Lets ban circumcision (male too)

[Asher]

IIRC, there's no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised penises when having safe sex with regards to STDs.

So what's the problem?

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The risk reduction yield from circumcision is about 50 to 75% according to ongoing studies done by the WHO in Africa.

Ignoring the fact that what goes on in African villages studied in those tests probably doesn't go on the same across America, do you really think that if the US didn't circumcise most of its men that the HIV rates would leap by around another 50%? Are Americans THAT bad at looking after themselves?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Asher
IIRC, there's no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised penises when having safe sex with regards to STDs.

So what's the problem?

Relying on being circumcised to not get STDs is insane.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You don't like circumcision? Fine! Don't have it done.

Sadly that's not our choice. If you allow it done as babies, then they don't have the choice not to have it done. That's my problem. If everyone who didn't want it could choose not to have it done, I'd be fine with it. But they can't. Leave it until they can choose.

Nobodies trying to convince you you shouldn't be proud of it, just that it shouldn't be forced on someone who hasn't consented to it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm not bitter, I'm angry at lame, pretentious arguments. I take your argument to advocate the denial of the choice, PLEASE, do correct me where I am mistaken!

Actually I want to give choice, to the person, not to their parents.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You speak in the language of a listener but you seem to refuse to listen to the statement that circumcision is harmless. I'm sorry if you had a botched operation, but one does always assume competance and imo a few mishaps do not justify the procedure being denied.

Even LotM admitted that it''s not harmless, if you read the arguments given. The penis is supposed to be sensitive, it's one of it's functions. Reducing sensitivity reduces that function, that of copulation. It makes it harder to, as you've admitted yourself. One of the functions of the penis is copulation, and circumcision reduces the ability to copulate, by making it harder, as you've said.

[Natalinasmpf]

Why is the debate is on male circumcision and nothing more?

Or maybe its because obviously, female circumcision is an evil thing to do. Even Reader's Digest advocates that.

Or something, hmm.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Sterilisation is a measure which has a long term effect, negative shall we say unless specifically requested otherwise. That is not the case with circumcision.

Actually, reducing sensitivity is a long term effect, that can be positive or negative. Thus it shouldn't be done unless requested otherwise, IMHO.

Indeed, if you read the arguments last night about this, LotM was claiming that it hadn't been proven to reduce sensitivity, because that would be a reduction in functionality.

The foreskin evolved because it protects a very sensitive part of the body, so that it is both protected and remains sensitive so it can do it's job. Reducing the sensitivity to protect it is unnecessary, since it is already protected. I don't believe that protection should be removed without the expressed permission of that person. I don't believe it is a parents right to choose to cut bits off the body of their children.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Natalinasmpf
Why is the debate is on male circumcision and nothing more?

Or maybe its because obviously, female circumcision is an evil thing to do. Even Reader's Digest advocates that.

I think we all agreed on that already. FGM is cruel and rightfully banned.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

You have to argue that my friend who had an adult circ as a result of Soviet laws was NOT abused by said Soviet laws, despite his own belief that he was.

You're implying there'd be a problem with arguing so?

[Alexander's Horse]

I don't think circumcision was ever really based on science- although the African evidence is interesting.

I'd like to know why it was so common in the USA, Australia and other places. The military link is just a guess - those crazy ex army doctors....

In Europe, being circumcised is directly linked to being Jewish or muslim and I suspect that has a lot to do with the low general rate.

But hey! Who cares!

[Last Conformist]

The explanation I've heard for it being so common in the 'States is that it was in the 19th C thought to discourage masturbation.

Anyone know if that actually works - are circumcised boys less prone to masturbate? If so, why, if not, why did th idea gain credence?

[Jon Miller]

I don't think it works

if it did, and I was uncut, than I doubt I would ever do anything else

Jon Miller

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Anyone know if that actually works - are circumcised boys less prone to masturbate? If so, why, if not, why did th idea gain credence?

I think it makes it harder, but I don't think that necessarily discourages trying

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Anyone know if that actually works - are circumcised boys less prone to masturbate? If so, why, if not, why did th idea gain credence?

Speaking from my, err....second hand experience with cut masturbation, it is more difficult to masturbate a circumcised penis. The foreskin, between covering the glans and being pulled back, means there is enough loose skin to make masturbation easier and lube is not always required (it's more fun with lube of course). With a cut penis, there isn't that loose skin. Frankly, my dear, ****ing a cutjob just baffles me.

Au natural all the way. Pity cause I like jewish boys in all other respects.

[Ming]

Come on folks... let's not let this thread head down hill...

While the topic itself is prone to such down hill slides, TRY to stay on the actual topic.