Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Secular Pinoy · 08-14-2003, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pariahSS
thats what i was thinking except!!! they wont know ur uncut until after u score once. after that u will have to rely on your hand or get another girl...but at least u have that nice gliding action!

Sometimes I wonder what sex would be like if I wasn't cut.

Leesifer · 08-14-2003, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation
Women prefer a circumsized penis?

Says who?

Mendeh · 08-14-2003, 09:07 AM

My penis isn't connected to American women or to anyone else, it's connected to me. The sensations it feels don't end up in anyone else's brain except my own. I don't really give a toss how anyone else likes their penises; I personally like mine with as many nerve-endings on it as possible, kept in as good condition as possible, because it makes the pleasure far more intense, and personally I like my sex as hot as possible.

If the foreskin is just a bit of overlapping skin, then surely, following the same reasoning, the clitoral hood is too. This is not accepted as a mitigating factor in the removal of the latter; why should this make the removal of the former any easier to justify?

If the clitoral hood is not just a bit of overlapping skin, then could someone please explain to me precisely why:

Perhaps because the clitoral hood protects the clitoris? Likewise the foreskin protects the glans.It stops it from drying out and thereby losing sensitivity.

Perhaps because the clitoral hood is itself erotically sensitive? So is the foreskin; it has 10,000 nerve endings and speaking as the owner of one, it feels bloody good to the touch.

Perhaps massaging the clitoral hood is an indirect way of stimulating the clitoris? Exactly the same with the foreskin.

Guillaume · 08-14-2003, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation
Women prefer a circumsized penis?

Not in Europe. Yet another good reason to get the hell out of america.

RevDahlia · 08-14-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation
Women prefer a circumsized penis?

I don't care one way or another.

In my (not-too-extensive) experience, though, uncut guys tend not to last as long. But that "glide" thing does feel pretty good.

Deadend · 08-14-2003, 12:41 PM

I�ve noticed, after reading this thread, that men, circumcised and not, are both equally sensitive about their penis.

Loki · 08-14-2003, 12:47 PM

I'm an American woman and I prefer uncircumcized, but must admit the damn things are pretty ugly either way. The foreskin just looks so much more natural, especially since it's a normal pasty skin color, and not red or purple or something. And the glide factor is really nice. And the foreskin can help to prevent mess after certain... sexual things. And I find it sort of fun to play with. *smiles innocently* My boyfriend's uncut, btw.

ex-xian · 08-14-2003, 12:53 PM

I noticed that there were four men who were circumsized after birth. What were the pros and cons of before and after the surgery?

john fraz · 08-20-2003, 09:38 AM

Perpetuating guilt and fear over natural phenomena and your own body and what it can do is a thing religions do very well.
They preach it for so long it becomes the norm. Like the "Under a Dog" in the pledge, it's propaganda at its heart -not necessarily meant to persuade, but to make the proscribed line of thinking the seeming norm, so contrary views will stand out. Eventually, the line is acepted as the norm -as infant genital mutilation (circumcision) is.

We've heard of female "circumcision", and the tortured religious reasons for it; Remove the clitoris so the girls won't enjoy sexual contact, and sew the vulva together, so their husbands are guaranteed a virgin... Male circumcision is fairly similar, to "prevent" masturbation (following along the lines that sex is evil, so if we make it uncomfortable & painful, then they won't want to do it)

It's just starting to come into the open that the supposed medical claims are bogus. Fixing something which isn't broken, just to be sure it doesn't break later. One criticical site says it's like routinely performing mastectomy on girls because breast cancer is a big problem for many.

Quote:

http://www.nocirc.org/
Circumcision is the amputation of the prepuce from the rest of the penis,
resulting in permanent alteration of the anatomy histology and function of
the penis [1,2]. Recently, legal scholars have challenged the legality of
neonatal circumcision [3-7] and argued that it constitutes child abuse
[8,9]. While this conjecture may seem outlandish to American physicians,
who tend to a population in which 70-90% of the males are circumcised
neonatally, such claims have a strong foundation in legal precedent and
medico-ethical standards that aim to protect the bodily integrity of
persons

Quote:

http://www.cirp.org/AAP/
March 1, 1999: After a two year investigation, the American Academy of
Pediatrics concluded that the "potential medical benefits" of infant
circumcision aren't significant enough and therefore, they do not recommend
it as a routine procedure.

All infants suffer during and after the procedure
...
Most circumcisions in the U.S. are still executed without any form of
analgesia

Quote:

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
One study was conducted that followed circumcised boys beyond the
immediate post-operative period. It concluded that complications occurred at
an alarming rate of 55%
...
circumcised babies experience substantially more problems than the baby left
intact.

Quote:

http://www.circ-info.org/
There are no valid medical reasons for infant circumcision. Since infant
circumcision is medically unnecessary, it is essentially a form of cosmetic
surgery. At the same time, infant circumcision carries a substantial risk of
serious medical complications.
...
The circumcision of baby boys is not the harmless, medically necessary
procedure that we have been led to believe. In reality, infant circumcision
is the excruciatingly painful and medically unnecessary mutilation of a
baby's genitals. It inflicts serious physical and psychological injuries
that last a lifetime.

Quote:

The Origin of Routine Infant Circumcision in the United States
http://www.circ-info.org/origin_frame.htm
The medical history of infant circumcision is full of fallacies.
Circumcision in the United States began in the 1800's as an anti-masturbation
measure. At that time, the medical community claimed that masturbation
caused a multitude of medical problems ranging from bedwetting to syphilis to
'masturbatory insanity' to death to damnation of the eternal soul. (1, 2)
Infant circumcision was touted as a cure-all that would prevent children from
masturbating and thus protect them from these myriad dangers.

In 1903, Dr. Mary R. Melendy stated:
"It [masturbation] lays the foundation for consumption (tuberculosis),
paralysis and heart disease. It weakens the memory, makes a boy careless,
negligent and listless. It even makes many lose their minds; others, when
grown, commit suicide.
How often mothers see their little boys handling themselves, and let it pass,
because they think the boy will outgrow the habit, and do not realize the
strong hold it has upon them! I say to you, who love your boys? 'Watch!'
Don't think it does no harm to your boy because he does not suffer now, for
the effects of this vice come on so slowly that the victim is often very near
death before you realize that he has done himself harm.
It is worthy of note that many eminent physicians now advocate the custom
of circumcision , claiming that the removal of a little of the foreskin induces
cleanliness, thus preventing the irritation and excitement which come from
the gathering of the whitish matter under the foreskin at the beginning of
the glans.
This irritation being removed, the boy is less apt to tamper with his sexual
organs. The argument seems a good one, especially when we call to mind
the high physical state of those people who have practiced the custom.
Happy is the mother who can feel she has done her duty, in this direction,
while her boy is still a child." (7)

Many cruel and extreme measures were used in an attempt to prevent boys
from masturbating:
"Some doctors recommend covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather,
or rubber, cauterization, making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings,
and in extreme cases, castration." (8)

It was believed that the significant reduction in male sexual sensitivity
that results from circumcision would reduce masturbation. Of course it
didn't, and as modern scientific research began uncovering the real causes
of disease, the masturbation theory was discredited. (9) To replace the
masturbation theory, a succession of alternate medical justifications for
infant circumcision were claimed on the basis of various seriously flawed
studies. (10) None of these studies has withstood scientific scrutiny, and
at this time every alleged medical benefit of infant circumcision has been
discredited. (11)

Quote:

Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), was a medieval Jewish rabbi
"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision.
None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is
harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent
concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished.
The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and
sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this
member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from
it, it must indubitably be weakened.
In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is
circumcision..." The operation should be performed by a surgeon without
administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have
a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea
of punishment..." John Harvey Kellog, M.D., Treatment for Self-Abuse and
Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa; F. Segner & Co., 1888.

tronvillain · 08-20-2003, 10:20 AM

I saw a small paragraph in some men's magazine (Maxim or FHM, etc.) and it mentioned that a study had "shown" there was no average difference in sensitivity between circumsized and uncircumsized individuals. They test response to heat and to vibration. HEAT and VIBRATION! I wonder why they didn't test sensitivity to friction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2003, 09:07 AM	#83
Mendeh Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: London, England Posts: 302	My penis isn't connected to American women or to anyone else, it's connected to me. The sensations it feels don't end up in anyone else's brain except my own. I don't really give a toss how anyone else likes their penises; I personally like mine with as many nerve-endings on it as possible, kept in as good condition as possible, because it makes the pleasure far more intense, and personally I like my sex as hot as possible. If the foreskin is just a bit of overlapping skin, then surely, following the same reasoning, the clitoral hood is too. This is not accepted as a mitigating factor in the removal of the latter; why should this make the removal of the former any easier to justify? If the clitoral hood is not just a bit of overlapping skin, then could someone please explain to me precisely why: Perhaps because the clitoral hood protects the clitoris? Likewise the foreskin protects the glans.It stops it from drying out and thereby losing sensitivity. Perhaps because the clitoral hood is itself erotically sensitive? So is the foreskin; it has 10,000 nerve endings and speaking as the owner of one, it feels bloody good to the touch. Perhaps massaging the clitoral hood is an indirect way of stimulating the clitoris? Exactly the same with the foreskin.

08-14-2003, 12:41 PM	#86
Deadend Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 808	I�ve noticed, after reading this thread, that men, circumcised and not, are both equally sensitive about their penis.

08-14-2003, 12:47 PM	#87
Loki Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Land of hippies and fog Posts: 2,075	I'm an American woman and I prefer uncircumcized, but must admit the damn things are pretty ugly either way. The foreskin just looks so much more natural, especially since it's a normal pasty skin color, and not red or purple or something. And the glide factor is really nice. And the foreskin can help to prevent mess after certain... sexual things. And I find it sort of fun to play with. smiles innocently My boyfriend's uncut, btw.

08-14-2003, 12:53 PM	#88
ex-xian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: :noitacoL Posts: 4,679	I noticed that there were four men who were circumsized after birth. What were the pros and cons of before and after the surgery?

08-20-2003, 10:20 AM	#90
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I saw a small paragraph in some men's magazine (Maxim or FHM, etc.) and it mentioned that a study had "shown" there was no average difference in sensitivity between circumsized and uncircumsized individuals. They test response to heat and to vibration. HEAT and VIBRATION! I wonder why they didn't test sensitivity to friction.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.