Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Should All Boys Be Circumcised?

Recommended Posts

Hang on, so mother nature gives little boys foreskin, and we get the scissors out. It's there for a reason.

Mummies and daddies need to teach their male offspring to wash properly.

Maybe girls should refuse to stick it in their mouths if unclean, that might help with hygene. Though I wouldn't want to give girls any ideas. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HIV incidence over 24 months was 0·66 cases per 100 person-years in the intervention group and 1·33 cases per 100 person-years in the control group - the lancet, 2007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
Exactly. The unneccessary sexual mutilation of children is barbaric and shouldn't be allowed.

It ain't a great start in life is it?

Some guy comes along with a pair of scissors and cuts half yer dick off.

And it's not like you're in a position to protest about it is it? :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's barbaric. Waiting for someone that has had this heinous crime acted upon them at an early age to sue their parents and the doctors that carried it out.

Unless it was done for medical reasons of course. I'm rather fond of Kojak's Roll Neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere idea that an infant should be operated upon / multilated merely because of the POSSIBILITY of problems in later life is horrific.

As someone said elsewhere, there's healthy adult males in the states who are sueing those who mutilated them in the past.

As someone said here - the infant isn't in a position to make an informed judegment, nor protest. Therefore, decency would suggest waiting until the infant has matured enough to decide if they want to keep all their bits or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS to my earlier post:

Just as my daughter was leaving the hospital, another little boy of 5-ish was admitted. The poor little 'snip' boy was still there, still crying about his willy, and since he was wearing only a bandage on it and a vest, it was perfectly obvious to the new patient that dire things had been done to it. The look of horror on that new child's face stayed with me for some time - God knows what must have been going through his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
plus 1 and also the muslim girls

And the other religions that do it. It isn't just islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the other religions that do it. It isn't just islam.

Before you guys knock it too much,the biggest difference was a large increase in the sensitivity and a consequent raising of the intensity of orgasm,it really has to be experienced to be believed.I would have had it done twenty years before if I had known what it would do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Before you guys knock it too much,the biggest difference was a large increase in the sensitivity and a consequent raising of the intensity of orgasm,it really has to be experienced to be believed.I would have had it done twenty years before if I had known what it would do.

But would you approve of it being done to children without their consent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But would you approve of it being done to children without their consent?

Knowing what I do now,and given that my son will stand a pretty big risk of balanitis turning his into a red raw watering can in his forties,probably yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest anorthosite
Knowing what I do now,and given that my son will stand a pretty big risk of balanitis turning his into a red raw watering can in his forties,probably yes.

So you advocate surgery on healthy body parts, risking infection and other complications? Don't forget, this is surgery, and carries a risk. Would you want MRSA down there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone said elsewhere, there's healthy adult males in the states who are sueing those who mutilated them in the past.

Wow, it must be serious if someone in the US is suing someone about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. The unneccessary sexual mutilation of children is barbaric and shouldn't be allowed.

Try changing the thread title from boys to girls - it would be outrageous so all should be banned in the name of equality.

STD's aren't really a problem if people don't sleep around - e.g. Chantelle the 15 year old school bike who didn't get up the duff by Alfie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try changing the thread title from boys to girls - it would be outrageous so all should be banned in the name of equality.

STD's aren't really a problem if people don't sleep around - e.g. Chantelle the 15 year old school bike who didn't get up the duff by Alfie.

Trouble is,they do sleep around.Mrs P's niece just came back from Benidorm,think she just about made double figures for the fortnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. The unneccessary sexual mutilation of children is barbaric and shouldn't be allowed.

Which begs the question:

Why did religious organisations start circumcision ?

We all know the story of Abraham's covenant with God but that aside, what possessed people thousands

of years ago to start doing it ?

Was it merely to highten sexual pleasure or just a 'boy to man' ritual to prove bravery, etc ?

Any theologans on here care to comment ?

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trouble is,they do sleep around.Mrs P's niece just came back from Benidorm,think she just about made double figures for the fortnight.

And she thought nothing of telling her family? Jeez Louise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/he...ed-1687185.html

Could there be other factors at work here like poor willy hygiene / promiscuity etc.... ?

God - or evolution - gave men a foreskin for a reason - to protect the glans from infection and damage.

There are sometimes medical reasons for the removal of foreskin - primarily if the skin's too tight and causes pain during intercourse or masturbation (and, besides, most surgeons opt to "nick" the forekin, making it baggier, as opposed to whopping the whole thing off) - but, as long as men are educated about washing properly, there is little justification in this form of mutilation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the other religions that do it. It isn't just islam.

Religion is used to justify so many vile human acts. I am talking about all religions: Islam, Christianity, the lot.

Pornography has caused far less suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-1

male circumcision != female circumcision

+1

I'm one of them - it's called phimosis, it's fairly common, but often not diagnosed until quite late (i.e. when the sufferer becomes sexually active). Needless to say, adolescent boys tend not to leap at the chance of surgery on their dicks and will generally work around the problem, at the cost of a full sex-life and dignity.

All I can say is that I'm glad we spotted the condition in my son and had him circumcised when he was two.

Well you circumcised him for no reason:

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/

The foreskin is attached to the glans at birth. It separates naturally. The average age it become retractable is 5 to 10 years. So at 2 years of age - non-retractability is very normal. You should have been discouraged from pulling it back too as that creates inelastic scar tissue. Leave well alone is the advice - it requires no care.

Pathological phimosis as opposed to normal, developmental unretractability is rare (about 1-2%) - caused mainly by scar tissue. In adolescence this is normally due to masturbation techniques. Instead of pulling the foreskin back and forth, they either:

a) Thrust against the bed B) rub the top of an erection through clothes - say watching porn at the computer.

This rubbing technique creates scar tissue - which is inelastic. Normal foreskin is pliable and can be stretched easily.

Another factor is that putting pressure on the 3 delicate spongy arteries of the p*nis damages them. Consequently the p*nis does not fill up with blood properly and so do not stretch the skin from the inside out.

So all that needs to be done is rest the p*nis and stop any 'rubbing' masturbation techniques.

In rare cases as happened to the previous poster balanitis causes scar tissue. But from what I have read, there are less invasive options that can cure it without circumcision. Such as steroid cream and anti-biotics.

About Jeremy Lawrence's article. I seem to remember him writing another article on circumcision being a magical panacea to all the world's problems. What an inflammatory and deliberately provocative title for an article might I add!

Instead of taking these studies at face value I'd encourage people to look at the critical commentaries around the net.

For instance: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/...19/5/1006#23937

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

He says "provide children with protection against 3 diseases" as if it is total protection. They are all sexually transmitted diseases too. Since when do infants engage in sexual activity? What happened to "First do no harm"?

The foreskin has a function.

Please see this: Cold, Taylor, The Prepuce , BJU International, 1999

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119091403/issue

The foreskin contains the most nerves in the p*nis.

The foreskin protects the glans. Without it, the glans dries out. It rubs on clothes making the skin keratinize and harden.

The foreskin retains moisture during sexual activity. See: http://xrl.us/foreskinfunctions (Link - not safe for work - explicit)

The foreskin's gliding effect is close to essential in masturbation and is helpful in foreplay

It also makes insertion of the p*nis into the vagina easier. Studies have shown circumcised men cause more pain to the woman because of the change in shape, texture, and functionality of their circumcised p*nis.

In developed countries, circumcision does not make a difference in terms of STI's.

Laumann's survey of men in the USA was interesting:

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

It showed that circumcision had no effect on reducing STI's. This is in keeping with other studies done in developed countries:

http://sti.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/79/6/499 (Dave 2003 - UK)

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/richters1/ (Richters 2006 - Australia)

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract (Dickson 2008 - New Zealand)

The USA has the highest rates of STI's in the developed world and is also the only country that still practices infant circumcision to any great extent:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publicati...sheet/fsest.htm

Doesn't say much for the protective effect of circumcision.

The trials in Africa were obviously flawed:

http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/33/6/357

The chance of contracting HIV through vaginal sex with a HIV infected woman is low: 1 in 2000.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5402a1.htm#tab1

Factor in the chance the woman you are sleeping with has HIV in a developed country and it is very unlikely you will get HIV. Also, what about condoms?

Surely circumcision in Africa is just an excuse for African men to sleep around without a condom thinking they are somehow immune.

Current infant circumcision rates in the UK are not 16%, they are much lower - about 2%:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7264/792

And that includes unnecessary circumcision because of misdiagnosis of the natural non-retractability of the infant foreskin as pathological phimosis.

Circumcision is a cure looking for a disease:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

Non religious medical circumcision only came about in the late 1800's in English speaking countries - the main reason was to prevent masturbation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had my foreskin taken off when i was 12 for medical reasons , the skin was too tight and i couldnt pull it back

it is stupid to take it off without a medical reason , surely a condom is better protection that a foreskin?

it is immoral because there are numerous sensory receptors in the foreskin and removal of the foreskin will lead to the glans becoming less sensitive (although this can have it's advantages in you may last longer in bed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   326 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.