• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel attacks Council of Europe move to restrict male circumcision

Status
Not open for further replies.
WCH said:
Indeed. Penis envy perhaps? ;)
Click to expand...

Why would an uncircumcised man be jealous of circumcised one? Sorry, but why would I desire to have a lose of function? Why would I be jealous of someone that has less feeling than I do? Why would I be jealous of someone that pleasures their woman less just naturally? Why would I want to have four and half times greater risk of erectile dysfunction? Research is your friend and you didn't do it.

If anything you should be enviousness of me, not the other way around, but of course you didn't do you research, so you don't know that.
 
WCH said:
How does one compare? :roll:
Click to expand...

Man- The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis. In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band. This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing.

Woman- The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. This provides a frictionless rolling gliding sensation. Since intact men tend to make shorter strokes this will keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding orgasm. On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain. In conclusion women will have more satisfaction with an intact man and less with a circumcised man.

There has however been studies on it that reveal women prefer the uncircumcised penis over the circumcised penis. There have been however only a few of them.
 
Last edited:
davidtaylorjr said:
Doctors disagree as I have already shown. And how is it barbaric? It doesn't hurt the child (when done properly in a medical facility, not at home with a Rabbi), it only helps the child.
Click to expand...

These are the functions of the foreskin.

Functions:

to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
to lubricate the glans.
to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
to serve as an aid to penetration.
to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner
The foreskin/glans combination produce a powerful anti mmicrobial compound called Langerin that keeps the area clean and disease free
Provides a lubricating function that assists in sexual intercourse.

Damages besides the loss of the prior functions:

Neural and vascular damage to the penis.
50-75% loss of sexual sensitivity.
Less intense orgasms
removes 75% of the sexually sensitive tissue on your penis
By the time you individual reaches their late 30's and early 40's the glans becomes dried out and calloused over with scar tissue from rubbing on clothes and other material the individuals entire life.
Can cause inability to ejaculate( extremely rare)
Lubrication
There is more, but I'm a bit rusty on those at the moment and will list them later if need be.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Why would an uncircumcised man be jealous of circumcised one? Sorry, but why would I desire to have a lose of function? Why would I be jealous of someone that has less feeling than I do? Why would I be jealous of someone that pleasures their woman less just naturally? Why would I want to have four and half times greater risk of erectile dysfunction? Research is your friend and you didn't do it.

If anything you should be enviousness of me, not the other way around, but of course you didn't do you research, so you don't know that.
Click to expand...

We're very close to having our first grandson so, yes we have done extensive research. IMO the health benefits outweigh the preceived loss of sexual stimulation.

(See the penile cancer thread I posted)

Personally I didn't have a choice but, I'm plenty damned sensitive.
 
WCH said:
We're very close to having our first grandson so, yes we have done extensive research. IMO the health benefits outweigh the preceived loss of sexual stimulation.

(See the penile cancer thread I posted)
Click to expand...

Penile cancer is extremely rare regardless.
STD's can be fought without removing sexual parts of the body
Even according to the study being used only 25% of men will have a UTI in their lifetime.

Personally I didn't have a choice but, I'm plenty damned sensitive.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're not. I have already went over that.

Btw, both men that have had it done as adults and men that have had it reconstructed(though obviously not the same tissue) disagree with you by a huge margin.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Medically it rids the penis of viruses and and bacterias...

I absolutely understand the traditional values you adhere to and respect them but.

I suppose this study was done on promiscuous men in Africa and the study of their "foreskin."

Obviously a a child raised in a "2-parent home" (or even in the US) drops dramatically.

The study is obviously misleading given no culture reference but- the one proven fact was that the uncircumcised penis was more subject to sexually transmitted diseases than a circumcised penis.
Click to expand...

Your "health" points for circumcized penises has already been debunked numerous times in this thread. It's BS for the most part and not worth the abuse.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
One cut at early stage in life can negate the need for further medical care, why would you not want to do that?
Click to expand...

Like so many here, the only reason they are against it is because of its tie to religion. If Judaism forbad circumcision they would be demanding that it be done.
 
Henrin said:
Penile cancer is extremely rare regardless.
STD's can be fought without removing sexual parts of the body
Even according to the study being used only 25% of men will have a UTI in their lifetime.



Actually, you're not. I have already went over that.

Btw, both men that have had it done as adults and men that have had it reconstructed(though obviously not the same tissue) disagree with you by a huge margin.
Click to expand...
Frankly I don't care since I won't be adding anything to my penis.

It appears you guys with the ugly dicks are a bit uptight. Does it increase your hormone levels to the point of 'roid rage?

BTW: here's that thread.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ymptoms_n_4801646.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
 
Texmex said:
Like so many here, the only reason they are against it is because of its tie to religion. If Judaism forbad circumcision they would be demanding that it be done.
Click to expand...

No, I'm against it because it is removing a healthy body part of the a child's body without their consent and by doing so causes loss of function. I could care less who does and for how long they have been doing it.

In any event, nothing Jews use to support the tradition shows that their faith demands them to circumcise their children or that the entire foreskin is supposed to be removed. Technically, they have nothing to stand on.
 
WCH said:
Frankly I don't care since I won't be adding anything to my penis.

It appears you guys with the ugly dicks are a bit uptight. Does it increase your hormone levels to the point of 'roid rage?
Click to expand...

Really? The beauty argument? Yeah, I wouldn't want to have a dick that actually works because than it would be ugly. Gosh, I'm so convinced.

BTW: here's that thread.

Penis Cancer Is On The Increase: What Are The Symptoms?
Click to expand...

So? It's still extremely rare. The argument is claiming that smegma which is made of sebum and skin cells which lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women, and also provides a bacterial enzyme to prevent infection causes penile cancer. Saying all of that, more recent studies into penile cancer shows there is no connection between smegma and penile cancer. Your argument is based on a very old and debunked study, sorry.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
Sorry, but nobody has the right to force religious beliefs down my throat, especially through genital mutilation. Determining what parts of my body stay on me are my business alone, no one else' :2wave:
Click to expand...

It's a good thing you weren't born with a benign tumor growing on your face. If you had, your parents should have allowed it to grow until you turned 18 and then let you decide.

As a parent, I was the "decider" on what happened medically to my children until they turned 18. If they, or you, don't like it, too bad!
 
Texmex said:
It's a good thing you weren't born with a benign tumor growing on your face. If you had, your parents should have allowed it to grow until you turned 18 and then let you decide.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but please stop comparing normal and functional parts of the body to tumors. Are you one of those people that compares fetuses to tumors? If not, don't do it here.

As a parent, I was the "decider" on what happened medically to my children until they turned 18. If they, or you, don't like it, too bad!
Click to expand...

As a parent, your job is to keep your child free of harm. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
As a parent, your job is to keep your child free of harm. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, my job was to teach my children how to make it in this world. To think this is done free of harem is naive at best.
 
Texmex said:
No, my job was to teach my children how to make it in this world. To think this is done free of harem is naive at best.
Click to expand...

That is just one of your jobs. Respecting the body of your children and not causing it harm is indeed one of your jobs as well.
 
Henrin said:
Really? The beauty argument? Yeah, I wouldn't want to have a dick that actually works because than it would be ugly. Gosh, I'm so convinced.
Click to expand...
I was being flippant but, whatever. Glad you're proud of your Johnson.
 
WCH said:
I was being flippant but, whatever. Glad you're proud of your Johnson.
Click to expand...

All my arguments so far have dealt with facts of the subject matter and do not pertain to me at all. What I feel towards myself one way or the other has not been brought up, nor does it affect the subject in any way what so ever.
 
Texmex said:
It's a good thing you weren't born with a benign tumor growing on your face. If you had, your parents should have allowed it to grow until you turned 18 and then let you decide.
Click to expand...
A tumor isn't supposed to be there. The foreskin is there for a reason.
As a parent, I was the "decider" on what happened medically to my children until they turned 18. If they, or you, don't like it, too bad!
Click to expand...

Yeah, too bad infant circumcision isn't actually a medical operation but a cosmetic/religious one. The closest thing to it is braces, and even those have more medical value than genital mutilation.
 
WCH said:
Frankly I don't care since I won't be adding anything to my penis.

It appears you guys with the ugly dicks are a bit uptight. Does it increase your hormone levels to the point of 'roid rage?

BTW: here's that thread.

Penis Cancer Is On The Increase: What Are The Symptoms?
Click to expand...

You do realize, all that just comes down to hygiene, yes? And it's rare to start with, so it's hard to get the statistics necessary to see significant deviation in population. There's actually no definitive proof that foreskin is a risk to men. In fact if it were, we would probably have observed lopsided demographics due to so many men dying off earlier since humans have been around much much longer than circumcision.

In the end, everything they base "benefits of circumcision" on can be solved with hygiene and not lopping off bits of babies.
 
Ikari said:
You do realize, all that just comes down to hygiene, yes? And it's rare to start with, so it's hard to get the statistics necessary to see significant deviation in population. There's actually no definitive proof that foreskin is a risk to men. In fact if it were, we would probably have observed lopsided demographics due to so many men dying off earlier since humans have been around much much longer than circumcision.

In the end, everything they base "benefits of circumcision" on can be solved with hygiene and not lopping off bits of babies.
Click to expand...

If you look back to my original posts in this thread, that was the point I was making. Unfortunately some of todays young men (and women) are a bit lax in that practice.
 
WCH said:
If you look back to my original posts in this thread, that was the point I was making. Unfortunately some of todays young men (and women) are a bit lax in that practice.
Click to expand...

No offense, but I'm getting really sick of that argument. To the most part the foreskin cleans itself during urination. As I eluted to earlier, the foreskin/glans combination produce a anti mmicrobial compound called Langerin. Langerin wards off bacteria, and keeps the area clean, and disease free. When the foreskin is removed it removes the good bacteria and therefore there is more bad bacteria and I higher risk of problems arises.

The most recent study to my knowledge shows that removing the foreskin INCREASES the risk of infection, as the science that I have laid out above would support.

Btw, I realize that Israel came out with another study that shows a HUGE reduction in infection, but that was after this occurred and was obviously done to support their case. Therefore, I'm ignoring it.
 
Last edited:
MadLib said:
A tumor isn't supposed to be there. The foreskin is there for a reason.


Yeah, too bad infant circumcision isn't actually a medical operation but a cosmetic/religious one. The closest thing to it is braces, and even those have more medical value than genital mutilation.
Click to expand...

You don't exaggerate much, do you? :lamo
 
Texmex said:
You don't exaggerate much, do you? :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually, that term means something - clitoridectomy for females, castration and (IMO) circumcision for males. If cutting off a natural part of a baby boy's penis without his consent isn't mutilation, then what is?
 
Texmex said:
You don't exaggerate much, do you? :lamo
Click to expand...

genital mutilation- any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs.


What were you saying again?
 
MadLib said:
Actually, that term means something - clitoridectomy for females, castration and (IMO) circumcision for males. If cutting off a natural part of a baby boy's penis without his consent isn't mutilation, then what is?
Click to expand...

It's called circumcision. It is not the same as female mutilation. If you can't see that, your are being obtuse.
 
Henrin said:
genital mutilation- any type of cutting or removal of all or some of the genital organs.


What were you saying again?
Click to expand...

Deliberate ignorance must be bliss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom