• 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

You know what bothers me most about the research that states this? It, by necessity, requires people who underwent circumcision later in life.

That's just wrong.
Just wait for our honeymoon:blushing2
 
Before we wore clothes the foreskin protected the penis from abrasions.

If you wear clothes you're not going to get abrasions.

Well sir, I wear clothes.
 
It is said that the foreskin enhances the sensitivity of the organ, resulting in a greatly heightened sexual experience.

Mine is heightened enough for me.
 
The foreskin has very little to almost no significance in protecting the glands considering the foreskin is very thin. In this case it has no effective purpose. The foreskin clogs up bacteria after excretion and sex and so ups the chance of sexual infection/disease transmission, and well, to put it simply, "nob cheese". When you bring into account these health factors and the whole point of the foreskin being there in the first place, its well worth considering circumcision. At most you will experience decreased sexual drive but not enough to notice. Theres no need or very little scientific reasoning to keep the foreskin in place. Unless of course you keep it for the sake of making your little maggot look bigger. :mrgreen:

The purpose of surgery is to repair body parts or amputate body parts which become diseased and threaten the life of the patients. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate body parts for cultural or religious reasons?

Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal body parts of children in order that they resemble their parents or their peers?




FUNCTIONS

Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants. The glans is intended by nature to be a protected internal organ, like the female clitoris [see illustration]. The effect of an exposed glans and resulting keratinization on human sexual response has never been studied. Increasing reports by circumcised men indicate that keratinization causes a loss of sexual sensation, pleasure and fulfillment [3, 4].

3. Ridged bands. The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response [5].

4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see illustration]. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse [6].

5. Specialized sensory tissue. In addition to the "ridged bands" mentioned above, thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) constitute the most important sensory component of the penis [1]. The foreskin contains branches of the dorsal nerve and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which are capable of sensing slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

6. The frenulum. This is a highly nerve-laden web of tissue that tethers the inner foreskin to the underside of the glans [see photo]. It is similar to the frenula found under the tongue, the upper lip and the clitoral hood (female foreskin). For many intact men, the penile frenulum is a male "G-spot" that is highly pleasurable when repeatedly stretched and relaxed during sexual activity [13]. Depending on the surgical method used, the frenulum is partially to completely destroyed by circumcision.

7. Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development [1].

8. Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases [16-21].

9. Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation and 14-16, 18].

10. Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.

11. Estrogen receptors. The foreskin contains estrogen receptors, whose purpose is not yet fully understood and needs further study [22].

12. Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].

13. Sebaceous glands. The oils produced by these glands lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, so that the two structures function together smoothly.

14. Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].

15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].

The Foreskin Advantage: Benefits Enjoyed by Males who are Intact (not circumcised)
 
MEDICAL FRAUD  and the criminal assault of boys

Questions about circumcision...

1. If victims of circumcision in Canada and the United States were female instead of male, would we be discussing the pros and cons of circumcision?

2. Would any female in America undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision, even if they were legitimate?

3. Would any male dare write an article debating the pros and cons of female circumcision in Canada or the U.S.A.? If not, why not?

4. Why are females in America who are so opposed to the mutilation of their own bodies or that of their daughters so willing to let their sons undergo a practice which they would find dehumanizing themselves? Surely what is good for the gander should be good for the goose.

5. If female circumcision would be considered a form of child abuse or aggravated assault, would not the law apply equally to males, and if not, why not?

6. Why would medical doctors require guidelines regarding unnecessary and mutilating surgery? Would not their professional ethics dictate that only medical necessary surgery be done, and only when there are no other forms of treatment are available? Does non-essential and mutilating surgery really have a place in modern medicine? Is this principle not already incorporated in the Hippocratic Oath , "First, Do No Harm"?

7. If the amputation of normal, healthy body parts is an ethical therapeutic procedure used to prevent disease, would the amputation of other body parts such as routine mastectomies or hysterectomies also be acceptable? Today one in nine females develop breast cancer, and of these one in three die. Or is the male foreskin the only target?

8. Is the amputation of normal body parts really a function of medical treatment? Would not the role of medicine in reality be more aptly described as one to preserve every part of our body as long as it is physically possible? Even a child would have no trouble understanding this concept?

9. The laws in North America do not permit unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery on non-consenting individuals. Neither are patients required to accept medical treatments regardless of the supposed medical benefits. The patient's right of choice is the basis of "informed consent". Does the possibility that a patient may receive some medical benefit from this irreversible surgery have precedence over his/her civil rights?

10. Why is it that only in the U.S.A. and Canada there is the possibility of all these terrible things happening to intact males? Why are these problems seldom seen in any other nations of the world where most males remain intact? Do the advocates of circumcision really believe that they can eradicate all forms of penile cancer, AIDS, STD, urinary tract infections or any other so- called conditions attributed to the foreskin? If so, let's amputate all foreskins and totally eliminate these problems. Intelligent members of the medical profession readily admit that these conditions would still exist, and probably in the same numbers, but now only in circumcised males.

11. If it were proven that circumcision of females would prevent penile cancer in males, would they advocates of FGM recommend female circumcision in order to prevent cancer in males? If not, Why not?
 
Let me take the other side, just for kicks (I have no position on this topic either way). I am without foreskin.

Protection. The sleeve of tissue known as the foreskin normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and environmental contaminants.

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

The inner foreskin contains bands of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue [1]. They constitute a primary erogenous zone of the human penis and are important for realizing the fullness and intensity of sexual response.

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

4. Gliding action. The foreskin is the only moving part of the penis. During any sexual activity, the foreskin and glans work in unison; their mutual interaction creates a complete sexual response. In heterosexual intercourse, the non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth and pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, dragging vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for non-painful intercourse

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

Proper blood flow. The foreskin contains several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularization interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.

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.

Immunological defense. The soft mucosa of the inner foreskin produces plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies, and antibacterial and antiviral proteins [7, 14], such as the pathogen-killing enzyme called lysozyme [15 and Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation]. All of the human mucosa (the linings of the mouth, eyelids, vagina, foreskin and anus) are the body's first line of defense against disease. This benefit of the foreskin could be one possible explanation why intact men are at lower risk of chlamydia and other sexually transmitted diseases.

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

Langerhans cells. These specialized epithelial cells are a component of the immune system and may play a role in protecting the penis from sexually transmitted infections such as HIV (AIDS) [Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)see explanation and 14-16, 18].

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

Howstuffworks "Circumcision and AIDS"

Check this part out:

Because there are so many Langerhans cells in the foreskin, and because these particular cells seem to be excellent at binding to HIV antigens, when the foreskin tears during sex with an HIV-infected woman, there is a very good chance that those blood cells are going to contact and bind to the virus. Langerhans cells are supposed to trigger the immune system's antibody response that fights off the virus; but once HIV gets in, the immune system can't seem to fight it effectively. Once the foreskin is removed, the increased risk of blood exposure and the higher concentration of HIV-receptors in that blood disappears.

Proper lymph flow. The foreskin contains lymphatic vessels, which are necessary for proper lymph flow and immunological functioning.

Weird. I'm not sicker than anyone else.

Apocrine glands. These glands produce pheromones, nature’s invisible yet compelling signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexual behavior has never been studied [23].

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


Dartos fascia. This is a smooth muscle sheath that underlies the scrotum, the entire penis and the tip of the foreskin. It is necessary for proper temperature regulation of the genitals (causing these structures to elongate in the heat and shrink in the cold). Approximately half of the Dartos fascia is destroyed by circumcision [7].

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

15. Natural texture and coloration of the glans. In the intact penis, the glans normally appears moist, shiney, and pinkish-red to dark purple. These visual cues often attract and excite a sexual partner. The glans of a circumcised penis is dry, rough and often light pink to bluish-gray in color [see photos].

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.
 
MEDICAL FRAUD* and the criminal assault of boys

Myth 2

Uncircumcised men have great risk of catching AIDS, study says..

C.T.V. News reported on November 18, 1993 -The U.S. Centers of Disease Control ( CDC ) in Atlanta Georgia, the agency of the Public Health Services that investigates epidemics, that AIDS was (and probably still is) the leading cause of deaths of American men between the ages of 20 and 45.

The World Health Organization reported in 1990 that the United States continued to account for more than half the global increase in the number of AIDS cases. The U.S.A. accounted for the fastest increase in the increase of AIDS cases in the developed world. West Germany, Britain were among European countries reporting below-average increases.

These reports are hardly consistent with the notion that circumcision prevents AIDS. If anything, medical experts indicate that circumcision can actually encourage the spread of the HIV virus. Surgery removes nature's natural barrier; the foreskin may actually deter the spread of the AIDS virus.

The question begs to be answered: "If circumcision actually prevents the spread of AIDS or STD, why in a country where most of the males are circumcised is the spread of AIDS and STD so rampant? Countries where circumcision is virtually unknown, should have been devastated with AIDS?. Again this is not the case.

Let's recall the famous Kenya studies which was widely reported and used to indicate that uncircumcised males were more likely to contract the AIDS virus.

This study dealt with uncircumcised males who frequented prostitutes in Kenya and who because they were uncircumcised were more likely to contract the AIDS virus. What relationship uncircumcised men and Kenya prostitutes had upon the possibility of males in America or anywhere else in the world contracting AIDS, was never explained.

An Israeli news story reported a similar situation which occurred in Tel Aviv where a prostitute infected thousands of men. Obviously a vast number of circumcised males contracted the HIV virus which could result in AIDS related diseases. Would the conclusion indicate that circumcised males were more likely to contract AIDS? If a study conducted in Kenya made the headlines in support of circumcision, then why not use the situation in Israel to support counter claims? Or must we only publish illogical and flawed studies in order to support only those aims we wish to promote?

Whether the studies have any validity or not is not really important. The media once again got the message that there just may be some benefits of circumcision. One has to throw a little wood on the fires from time to time to keep the circumcision mills turning. And what can be more effective than some questionable study. In the meantime, it's business as usual in our hospitals, the mutilation of males continues, while the facts remain hidden




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.

only women in the circumcising U.S.A will say such insulting remarks about men who are exercising their right to remain intact and have you asked those women why they insist that males should undergo a dehumanizing process they would not do themselves?



and where in the medical code of ethics justifies the removing of healthy body parts for health and sick fetish reasons?
 
Last edited:
Sorry chief. You need to check the link I provided. The studies were all good and they all showed intact men had a far larger chance of getting AIDS. They even explained why. I think that topic, factually, is dead. The authors of your ode to the foreskin were wrong about that. Sorry. It is what it is.

only women in the circumcising U.S.A will say such insulting remarks about men who are exercising their right to remain intact and have you asked those women why they insist that males should undergo a dehumanizing process they would not do themselves?

Well, this is where I get laid, so their opinion matters. And it's nearly universal. They don't like foreskin and think it's gross. That's good enough for me. And I don't think circumcision is "dehumanizing". I feel pretty human. And of course they will not undergo the process. They don't have foreskin.
 
Sorry chief. You need to check the link I provided. The studies were all good and they all showed intact men had a far larger chance of getting AIDS. They even explained why. I think that topic, factually, is dead. The authors of your ode to the foreskin were wrong about that. Sorry. It is what it is.



Well, this is where I get laid, so their opinion matters. And it's nearly universal. They don't like foreskin and think it's gross. That's good enough for me. And I don't think circumcision is "dehumanizing". I feel pretty human. And of course they will not undergo the process. They don't have foreskin.


it is repeating the same american proganada BS started in yhe 1980s by an american pro-circ doctor


it is not Universal over 85% of the world's males are intact why arenit they lining up to get cut if the opinions of those american woman universal? and in cutting women the labia and the clitoris is removed for the SAME exact reasons used to justify male genital mutilation

if Intact men have higher chances of getting AIDS why is the U.S have the highest rates in the developed world while intact Japan, Europe and Scandianavia have the lowest rates? and yes cutting off body parts is dehumanising you said it is not and the obvious reason is you are born in acircumcising culture wghich is hostile to men's forskins in some parts of africa and the islamic world FGM is practiced for those same reasons for health and sick fetish reasons and off course religious reasons


How is Female Circumcision Trivialized?

(In the same manner as male circumcision, of course!)

