma I'd like to inform you that women also produce smegma around their clitoris. Smegma is natural lubricant, it's made to make sex more pleasurable. And smegma can only be seen if the uncircumcised male hasn't washed themselves in a while.

Cann!bal said:

A circumcised penis is as clean as an uncircumcised one. However, if you're referring smegma I'd like to inform you that women also produce smegma around their clitoris. Smegma is natural lubricant, it's made to make sex more pleasurable. And smegma can only be seen if the uncircumcised male hasn't washed themselves in a while.

Click to expand...

Most educated guy I've ever seen debate.

Devise said:

Most educated guy I've ever seen debate.

Click to expand...

The sorrowful thing is some women will reject some men because of their ignorance of uncircumcised penises, despite their potential partner's personality and other attributes.

Those are also the women that later on in life get divorced and complain about being single. Don't know where wanted lives, here, a girl will do any guy if she likes him, some will just do it for the thrill, lol.

@Cann!bal they have a right to reject a man for whatever reason they want.

Wanted said:

@Cann!bal they have a right to reject a man for whatever reason they want.

Click to expand...

When did I ever say otherwise?

Although Metzitzah B'peh is a circumcision ritual, it is practically different compared to circumcision. A religious practitioner sucking the wounded penis of an 8 day baby, enshrined as a matter religious freedom? Are we living in an alternative reality?

However, I am in support of circumcision. The high possibility of an infant contracting herpes will only arise when the circumciser sucks the blood to "cleanse" the circumcision wound. Is the sucking part included in circumcision? No. Some say that it can cause infection and other complications. Those "complications" are mostly a result of either too much or too little skin is removed, which will then require additional surgery.

Circumcision is beneficial and completely ethically sound, because it reduces diseases in the future such as HIV, cervical cancer, syphilis, and chlamydia, according to medical professionals. This indirectly helps the females by reducing their risk of picking up the disease. The most powerful argument for circumcision is the 30% and higher reduction in AIDS rates for those who have had a circumcision. This benefit is higher than safe sex (which should still be practiced) and trial vaccines. Not to mention, it also has socio-sexual benefits, and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. I'm not going to say a circumcised penis is more hygienic. What Cannibal said is true, A circumcised penis is as clean as an uncircumcised one.

EDIT: Last paragraph was cited from debate.org.

Bulldog said:

Although Metzitzah B'peh is a circumcision ritual, it is practically different compared to circumcision. A religious practitioner sucking the wounded penis of an 8 day baby, enshrined as a matter religious freedom? Are we living in an alternative reality?

However, I am in support of circumcision. The high possibility of an infact contracting herpes will only arise when the circumciser sucks the blood to "cleanse" the circumcision wound. Is the sucking part included in circumcision? No. Some say that it can cause infection and other complications. Those "complications" are mostly a result of either too much or too little skin is removed, which will then require additional surgery.

Circumcision is beneficial and completely ethically sound, because it reduces diseases in the future such as HIV, cervical cancer, syphilis, and chlamydia, according to medical professionals. This indirectly helps the females by reducing their risk of picking up the disease. The most powerful argument for circumcision is the 30% and higher reduction in AIDS rates for those who have had a circumcision. This benefit is higher than safe sex (which should still be practiced) and trial vaccines. Not to mention, it also has socio-sexual benefits, and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. I'm not going to say a circumcised penis is more hygienic. What Cannibal said is true, A circumcised penis is as clean as an uncircumcised one.

Click to expand...

Can you provide a source for your claim about it reducing those aforementioned diseases?

Those who don't get circumcised have zero risk of death from surgery, or serious infection or surgical injury during circumcision. Unlike some unfortunate boys who die from circumcision complications every year.

Uncircumcised penises have benefits against disease as well. The foreskin protects the glans from environmental contaminants, abrasion, and drying. The foreskin also contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning. There are also special cells which part of the immune system and help protect the penis from sexual transmitted infections like your aforementioned list, and by cutting the foreskin you'd lose a lot of those cells. Men with foreskin have a lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases. And just like you said, therefore decrease the chance of their partner getting a sexually transmitted infection. Even lower than a circumcised man's partner.

Cutting the foreskin also desensitizes the tip, and lowers sexual pleasure.

EDIT: You plagiarized some paragraph on debate.org practically word for word -.- That's real reliable.

Cann!bal said:

EDIT: You plagiarized some paragraph on debate.org practically word for word -.- That's real reliable.

Click to expand...

Woops, sorry about that. I forgot to add in citations.

Cann!bal said:

Can you provide a source for your claim about it reducing those aforementioned diseases?

Click to expand...

http://www.health.com/health/condition-article/0,,20272051_2,00.html

Cann!bal said:

Those who don't get circumcised have zero risk of death from surgery, or serious infection or surgical injury during circumcision. Unlike some unfortunate boys who die from circumcision complications every year.

Uncircumcised penises have benefits against disease as well. The foreskin protects the glans from environmental contaminants, abrasion, and drying. The foreskin also contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning. There are also special cells which part of the immune system and help protect the penis from sexual transmitted infections like your aforementioned list, and by cutting the foreskin you'd lose a lot of those cells. Men with foreskin have a lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases. And just like you said, therefore decrease the chance of their partner getting a sexually transmitted infection. Even lower than a circumcised man's partner.

Cutting the foreskin also desensitizes the tip, and lowers sexual pleasure.

Click to expand...

Complications arising from circumcision are often minor and easily treated. Like I said, mostly minor bleeding or infection. A study says that the risk of complications from newborn circumcision in U.S. hospitals is estimated to be about 0.2%. Delaying circumcision until boys are 18 years is a bad idea because at that point the procedure is more complex and has a higher rate of complications. It also would deprive boys of circumcisions's benefits during childhood and adolescence. Now unless those boys went through delayed circumcision, can you provide a source on those "unfortunate" deaths from circumcision complications?

Uncircumcised boys has a higher risk of urinary tract infections, inflammatory conditions, sexually transmitted infections, genital herpes, genital cancers and HIV.

Moving on to the foreskin:

http://the2x2project.org/making-the-cut-is-it-time-to-put-the-circumcision-debate-to-rest/ said:

It is the ideal environment for bacterial and viral infections to flourish, biologically. Heat and lack of oxygen facilitate the growth of pathogens. The point when the inner foreskin is retracted throughout heterosexual intercourse, for instance, it is laid open to the vaginal secretions of a female partner. In addition, if carrying HIV and any other sexually transmitted infections, this would also easily encourage transmission. A 2009 study demonstrated that the bigger the size of the foreskin, the higher the incidence of HIV in an infected male, emphasizing how it might be a seedbed for viruses.

Click to expand...

Now now, sexual pleasure or health?

Bulldog said:

Complications arising from circumcision are often minor and easily treated. Like I said, mostly minor bleeding or infection. A study says that the risk of complications from newborn circumcision in U.S. hospitals is estimated to be about 0.2%. Delaying circumcision until boys are 18 years is a bad idea because at that point the procedure is more complex and has a higher rate of complications. It also would deprive boys of circumcisions's benefits during childhood and adolescence. Now unless those boys went through delayed circumcision, can you provide a source on those "unfortunate" deaths from circumcision complications?

Click to expand...

http://www.circumcision.org/information.htm said:

The rate of complications occurring in the hospital and during the first year has been documented as high as 38% and includes hemorrhage, infection, surgical injury, and in rare cases, death.

Click to expand...

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html said:

Still, these studies have found approximately 230 baby boys die each year in the U.S. as a result of circumcision surgery. (1) Another study published last week found at least 117 boys die annually from circumcision surgery as it is reported by hospitals. (2) We're not alone in our estimation that there are likely at least twice as many deaths due to circumcision, because of our non-structured and easy-to-cover-up means of infant mortality reporting. But if we are only looking at research-based documentation, we find an average 174 boys die each year with the documented cause being circumcision surgery.

Click to expand...

Bulldog said:

Uncircumcised boys has a higher risk of urinary tract infections, inflammatory conditions, sexually transmitted infections, genital herpes, genital cancers and HIV.

Click to expand...

Some of those can be aided in prevention with daily and thorough cleansing of the penis. Genital cancer, specifically penile, is very rare.

http://www.circumcision.org/information.htm said:

According to the AAP in 1999, "Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to sexually transmitted diseases in general is complex and conflicting. . . . Behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors

Click to expand...

Bulldog said:

Moving on to the foreskin, it is the ideal environment for bacterial and viral infections to flourish, biologically. Heat and lack of oxygen facilitate the growth of pathogens. The point when the inner foreskin is retracted throughout heterosexual intercourse, for instance, it is laid open to the vaginal secretions of a female partner. In addition, if carrying HIV and any other sexually transmitted infections, this would also easily encourage transmission. A 2009 study demonstrated that the bigger the size of the foreskin, the higher the incidence of HIV in an infected male, emphasizing how it might be a seedbed for viruses.

Click to expand...

Refer to my last statements.

Stop plagiarizing word for word, dude. http://the2x2project.org/making-the-cut-is-it-time-to-put-the-circumcision-debate-to-rest/

Bulldog said:

Now now, sexual pleasure or health?

Click to expand...

Obviously health. However, no national medical organization in the world recommends circumcision. Sexual pleasure is a natural benefit of genital integrity.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2009/02/22/clip-the-tip-pointcounterpoint-on-male-circumcision/ said:

Many of the sites that come up such as circumcision.org and cirp.org look to be straightforward information sites but are in fact heavily biased on the anti-side. It’s best to stick with looking at scientific studies and sources which do not have a preset agenda and bias.

Click to expand...

I wonder. Those citations you pointed out look pretty biased on the anti-site to me.

Bulldog said:

I wonder.

Click to expand...

My first citation of theirs is a statistic, the other an educated observation and judgement by another organization which they quoted. Only a slight bias, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Cann!bal said:

Obviously health. However, no national medical organization in the world recommends circumcision. Sexual pleasure is a natural benefit of genital integrity.

Click to expand...

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full said:

A study carried up by the NIH or the National Institute of Health reports that circumcision can prevent a man’s acquiring of HIV by up to 64%.

There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Click to expand...

They do recommend circumcision, even though they're doing so in an indirect manner. There’s no good evidence that circumcised men get less pleasure from sex. Studies have shown little to no difference in sensitivity or sexual satisfaction with circumcision.

SBM said:

Even if there were lowered sensitivity, it might theoretically enhance pleasure by allowing more prolonged intercourse.

Click to expand...

_______

Cann!bal said:

Some of those can be aided in prevention with daily and thorough cleansing of the penis. Genital cancer, specifically penile, is very rare.

Click to expand...

That is, of course, IF an uncircumcised individual has a good cleaning habit.

It is true that penile cancer is rare, but the scientific comparison between both circumcised and uncircumsised males is completely breath taking. Take a look:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/circumcision-what-does-science-say/ said:

The incidence of penile cancer is about 1 in 100,000 in the US. By one estimate, the lifetime risk for an uncircumcised man in the US is 1 in 600. In third world countries where hygiene is poorer and circumcision is less common, penile cancer causes up to 10% or 20% of cancers in men.

Click to expand...

Bulldog said:

They do recommend circumcision, even though they're doing so in an indirect manner.

Click to expand...

They didn't recommend it. They gave statistics that we're supporting it.

Bulldog said:

There’s no good evidence that circumcised men get less pleasure from sex. Studies have shown little to no difference in sensitivity or sexual satisfaction with circumcision.

Click to expand...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102 said:

CONCLUSIONS:

This study confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning. Furthermore, this study shows that a higher percentage of circumcised men experience discomfort or pain and unusual sensations as compared with the uncircumcised population. Before circumcision without medical indication, adult men, and parents considering circumcision of their sons, should be informed of the importance of the foreskin in male sexuality.

Click to expand...

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

The man wouldn't nearly have enough pleasure as their partner, despite the prolonged intercourse.

I believe that these days religion doesn't play as big of a part in circumcision. I think that people just go with it because it's a majority. Kinda like a bandwagon typed thing, but yes, religion plays part in these acts sometimes.

I know that if you don't get circumcised that later on you have to watch your "friend" more to prevent infections and such.

Simple said:

I believe that these days religion doesn't play as big of a part in circumcision. I think that people just go with it because it's a majority. Kinda like a bandwagon typed thing, but yes, religion plays part in these acts sometimes.

Click to expand...

Over 80% of the male population is uncircumcised, and most circumcised males are Muslim and circumcised for a religious purpose.