The Big C: Circumcision

But I did have a foreskin.------------------

quote:

---

All the boys think she's a spy

---

Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:

quote:

---

But I did have a foreskin.

---

But by your own admission, you don't remember it.Don't be contrary just to be contrary.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Didn't you answer your own question?

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would it be acceptable for parents to perform such a procedure on their infant girls under the same circumstances of family history and genetic profile? Or should it be left up to the one who actually has the breasts?

---

​

Didn't you answer your own question?

---

Yes, a long time ago. It should be left up to the person whose body is going to be cut open.

quote:

---

You can't miss what you don't have.

---

That doesn't make it right. The claim that we should go ahead and do it because, since they're infants, they won't remember it and won't have any other experience except that without what was taken away isn't sufficient to justify it.It still isn't your body. It still isn't your decision to make. If your religion requires you to cut off a body part, then you go right ahead and do it, but leave your children out of it. They'll join you when they decide they want to. If thy right eye offends thee, then pluck it out, but I think I'll be the one to decide if my right eye offends me.Why deprive your child of something he or she might find valuable?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain, you have nicely summarised the point, thank you. As a female I never had a foreskin, but I have the female equivalent - the clitoral hood. If my parents had decided to hack that off when I was a baby, because it made me look like my mother/sisters, because God told them to, because it would prevent my one in a million chance of dying of clitoral cancer(?!?!) when I was an old lady... if they'd take even one tiny nick out of my flesh, I'd have been mighty pissed off today. The idea of amputating flesh from a child is a last resort most parents only consider when the child's life is in imminent danger... unless it's the evil foreskin.The adult foreskin is a piece of highly sensitive skin the size of a postcard, and quite obviously alters the function or "engineering" of the penis during sex and mastubation. Those who don't have one may not miss it, but I do hope they don't perpetuate the abuse on their sons, condemning them to a lifetime of "No masturbation without artificial lubricant!"------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

I do hope they don't perpetuate the abuse on their sons, condemning them to a lifetime of "No masturbation without artificial lubricant!"

---

Moral issues aside, as a man with no foreskin, and an avid believer in the healing powers of masturbation, I can guarantee you I have no freakin' clue what you're talking about.

Okay, maybe I was basing my comment only on my observations of men I have known, but the circumcised ones generally used lubricant or saliva to make masturbation comfortable.If you have a foreskin, you don't (necessarily) have to "rub" the shaft, because the action of the foreskin sliding over the shaft has the same effect. (I am basing this on my own manual experiences with said shaft and foreskin, as well as simple observation.)There are also analagous differences in the woman's experience during sex with cut/uncut penises, which is not to say that women have anything to complain about - but in the States where almost all men are cut, women have little chance to experience the alternative.------------------
o--greyline--o

Um, only if you use a death grip, or something...This isn't the case among my (largely circumcised) male friends.Around where I'm from, circumcised penises are largely preferred.

They're preferred because that's what everyone is used to (in the States). That doesn't give parents the right to lop off a valuable sensitive piece of flesh from their baby boys.------------------
o--greyline--o

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually. I know plenty of people that, old enough to decide for themselves, opted to have the circumcision done. And it was sufficiently painful that they wish they had had it done in infancy.While myopia or crooked teeth may be the condition of the majority of Americans, nobody whines about glasses (or more painfully) braces on children. As far as I'm concerned, circumcision is just corrective surgery.

Corrective surgery for what? There's nothing to correct with a foreskin. It's meant to be there. If you don't know its value, that's not surprising - you'd probably rather not know what you're missing, and certainly American society doesn't want to know what it's doing. However, it has many functions including sexual ones.You've brought up the issue of pain as though it doesn't matter that this pain is inflicted on babies.------------------
o--greyline--o

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually.

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Considering all the studies that confirm that circumsized men experience less in the way of sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men, and that they experience no less in the way of sexual pleasure, and that their mates (in this country at least) tend to prefer their circumcision, yes, I guess I did say that.

If this were truly the case, why do you think it is that America is the ONLY Western country that still routinely circumcises the majority of its boys, and that the American Medical Association does not recommend the procedure?Circumcision persists for purely historical/cultural reasons. It has nothing to do with health. As to whether it affects sexual pleasure, that's obviously impossible to measure subjectively. However, the foreskin contains an extremely high concentration of sensitive nerves (one type is found nowhere else in the body) so it seems unlikely that sexual experience is not affected. Not to mention the mechanical differences in the way the entire penis functions during sex.------------------
o--greyline--o

Because the AMA is not in the habit of reccomending medical procedures that don't have a clear benefit. It would surprise me if it was not the case that the AMA did not recommend ear-piercing, either. For that matter, neither does wearing glasses. There's no health detriment to not having 20/20 vision. But people want it. So they wear glasses to correct a misfortune of birth. I don't see that nerve density is a be-all-end-all metric of sexual pleasure. That seems needlessly simplistic. Not to mention that the glans itself contains as many nerve endings that might very well not be stimulated in the presence of the foreskin. From all reports, the foreskin reduces friction during sex. I happen to enjoy the friction of sex. If the foreskin reduces that then you can keep mine.