How is Female Circumcision Trivialized?



and before you complain about the comparisons of FGM and MGM


FGM vs MGM

FGC Education and Networking Project



"The parts that are cut away are disgusting and hideous to look at. It is done for the beauty of the suture."



"An uncircumcised penis is a real turn-off. Its disgusting. It looks like the penis of an animal."



"An uncircumcised vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter uncircumcised. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone."


"An uncircumcised penis is dirty and only the lowest class of people with no concept of hygiene leave their boys uncircumcised."




"All the women in the world are circumcised. It is something that must be done. If there is pain, then that is part of a woman's lot in life."


"Men in all the 'civilized' world are circumcised."



and genital mutilation is NOT an opinion it is sick, and disgusting when people advocate this dehumanizing act and insult those who are fortunate to have the body parts they are born with
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised more waiters and waitresses are not up in arms about this national conspiracy to steal the tip.
 
it is repeating the same american proganada BS started in yhe 1980s by an american pro-circ doctor

Dude, look. It's not "propaganda". It was several, actual, real, scientific studies. And they all showed the same thing. You need to give that one up. Intact men are more likely to get AIDS. It's a fact.

it is not Universal over 85% of the world's males are intact why arenit they lining up to get cut if the opinions of those american woman universal?

They are universal opinions in AMERICA. And I'm guessing in other places, as well. And if the 85% who are intact lived here and could not get laid I guarantee you they would be lining up.

if Intact men have higher chances of getting AIDS why is the U.S have the highest rates in the developed world while intact Japan, Europe and Scandianavia have the lowest rates?

You already know the answer. Using your logic, Africa has the highest AIDS rates in the world. Guess what? Intact.

and yes cutting off body parts is dehumanising you said it is not and the obvious reason is you are born in acircumcising culture wghich is hostile to men's forskins

Now that was funny. Kudos.
 
Dude, look. It's not "propaganda". It was several, actual, real, scientific studies. And they all showed the same thing. You need to give that one up. Intact men are more likely to get AIDS. It's a fact.


that bogus research still does not explain why U.S HIV rates are HIGHER than the rest of the mostly intact industralized world

hey are universal opinions in AMERICA. And I'm guessing in other places, as well. And if the 85% who are intact lived here and could not get laid I guarantee you they would be lining up.


in other places where? in africa adn the muslim world they say the same thing whgen they advocate FGM

You already know the answer. Using your logic, Africa has the highest AIDS rates in the world. Guess what? Intact.


Condistion in Africa are not the same as in America where they is more access to health care, good health facilities, good higeine, access to clean water, etc therefore Impoverish Conditions in Africa makes it easier to spread diseases more the the relative cleaner more developed U.S.A Japan and Europe are also inbtact yet yet thier rates are among the lowest in the World

and similar reasons are used to promote FGM


"Female circumcision protects the health of a woman. Infibulation prevents the uterus from falling out [uterine prolapse]. It keeps her smelling so sweet that her husband will be pleased. If it is not done, she will stink and get worms in her vagina."


"An uncircumcised vulva is unclean and only the lowest prostitute would leave her daughter uncircumcised. No man would dream of marrying an unclean woman. He would be laughed at by everyone."


Now that was funny. Kudos.


Genital Mutilation is No Joke
 
I think it is high time to start a national campaign to "Save the Hood!"
 
I think it is high time to start a national campaign to "Save the Hood!"

Those things never work. Just throwing money at a penis is no solution.
 
Mine is heightened enough for me.
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

Dude, look. It's not "propaganda". It was several, actual, real, scientific studies. And they all showed the same thing. You need to give that one up. Intact men are more likely to get AIDS. It's a fact.
actually the fact is Everyone is more likely to get AIDS if you do not wear a condom
a condom renders being cut or uncut moot.
 
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

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.


actually the fact is Everyone is more likely to get AIDS if you do not wear a condom
a condom renders being cut or uncut moot.

:confused:
 
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.
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 iwas raised catholic so my junk is cut
my son is cut, if i have any say my grand sons will not


funny how nobody addressed female circumcision :(
there is zero difference. loss of some skin and some nerve endings. No big deal, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom