• 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!

Call for higher circumcision rate

Well if you ever choose to get circumcised and do have sex, you will notice, along with all the others that have had the same procedure carried out, that the decrease in sexual drive is not enough to actually notice.




:confused:


the FGM crowd say the the same thing

Many here dispute claims that there is any health risk associated with the age-old operation..."Circumcision has no negative effects as (the government) claims and today, with the progress of medicine, the operation can be done without any danger."

[Khaled al-Sharif, Abnob tribe member, quoted in news report, "Egyptian fundamentalists ignoring female circumcision ban," 6 January 1998, Agence France-Presse]
 
Let me take the other side, just for kicks (I have no position on this topic either way). I am without foreskin.



While I admit to some abrasion on occasion, drying, callusing and environmental contamination have never been an issue.



Maybe true. But I've had some full and intense sexual responses, so I'm not sure I'm missing anything.



Not really an issue. Have I used lubricants? Sure. No one seemed to mind.



What? First, my penile development was textbook. Second, my penis is quite capable of all the natural functions evolution intended it to have. Unless the intact penis is able to make balloon animals or something.



Except AIDS. They left that part out. You know who else is at lower risk? People who don't have sex with infected people.



Well, then why do circumcised men have a much lower risk of getting AIDS?

Howstuffworks "Circumcision and AIDS"

Check this part out:





Weird. I'm not sicker than anyone else.



And yet people are having sex all the time. Curious indeed.




My penis seems quite comfortable. No major over or under heating going on here.



Whose penis are they looking at? And please link to a study showing how a moist, shiny, pinkish-red to dark purple glans is sexually attractive to a woman. Because from what women have told me, they find the intact penis to be universally disgusting.
Because of a SINGLE disease (AIDS), circumcision is justified. I guess the jews were practicing preemptive medicine!
 
who are these people that had sex than decided to chop off some of their junk and than said there was no noticeable difference?:confused:

I know many people.


funny how nobody addressed female circumcision :(

If it has alot of health benefits for Women then maybe the state should encourage that too.

there is zero difference. loss of some skin and some nerve endings. No big deal, right?

Your just taking this from other posters. In proportion to your glands and the rest of the penis, nerve endings lost are very small and make only a small otherwise unoticeable difference.
 
I know many people.




If it has alot of health benefits for Women then maybe the state should encourage that too.



Your just taking this from other posters. In proportion to your glands and the rest of the penis, nerve endings lost are very small and make only a small otherwise unoticeable difference.


10,000 -20,000 nerve endings is not small
 
a. no such thing as heightened enough when it comes to sex
b. you have nothing to base a comparison on, except the fact that you are experiencing a muted version of sex
you do realize sex feels better without a condom than with one
well what if circumcision is akin to putting on a rubber in how much it reduces the pleasure
Actually I rarely have sex with a condom. Especially now that ive had a vasectomy. :cool:

Besides, having sex uncircumcised appears to be as equal as having a condom on.
 
I am only speaking from experience but...

I am a penis connoiseur. I am also a very safe and cautious enjoyer of penises. And after much research, both by experience and academic study, I have determined that circumcised pricks are the best, by far.

First, let's explore the hygienic issues of circumcision and how circumcision relates to human evolution. First and foremost, the uncircumcised penis is advantageous only if we are a species that didn't wear clothing. The foreskin's basic function is to protect the sensitive head of the penis from abrasion and other damage. Being that we wear clothing, this renders the function of the foreskin obsolete.

So with the protective function of the foreskin rendered obsolete, there is only the issue of hygiene. Living in a day of std's, the only issue to a parent when deciding the disposition of their child's genital health is the issue of what will remove the most threat. Recently, a 25 year study showed that circumcision cuts STD transmission rate by 50%. Now I know that there are arguments that circumcision decreases physical pleasure...but really, is a little extra physical pleasure worth that 50% decrease in the chance of contracting or transmitting an STD...especially if the child never knew the difference? Is there really any research that shows that a circumcised male will seek out the sexual pleasures of coitus with any deviation from that of an uncircumcised male?
 
How much more pleasure does a man need? Some of you boys get aroused when the wind blows.
 
Actually I rarely have sex with a condom. Especially now that ive had a vasectomy. :cool:

Besides, having sex uncircumcised appears to be as equal as having a condom on.

the uncircumcised penis is the natural state which over 85% of the worlds men have they don't have peopbelsm with thier forskin and explain why the U.S men most of which are cut have problems with impotence?

I am only speaking from experience but...

I am a penis connoiseur. I am also a very safe and cautious enjoyer of penises. And after much research, both by experience and academic study, I have determined that circumcised pricks are the best, by far.

First, let's explore the hygienic issues of circumcision and how circumcision relates to human evolution. First and foremost, the uncircumcised penis is advantageous only if we are a species that didn't wear clothing. The foreskin's basic function is to protect the sensitive head of the penis from abrasion and other damage. Being that we wear clothing, this renders the function of the foreskin obsolete.

So with the protective function of the foreskin rendered obsolete, there is only the issue of hygiene. Living in a day of std's, the only issue to a parent when deciding the disposition of their child's genital health is the issue of what will remove the most threat. Recently, a 25 year study showed that circumcision cuts STD transmission rate by 50%. Now I know that there are arguments that circumcision decreases physical pleasure...but really, is a little extra physical pleasure worth that 50% decrease in the chance of contracting or transmitting an STD...especially if the child never knew the difference? Is there really any research that shows that a circumcised male will seek o


if circmcision reduce the chances of STDs explain why the U.S has the highest rates in the developed world higher than intact Europe and Japan?


and the FGM equivalent used in Africa and the islamic world

"Both Islam and medicine agree on its benefits. Uncircumcised girls…are more liable to infections and cancers."

[Dr. Saed Thabet, professor gynecology at Cairo’s Kasr El Aini Teaching Hospital, quoted in "Female Circumcision is Curbed in Egypt," British Medical Journal, August 3, 1996]

She was one of the first girls to be circumcised in her village, which until then had not practiced circumcision at all. Her mother told her that this was "the new way," and that it would keep her clean and free from disease.

[From "Interviews with Women" History #4, p. 250, Prisoners of Ritual: Odyssey into Female Genital Circumcision in Africa, Hanny Lightfoot-Klein, 1989]

you circumfetished americans and the FGM folks over there have alot in common


Do you pin surgery as mutilation too? How very dramatic of you.


Should not the purpose of surgery and any medical treatment be to help preserve parts of the human body as long as possible - or is it to amputate normal and vital body parts of non-consenting individuals?

Is it a legitimate practice to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts on non consenting individuals because it may someday prevent a disease or condition? If so - how many body parts of children should parents be permitted to amputate in order to prevent future problems? How far do we extend this lunacy?

Would any female in Canada or the USA undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision even if it could be proven that there may be potential benefits for it? More than a decade ago a few medical doctors in the USA circumcised females claiming benefits of the procedure. There was a public outcry against this and doctors lost their privileges to practice.
 
Let's cut to the chase (no pun intended) shall we? This is nothing but a religious act of mutilation. Period.

mu⋅ti⋅late
  /ˈmyutlˌeɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), -lat⋅ed, -lat⋅ing.
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

Whoever it was in this thread that said a circ is not mutilation needs to have their head examined. It is absolutely within the definition.

The foreskin has twelve known functions.
They are:

1. to cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glans and inner foreskin.
2. to protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. to protect the glans penis from friction and abrasion throughout life.
4. to keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. to lubricate the glans.
6. to coat the glans with a waxy protective substance.
7. to provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
8. to provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay.
9. to serve as an aid to penetration.
10. to reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
11. to serve as erogenous tissue because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.
12. to contact and stimulate the G-spot of the female partner.
Anatomy of the Penis and Mechanics of Intercourse

This practice came into being via religious nonsense. Outside of religion there is no medical need for circumcision that can't be handled without the mutilation.

To the person who said their sons kidney dr. recommended it. Did you bother to ask why or did you purposefully omit it in your post? I would assume, that since you say your son has only one kidney, it is to lessen the chance of a kidney infection. Proper hygiene will also lessen this probability. Here's a clue for you, sometimes people will tell you to do something easy as opposed to something more difficult. - Since the practice is widespread and mostly unchallenged, take the easy route lady...

It's really telling the adverse reaction women have to the thought of vaginal mutilation but some seem to ignore that same emotional response about a mans penis.

Americanwoman, you say your old man is uncut. Is it gross looking and unclean?

The choice of irreparable mutilation of a human body should ONLY be the decision of the person in question.

Do you think it's OK for a parent to tattoo their infant to make the child more aesthetically pleasing to them?
 
What a mature comeback! You clearly have no argument, or intelligence for that matter. :doh
than you are too simple to realize how stupid it is for an adult to decide to mutilate themselves because of peer pressure or aesthetics
ergo i-d-10-T
 
What a mature comeback! You clearly have no argument, or intelligence for that matter. :doh



Do you pin surgery as mutilation too? How very dramatic of you.

than you are too simple to realize how stupid it is for an adult to decide to mutilate themselves because of peer pressure or aesthetics
ergo i-d-10-T

Moderator's Warning:
Let's not start a penis measuring contest in this circumcision thread. I just got a new pocket knife. It's not too sharp.
 
than you are too simple to realize how stupid it is for an adult to decide to mutilate themselves

If you consider surgery mutilation, why do people with heart disease mutilate themselves for a new heart? Its beyond me too DJ.

Or do you want me to get out the facts of circumcision?

because of peer pressure or aesthetics
ergo i-d-10-T

Yeaah...that, or there just clean. :mrgreen:
 
If you consider surgery mutilation, why do people with heart disease mutilate themselves for a new heart? Its beyond me too DJ.
uh maybe because they had HEART DISEASE? see I highlighted, enlarged, enboldened & underlined where you actually inluded it in your response
do i need to go get links for all the people who get their healthy hearts transplanted for religious/customary reasons
oh thats right, I CANT caust it doesnt happen

FAIL
 
Let's cut to the chase (no pun intended) shall we? This is nothing but a religious act of mutilation. Period.

Bull****. It's a hygeine issue as I already pointed out. You can toss out loaded words like "mutilate" but the fact it, circumcision has been proven to decrease STD's. Until you can refute that, you are just talking out your ass.

Plus, uncircumcised penises are just ugly. They look like some kind of ant-eater or something. That's just not attractive.
 
uh maybe because they had HEART DISEASE? see I highlighted, enlarged, enboldened & underlined where you actually inluded it in your response
do i need to go get links for all the people who get their healthy hearts transplanted for religious/customary reasons
oh thats right, I CANT caust it doesnt happen

FAIL

This has nothing to do with religion! Is this what this is all about?? Do you really think it will make you any less the good christian boy you are if you get circumcised? This is about scientific fact about hygiene and sexual infection/disease transmission, not what Jesus says!
 
you two may be arguing hygene, but only a slight amount of the dullards known as the american circumsized populace did it because of hygiene. THEIR PARENTS did it because of religious tradition, cultural customs or peer pressure (ew his pee pee is ugly if it is mutilated)

meanwhile Jallman if nobody had ever chopped off their pecker you would love it just the same because you would not know the diffference.

did I miss where somebody annihalated a previous post where somebody queeried why we have such a high AIDS/STD rate despite having such a huge portion of our population mutilated

Not to mention people have been chopping off the tip of their sons pecker for decades and centuries before AIDS was ever known, so AIDS is a moot argument

and despite it being said before int this thread, I am cut, did you comprehend it this time Kaya???
I also think you shoudl know, if there is a god as christians are taught he can go **** himself for being an absentee slumlord. I would pay good money and my eternal soul to watch Jallman skull **** him to death
If god is not dead he is not worthy of being worshipped
**** him
 
Last edited:
How much more pleasure does a man need? Some of you boys get aroused when the wind blows.
75_circumcision-safety-has-its-price.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom