[anonymouswhitefemale]

Uneeklyme, I was wondering if you read what I wrote or the wikipedia entry I linked, and if your mind on the subject remained unchanged?

Lets try and look at the subject instead of pointless bickering with Jonny (though through his chaff he's raised one or two points).

[SorridLives]

I have to admit, I cannot really even try to give an opinion. I have only been with circumcised men. However, I don't really think it would bother me to be with an uncircumcised man. A man that is uncircumcised just has to watch that he cleans and dries well, like with any other body part.

[jonny]

I know cut guys that do get off just by having the head of their penis rub against things. You say common sense tells us if its exposed it will be less sensitive. I asked how you could state it was fact. Fact is proven and undeniable. If this was fact then there wouldnt be cut men that could get off by having the head of their penis rub against something. Friction is fact cut or uncut.

When I was talking about rubbing up against things, it wasn't meant to be sexual. I meant that a cut guy can walk around with his head rubbing against his clothes with no discomfort. If I were to do the same thing, it was be very uncomfortable.

Why? Because my penis is more sensitive to things.

[B]How do you figure breast, booty or lip implants arent extreme?

No there not. They are very common procedures today.

And for the most part. Done without complication.

Guys who have small wangs can get implants as well.

Any guy who does that is retarded.

I have read about that stuff. And most guys who do that can never have a proper erection again for the rest of there lives.

There are proceedures that can make you taller, shorter,

Break your bones and then stretching them is one of the most extreme things I could ever imagine.

[Uneeklyme]

Uneeklyme, I was wondering if you read what I wrote or the wikipedia entry I linked, and if your mind on the subject remained unchanged?

I read it and several of the other links as well. It really didn't sway me one way or the other. I still prefer the look of a circumcised male. Some of the things I have seen with the uncircumcised penis... Cleanliness remains and issue as well.

When I was talking about rubbing up against things, it wasn't meant to be sexual. I meant that a cut guy can walk around with his head rubbing against his clothes with no discomfort. If I were to do the same thing, it was be very uncomfortable.
Why? Because my penis is more sensitive to things.

Ok. Still, it's not fact that an uncircumcised male is more sensitive than a circumcised one. Nor is it just common sense. You blanket state on YOUR sensitivity.

No there not. They are very common procedures today.
And for the most part. Done without complication.

Just because something is common or glamorized does not mean it isnt extreme. Implants and whatnot for women are just as invasive for women as they are for men. They are an extreme measure to alter appearance compared to say... lip plumper, padding in bras or pants...

Any guy who does that is retarded.
I have read about that stuff. And most guys who do that can never have a proper erection again for the rest of there lives.

I agree but there are still men that do it. There are also women that have no feeling in their nipples from breast implants, cant chew properly from lip enhancement and cant sit comfortably in a chair from booty work. Your point was there is nothing for men to do to alter what they don't like. My point...yes there is and it's just as extreme for women as for men. There is even foreskin restoration in keeping with the topic of circumcision.

Break your bones and then stretching them is one of the most extreme things I could ever imagine.

Again, I agree. There are still people that have it done.

[Uneeklyme]

Yes, it is a fact, sorry. And it is common sense. And to quote if you missed it (again)

No its not and your own quoted literature says so...

The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of much debate. The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated "There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males", however they also stated that "[a] survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men." They continued, "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."[44] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[58] ?

You used the part of the whole that supported your claim.

Ok, it didn't sway you. You like the "look", because it's what you're used to, and some people can't clean it. Does this justify the following?

No, but this is a pretty strong reason for...

In March 2007, WHO and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) stated that male circumcision is an effective intervention for HIV prevention, but also noted that male circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent the heterosexual transmission of HIV.[15] The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex. Both the WHO and CDC indicate that it may not reduce HIV transmission from men to women, and that data is lacking for the transmission rate of men who engage in anal sex with either a female or male partner, as either the insertive or receptive partner.[15]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-CDC-2008-15"[16]
The World Health Organization (WHO) stated that studies of three trials provide compelling evidence that male circumcision provides a 50–60% reduction in HIV transmission from female to male.[84] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards, because it was judged that the significant reductions in HIV incidence made it unethical to continue following control group participants without offering circumcision.[85] In 2007, WHO and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[15] but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against HIV infection.[86]
Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised.[92]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-92"[93]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-93"[94] The foreskin may harbor bacteria and become infected if it is not cleaned properly,[95] but may become inflamed if it is cleaned too often with soap.[96] Also, the forcible retraction of the foreskin in boys can lead to infections.[77]
Several studies have shown that uncircumcised men are at greater risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.[98]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-98"[99]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-99"[100] One study found no statistically significant difference in the incidence of HPV infection between circumcised and uncircumcised men, but did note a higher prevalence of urethritis in the uncircumcised.[101]
Penile cancer affects from 0.82 per 100,000 in Denmark to 10.5 per 100,000 men per year in parts of India (0.9 to 1 per 100,000 in the United States).[44] Studies have reported a rate of penile cancer from 3 to 22 times higher in uncircumcised than circumcised men.[104]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-104"[105]

Much like childhood vacinations and now the HPV vacination. There are complications from them as well (infection at the sites, reactions and now studies indicate autism may result) the benefits outweigh the risks IMO.
I also have to disagree with the studies that site possible emotional trauma. Maybe for the man that carries it as a torch in later years but there is more evidance to support emotional trauma by peers of the uncircumcised male than emotional trauma by the circumcised infant. Do you remember getting your vit K shot shortly after birth? That was painful and made you cry but it was for your own good. Should we hold that against our parents for ruining us emotionally?

It's my conclusion that you're heartless if you value lack of a shower and how something looks compared to all of that. Well I happen to like female circumcision, get on the table ...

You yourself agree that female circumcision cannot compare. They are always performed later in life and done to take sexual pleasure away. Now, if it were the topic, I would agree with the emotional trauma issue.

[anonymouswhitefemale]

No its not and your own quoted literature says so...

Yeah, ok, it's a fact to me though. I know that I couldn't walk around with my foreskin back, simply because my head is too sensitive and it would hurt rubbing against fabric, the fact that that isn't the case for a circumcised man makes it fact in my mind that that person isn't feeling as much. Feel free to argue with me, seeing as you don't have a penis...

You used the part of the whole that supported your claim.

Of course I did, but I see the fact that there are contradictory claims and answers that aren't 100% certain you're all gung ho for foreskin chopping, despite other evidence going against it for a multitude of serious reasons.

No, but this is a pretty strong reason for...

If you're shagging someone with HIV anyway, personally I don't care aboutit being half as likely to transmit, chances are you'll shag them more than once... I mean really...

As for it getting infected if not cleaned properly, no sh*t, so do yours.

And for all of these things that it "helps" (and those issues could be resolved without such drastic mutilation), are by many, many professionals deemed as equal to the complications of the operation - which straight away means that we're justifying this purely for social and personal reasons.

Much like childhood vacinations and now the HPV vacination. There are complications from them as well (infection at the sites, reactions and now studies indicate autism may result) the benefits outweigh the risks IMO.
I also have to disagree with the studies that site possible emotional trauma. Maybe for the man that carries it as a torch in later years but there is more evidance to support emotional trauma by peers of the uncircumcised male than emotional trauma by the circumcised infant. Do you remember getting your vit K shot shortly after birth? That was painful and made you cry but it was for your own good. Should we hold that against our parents for ruining us emotionally?

Well, there are studies which indicate that it seeds distrust between infant and parent, the fact that it is one of the most painful operations in the world and performed without anaesthetic, and you're comparing it to a vaccination? Get some sense of balance. As for holding a circumcision against my parents, yes, I would, if it had been done, and rightfully so.

You yourself agree that female circumcision cannot compare. They are always performed later in life and done to take sexual pleasure away. Now, if it were the topic, I would agree with the emotional trauma issue.

Isn't it better that they're performed later in life? Assuming that they were consensual, which of course they aren't, they'd be old enough to make their own decision.

But yeah sure, mutilating a females genitaila gets your goat but we can call it a justifiable risk with a mans.. makes sense.

Your attitude to this sort of boggles the mind, you're one cruel woman. I can only assume that you're completely ignorant as you lack the necessary body part to understand, and you've grown up in a culture that has been wrong for your whole life.

[Fallen1]

But yeah sure, mutilating a females genitaila gets your goat but we can call it a justifiable risk with a mans.. makes sense.

Both may be mutilation, but it is mutilation to differing degrees. Correct me if I'm wrong but female circumcision involves removing the clit. In no way is that comparable to just removing a foreskin - remove the penis head and maybe we can compare the two.

[anonymouswhitefemale]

Both may be mutilation, but it is mutilation to differing degrees. Correct me if I'm wrong but female circumcision involves removing the clit. In no way is that comparable to just removing a foreskin - remove the penis head and maybe we can compare the two.

Of course I understand that they aren't relative. But yes, both are multilation, there is no maybe about it. How about slicing off a nipple? Getting closer to an analogy?

[Uneeklyme]

Yeah, ok, it's a fact to me though. I know that I couldn't walk around with my foreskin back, simply because my head is too sensitive and it would hurt rubbing against fabric, the fact that that isn't the case for a circumcised man makes it fact in my mind that that person isn't feeling as much. Feel free to argue with me, seeing as you don't have a penis....

My point exactly. It was stated as fact based on YOUR sensitivity. That does not make it fact.

Of course I did, but I see the fact that there are contradictory claims and answers that aren't 100% certain you're all gung ho for foreskin chopping, despite other evidence going against it for a multitude of serious reasons. .

The answers arent 100% certain either for or against. The reasons cited for are just as serious and many as reasons against. As a matter of fact, infection and cancer have higher kill rates than the cited 0.02% death rate of surgical circumcision cited in your studies which by the way were in the end deemed unknown if it was the anasthesia during surgery or the actual proceedure and all were in suprise...the UK. Not to mention that circumcision was standard practice in the UK and other countries until parents had to start paying for them themselves because insurances wouldn't cover them anymore.

If you're shagging someone with HIV anyway, personally I don't care aboutit being half as likely to transmit, chances are you'll shag them more than once... I mean really...

As for it getting infected if not cleaned properly, no sh*t, so do yours. .

Hey, your the one that keeps putting up the wiki info... thats the same place I got my info from. Mine dont get infected if I pull the skin back to far, another source of infection cited in your info. Thats half as likely to contract HIV as well as transmit. There are no guarentees your next partner wont be HIV positive.

And for all of these things that it "helps" (and those issues could be resolved without such drastic mutilation), are by many, many professionals deemed as equal to the complications of the operation - which straight away means that we're justifying this purely for social and personal reasons. .

Again, your quoted wiki, not mine. Parents do what they feel is in the best interest of their children even if that includes drastic measures sometimes. If I can reduce my childs risk of syphilis, ghonnorea, aids, infections, cancer...

Well, there are studies which indicate that it seeds distrust between infant and parent, the fact that it is one of the most painful operations in the world and performed without anaesthetic, and you're comparing it to a vaccination? Get some sense of balance. As for holding a circumcision against my parents, yes, I would, if it had been done, and rightfully so. .

And you have a foreskin so you know for a fact circumcision is one of the most painful operations in the world. I guess the infants I have seen sleep through the proceedure after having a local are just incredibly insensitive to mans plight. I was comparing pain to pain...shots to a child envoke the same reaction from pain as something simple as getting a finger pinched or a circumcision. They don't differentiate the source of pain they just know it hurts. Distrust for the parent in infants is grasping at straws in support of a cause IMO.

Isn't it better that they're performed later in life? Assuming that they were consensual, which of course they aren't, they'd be old enough to make their own decision..

No, later in life children and adults KNOW whats happening and female circumcision is performed solely for selfish reasons not medical reasons.

But yeah sure, mutilating a females genitaila gets your goat but we can call it a justifiable risk with a mans.. makes sense..

Get off your soap box. Whoa is you the male trying to prove your point to the big meanie girl who isnt cowing to you. You assume it gets my goat. Thats all it is is assumption.

Your attitude to this sort of boggles the mind, you're one cruel woman. I can only assume that you're completely ignorant as you lack the necessary body part to understand, and you've grown up in a culture that has been wrong for your whole life.

I guess im cruel then. Calling me ignorant is like your calling the kettle black. I hope when you grow up you dont find your culture has been wrong your whole life. Crow probably tastes nasty. Oh wait, again you assume I am all for circumcision and I have never stated I am for or against one way or the other. That assume AS* of U & ME. BTW, women do have their breasts removed to prevent cancer. Might want to find a different analogy than the nipple one.

[jonny]

Ok. Still, it's not fact that an uncircumcised male is more sensitive than a circumcised one. Nor is it just common sense. You blanket state on YOUR sensitivity.

I bet my blanket statement goes for most uncut men.

Just because something is common or glamorized does not mean it isnt extreme. Implants and whatnot for women are just as invasive for women as they are for men.

It's just as evasive? Can I ask you a question? How do you remove a penis implant?

I think we know which one of those is extreme. And which one isn't even close.

There are also women that have no feeling in their nipples from breast implants, cant chew properly from lip enhancement and cant sit comfortably in a chair from booty work.

Those aren't reproductive organs.

And having nipple numbness, or having a sore doesn't compare to becoming impotant because you now have made your penis partially fake.

Your point was there is nothing for men to do to alter what they don't like. My point...yes

Penis implants from all accounts don't truly work. So there is nothing they can do.

For women there are tons of things.


But wait......If we have problems. We should just cut out pesky skin off. Right?


[QUOTE]there is and it's just as extreme for women as for men.[QUOTE]

Not it isn't.

There is even foreskin restoration in keeping with the topic of circumcision.

That's just gross. I perfer to have the skin I already have.