[jaykray]

Had mine done for religious reasons when I was a baby. Doesn't really bother me. If I have a boy then I'll leave it up to him

[Fart Commander]

TheWhiteFox1 posted:

I don't understand this "Longer in bed" statement for guys who are circumcised. I'm circumcised, but I think when I jerk off it lasts no longer than it would for anyone else.

being a quick shot isn't related to the foreskin at all. cut guys can still have premature ejaculation issues. usually it happens from obesity, lack of exercise, stress, and a shitty diet.

[jaykray]

Funnily enough, when people find out that someone is jewish they don't immediately start making fun of their penis. There's a goldmine of things for people to take the piss out of us for.

[Contag]

hexpunK posted:

Getting "infections and stuff" from what exactly? You just kind of say it with no real context. You could be referring to getting a infection from a botched op, or getting infections like STDs (circumcision isn't going to stop you getting STDs bro), or just a general infection anywhere on the penis, Which one?

Even if it is done for a religious thing, I think it should really be up to the child if they want it removed unless it is threatening the functions of their penis in some way (medical reasons basically). Doing just because a religion tells you too is mindless and fairly pointless.

Post-op infections as a direct result of the surgery. It's not as much an issue, except with MRSA, and in developing countries.

I think that male and female circumcision for religious purposes below the age of consent is manifestly incompatible with our system of liberal ideas.

[Fausty]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

I'm circumcised and don't mind it but if I ever have a son there's no way in hell I'd let him be circumcised at birth. It's his body and nothing's going to be done with it until he's old enough to make an informed decision.

I am too, and I would let my kid go through it, because he's so young he will forget it, if he does it later he will NEVER forget it.

[Fart Commander]

Fausty posted:

I am too, and I would let my kid go through it, because he's so young he will forget it, if he does it later he will NEVER forget it.

yeah, great logic. i should go fuck some newborns asshole right now, its okay because they won't remember it anyway!

[Trumple]

Roll_Program posted:

It's for protection of the sensitive glans, it's necessary if you wan't to have proper sensation there. Removing it is basically exposing it to a lifetime of rubbing against cloth in your clothes, drying it and desensitising it.

Not always a bad thing to have it less sensitive. Especially now sex is more for pleasure than for reproducing. It means you can 'last longer'

[fenwick]

JohnnyMo1 posted:

I'm circumcised and don't mind it but if I ever have a son there's no way in hell I'd let him be circumcised at birth. It's his body and nothing's going to be done with it until he's old enough to make an informed decision.

Nailed it.

Edited:

Trumple posted:

Not always a bad thing to have it less sensitive. Especially now sex is more for pleasure than for reproducing. It means you can 'last longer'

This is silly.

Who would want less pleasure?

If you can't last in bed then there are other things you can do besides mutilate your penis.

[Fart Commander]

Trumple posted:

Not always a bad thing to have it less sensitive. Especially now sex is more for pleasure than for reproducing. It means you can 'last longer'

so...

since sex is for pleasure, we should give a person less pleasure, because that is more pleasureful?

okay i'm sorry i waste my time in these threads but i really want to know what makes a person have these really stupid bouts of logic.

[Kung Fu Jew]

TBFundy posted:

mutilate isn't really the right term

OK

No anaesthetic, holding the child down/having him strapped in, scraping and cutting protective tissue off of his body with a scalpel

[Banhfunbags]

What exactly are the pros and cons of getting circumcised?

[Contag]

Fausty posted:

I am too, and I would let my kid go through it, because he's so young he will forget it, if he does it later he will NEVER forget it.

That is the most stupid thing I have ever read.

How many people remember their surgeries?
He can simply do it later with a bucket of drugs, which would mean he would not be conscious of the procedure.

Edited:

Kung Fu Jew posted:

OK

No anesthetic, holding the child down/having him strapped in, scraping and cutting protective tissue off of his body with a scalpel

aka mutilate

[GoldenGnome]

Circumcised as a kid (not newborn) and i have to say it's honestly the most terrible experience on earth. I'm gonna have my son circumcised at birth because i wouldn't want him to go through that, or have smegma to deal with.

[Fart Commander]

Cooldudex posted:

What exactly are the pros and cons of getting circumcised?

Pros:
umm...well...uh...none, really. check medical journals, every one of them says that there is no proof of any benefit from circumcision. you don't get smegma, a harmless buildup of cells that grows in your foreskin, so i guess you could count that as a pro if you really wanted to.

Cons:
desensitization of the glans, a nasty scar around the base of your penis made of dead tissue, loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin, loss of the entire frenulum in many cases, infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin, dirt can get into your urethra much easier, the list sort of goes on, and i think you get the idea. circumcision is not good for a person who does not have major problems with their penis.

[Rebi]

Fart Commander posted:

Pros:
umm...well...uh...none, really. check medical journals, every one of them says that there is no proof of any benefit from circumcision. you don't get smegma, a harmless buildup of cells that grows in your foreskin, so i guess you could count that as a pro if you really wanted to.

Cons:
desensitization of the glans, a nasty scar around the base of your penis made of dead tissue, loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin, loss of the entire frenulum in many cases, infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin, dirt can get into your urethra much easier, the list sort of goes on, and i think you get the idea. circumcision is not good for a person who does not have major problems with their penis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...f_circumcision

Notice the summary of research findings, the most common answer was no difference in those surveys.

[DanTehMan]

Abrown516 posted:

The quickest I've ever came while masturbating was when I used lube and just rubbed my head with my palm. It was so sensitive that it was almost unbearable to keep it up for more than a second. And in not even three seconds, I came so fast it wasn't even full jizz, it was like half water.

Circumcised penises aren't that sensitive, are they?

This is stupid, yes they still are. Uncircumcised people who hear the comment that it may cause desensitization blow it way out of proportion.

[Zeke129]

Unless it's necessary for medical reasons, parents have absolutely no business removing parts of their baby's body for aesthetic purposes any more than parents have business giving their child botox or a tattoo.

[DanTehMan]

Fart Commander posted:

Pros:
umm...well...uh...none, really. check medical journals, every one of them says that there is no proof of any benefit from circumcision. you don't get smegma, a harmless buildup of cells that grows in your foreskin, so i guess you could count that as a pro if you really wanted to.

Cons:
desensitization of the glans, a nasty scar around the base of your penis made of dead tissue, loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin, loss of the entire frenulum in many cases, infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin, dirt can get into your urethra much easier, the list sort of goes on, and i think you get the idea. circumcision is not good for a person who does not have major problems with their penis.

That harmless smegma is the leading cause for infections in the penis. You never hear about people wishing they weren't circumcised because of infections. Its always the other way around.

[Fart Commander]

DanTehMan posted:

That harmless smegma is the leading cause for infections in the penis. You never hear about people wishing they weren't circumcised because of infections. Its always the other way around.

i'm sorry, but that is a blatant lie. infections are the leading cause of infections in the penis, not smegma.

Rebi posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_...f_circumcision

Notice the summary of research findings, the most common answer was no difference in those surveys.

actually, the common answer was mixed. but really, that isn't the main focus of the harm that circumcision does. i honestly couldn't care less that some guy has a little less sensitivity than me, but circumcision can never be justified for how its performed on infants without their consent.

[Notanything]

DanTehMan posted:

That harmless smegma is the leading cause for infections in the penis. You never hear about people wishing they weren't circumcised because of infections. Its always the other way around.

I'm fairly certain that he was right in saying it is harmless. I've read a variety of things regarding its properties, and I recall even once reading possible evidence that it can offer a minor protection against HIV. Smegma is also produced by basically all mammals in the world. I don't think it's the foreskin or smegma that cause infections that people erroneously imply. Poor hygiene is to blame, and poor hygiene is not exclusive to one type of penis, intact or not.

And for the record, circumcision can cause infections from the procedure alone, and it's one of the main risks associated with infant circumcision, and children have died from such infections.

[jeimizu]

Fart Commander posted:

infections are the leading cause of infections

That whole sentence just makes my head hurt.

[Contag]

Zeke129 posted:

Unless it's necessary for medical reasons, parents have absolutely no business removing parts of their baby's body for aesthetic purposes any more than parents have business giving their child botox or a tattoo.

But what about braces or teeth whitening?

[jeimizu]

Contag posted:

But what about braces or teeth whitening?

Braces are more than cosmetic.

[Contag]

GoldenGnome posted:

Circumcised as a kid (not newborn) and i have to say it's honestly the most terrible experience on earth. I'm gonna have my son circumcised at birth because i wouldn't want him to go through that, or have smegma to deal with.

Under what conditions was the circumcision performed?

I find the lack of general anesthetic in circumcision operations absolutely deplorable.

[flyschy]

Fart Commander posted:

Pros:
umm...well...uh...none, really. check medical journals, every one of them says that there is no proof of any benefit from circumcision. you don't get smegma, a harmless buildup of cells that grows in your foreskin, so i guess you could count that as a pro if you really wanted to.

Cons:
desensitization of the glans, a nasty scar around the base of your penis made of dead tissue, loss of thousands of important nerve endings present in the foreskin, loss of the entire frenulum in many cases, infections can grow and spread in your urethra easier and can cause damage to your testicles or epididymis instead of just inflammation of the foreskin, dirt can get into your urethra much easier, the list sort of goes on, and i think you get the idea. circumcision is not good for a person who does not have major problems with their penis.

I did and they seem to favor it.

Circumcision Denialism Unfounded and Unscientific (not the best source tbh) posted:

Although three RCTs [1] , [2] and [3] and dozens of observational studies have confirmed that medical male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by at least 60%,4 Green et al.5 continue to question its effectiveness and would deny millions of men—and their female partners—a proven, permanent, and inexpensive method to reduce their lifetime risk of HIV infection. Such denialism in the face of the ongoing pandemic are unethical and immoral.

Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. posted:

Men circumcised in childhood/adolescence are at substantially reduced risk of invasive penile cancer, and this effect could be mediated partly through an effect on phimosis. Expansion of circumcision services in sub-Saharan Africa as an HIV prevention strategy may additionally reduce penile cancer risk.

The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis posted:

These findings have led to calls for promotion of male circumcision, especially in infancy, to help reduce the global burden of penile cancer. Even more relevant globally is protection from cervical cancer, which is 10-times more common, being much higher in women with uncircumcised male partners. Male circumcision also provides indirect protection against various other infections in women, along with direct protection for men from a number of genital tract infections, including HIV. Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted.

I seriously did not expect that.

Source 1.

Source 2.

Source 3.

[Fart Commander]

jeimizu posted:

That whole sentence just makes my head hurt.

hahaha, i know i sound really redundant, i'm just trying to humor him.

[Time Itself]

While I was circumcised as a child, I don't think I would have my child have a circumcision. We don't have a right to force these things on our children unless it's necessary, i.e. for medical reasons. Just because we're unable to remember it is irrelevant. At first I thought "Who cares, you won't remember", then I realized that it DOES matter, because they had no choice in the matter, and they may or may not appreciate what was done to them later in life when they learn what was done to them.
But at 18 and older individuals should have every right to be circumcised if they want to, it's their genitalia, they should be able to do with it what they want, even if others consider it stupid or unneeded.

Edit: And while I understand there are medical benefits to being circumcised (although many seem to disagree), you should still leave the decision up to the person being circumcised, which is really only possible when they are truly able to understand their actions, at 18 or so.

[ButtsexV3]

I don't mind that I am circumcised because that's what I've always had and don't care to have a foreskin. that said, if someone in an alternate universe asked un-circumcised me whether or not I wanted my dick cut up I would say no way.

[Fart Commander]

flyschy posted:

I did and they seem to favor it.







I seriously did not expect that.

many doctors in favor of circumcision have made bizarre claims that it prevents many diseases and infections. this is simply not true, and many studies that try to prove that there is a medical advantage of circumcision are either extremely biased, or the information they collected was insufficient and/or incorrect.

in the 1880's, circumcision was even advertised to prevent things like smallpox and other infectious diseases that had nothing to do with the penis. now that we know much more about diseases, we know that circumcision really doesn't prevent anything.

also, that entire study that claimed that circumcision could prevent HIV/AIDS was flat-out retarded. most of the african men who joined in for the study left after getting their circumcision, so the data they recorded is very wrong. also, why is AIDS so prevelent in the US, a place where around 55% of the people are circumcised?

[ButtsexV3]

Fart Commander posted:

many doctors in favor of circumcision have made bizarre claims that it prevents many diseases and infections. this is simply not true, and many studies that try to prove that there is a medical advantage of circumcision are either extremely biased, or the information they collected was insufficient and/or incorrect.

in the 1880's, circumcision was even advertised to prevent things like smallpox and other infectious diseases that had nothing to do with the penis. now that we know much more about diseases, we know that circumcision really doesn't prevent anything.

also, that entire study that claimed that circumcision could prevent HIV/AIDS was flat-out retarded. most of the african men who joined in for the study left after getting their circumcision, so the data they recorded is very wrong. also, why is AIDS so prevelent in the US, a place where around 55% of the people are circumcised?

don't know about you but I don't know anyone with AIDS

[Fart Commander]

ButtsexV3 posted:

don't know about you but I don't know anyone with AIDS

you don't know anyone with AIDS, so suddenly its not prevalent as fuck in the US.

i wish i could bash my head into my keyboard right now but its too expensive.

[Artyom]

I don't see why people are so against this, calling it mutilation and shit?

It's a fucking flap of skin. Fuck, I don't know. I was circumcised, probably just my bias kicking in.

[Fart Commander]

Artyom posted:

I don't see why people are so against this, calling it mutilation and shit?

It's a fucking flap of skin. Fuck, I don't know. I was circumcised, probably just my bias kicking in.

you don't see why people are against this because you never actually bothered to take the time and educate yourself to whatever the hell happened to your body when you were born. let me help with that.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...57516627632617

[ButtsexV3]

Fart Commander posted:

you don't know anyone with AIDS, so suddenly its not prevalent as fuck in the US.

i wish i could bash my head into my keyboard right now but its too expensive.

oh look for every two hundred people you know, one has AIDS. Maybe.

[Fart Commander]

ButtsexV3 posted:

oh look for every two hundred people you know, one has AIDS. Maybe.

your proving my point still

[DanTehMan]

Fart Commander posted:

many doctors in favor of circumcision have made bizarre claims that it prevents many diseases and infections. this is simply not true, and many studies that try to prove that there is a medical advantage of circumcision are either extremely biased, or the information they collected was insufficient and/or incorrect.

in the 1880's, circumcision was even advertised to prevent things like smallpox and other infectious diseases that had nothing to do with the penis. now that we know much more about diseases, we know that circumcision really doesn't prevent anything.

also, that entire study that claimed that circumcision could prevent HIV/AIDS was flat-out retarded. most of the african men who joined in for the study left after getting their circumcision, so the data they recorded is very wrong. also, why is AIDS so prevelent in the US, a place where around 55% of the people are circumcised?

"I'm just going to blatantly say that medical research journals are positively wrong and not provide any sources because I am an expert on all things penile."

[ButtsexV3]

Fart Commander posted:

your proving my point still

oh yeah more AIDS than iceland, that's really something

[Fart Commander]

DanTehMan posted:

"I'm just going to blatantly say that medical research journals are positively wrong and not provide any sources because I am an expert on all things penile."

i'm so sorry, its late and i'm going to bed soon and i don't have time to find all of these sources!

how about you do a little research for once and find them yourself. who knows? you might find something more interesting than a thread on facepunch where 12 year old kids try to debate.

and just for the record, i know a LOT about penises. i read everything about them, i don't just subject myself to what the internet says is right or wrong. i think i can make my own unbiased opinions by studying all the information i can find, like a good debater.

PS: not every medical journal says circumcision has health benefits. just pointing that out to you.

[ButtsexV3]

Fart Commander posted:

i'm so sorry, its late and i'm going to bed soon and i don't have time to find all of these sources!

how about you do a little research for once and find them yourself. who knows? you might find something more interesting than a thread on facepunch where 12 year old kids try to debate.

flyschy posted:

I did and they seem to favor it.







I seriously did not expect that.

Source 1.

Source 2.

Source 3.

why don't you do some research too?

[DanTehMan]

Fart Commander posted:

i'm so sorry, its late and i'm going to bed soon and i don't have time to find all of these sources!

how about you do a little research for once and find them yourself. who knows? you might find something more interesting than a thread on facepunch where 12 year old kids try to debate.

and just for the record, i know a LOT about penises. i read everything about them, i don't just subject myself to what the internet says is right or wrong. i think i can make my own unbiased opinions by studying all the information i can find, like a good debater.

PS: not every medical journal says circumcision has health benefits. just pointing that out to you.

Well right now I see three sources on this very page that prove my point, and none supporting your point. Don't try telling me how to debate.