|
Post by jameson on Sept 14, 2007 3:24:22 GMT -6
Is it true that when a male is circumcised ,a good chunk of nerves are removed?I have grown to view this practice as barbaric and distasteful despite having been subject to it after birth.If nerve tissue is destroyed ,then this practice is equally ,well actually it isn't even partially as wicked as clitoral circumcision,but still.
I realize it's a tradition attached to religion but in my opinion imposing such an act on a child is the greatest atrocity,they never get a chance to choose or experience life with it first.Never being able to know what one is missing is the greatest of all evils in my opinion.Should these ancient barbaric practices be comitted to children?Should a parent even have the right to chose a child's sex if they are born neither or both?.I argue that they shouldn't.There are some choices that should be made by the individual and not their parents.
Also ,when I finally get laid,if I find out that theres a possibility it won't be as pleasurable as it should have been because I was circumcised ,Ill be pissed.Actually I am,since it was done to me ,I was unable to urinate around other people,a twenty two year mental defect in the making or the first engram/trauma if you will.
|
|
|
Post by Deadly Disease on Sept 14, 2007 4:59:40 GMT -6
Hi Jameson,
Is it true that when a male is circumcised ,a good chunk of nerves are removed?
No, i dont think that is true. The nerves are underneath the skin. In circumsision, only a piece of skin is cut off. besides even if nerves ARE cut off, the nerves would not belong to the penis itself. to the top part of the penis where nerves are essential to sexual pleasure.
I realize it's a tradition attached to religion but in my opinion imposing such an act on a child is the greatest atrocity,they never get a chance to choose or experience life with it first.
Many people (espcially in US and england) are getting circumsised at birth even non jews. this is because it is considered to be much healthier to the state of the penis in future years as well as cleaner.
they never get a chance to choose or experience life with it first.
Circumsised or not, it doesnt really matter that much really. Males tend not to envy the other penis state they dont care that much anyway.
Should these ancient barbaric practices be comitted to children?Should a parent even have the right to chose a child's sex if they are born neither or both?.I argue that they shouldn't.There are some choices that should be made by the individual and not their parents.
Now this is dangerous ground right here. If a child is unfortunate enough to be born neither or both sex then i believe that one descicion should be to made to distingiush what gender the child will be. Not acting on it and waiting till he is mature enough to decide what he wants ( which is between age 7-12) the child would have already gone through bullying, psychological confict with himself and so on.
Also ,when I finally get laid,if I find out that theres a possibility it won't be as pleasurable as it should have been because I was circumcised ,Ill be pissed. Dont worry about that, cuz its not true. If someone told you that bs then tell him to go get stuffed. Circumsised or not, it does not intervene when it comes to sex. Infact, being circumsised can be a very positive trait. Most women prefer it actually because there is less skin so its better plus putting on condoms on is easier.
Peace
|
|
|
Post by jameson on Sept 14, 2007 9:33:13 GMT -6
Good point on the whole bullying thing.As for the better off being circumcised thing...its music to my ears knowing that this isn't true
|
|
|
Post by huscarle on Sept 14, 2007 9:35:49 GMT -6
Yes Jameson I do think it's a barbaric practice (I dislike the word barbaric, perhaps unnatural practice sounds better) and is essentially the wanton mutilation of a child. There are justifiable cases where someone has a too small foreskin which makes sexual intercourse impossible or very painful and it has to be removed then but this is when the patient is a adult and able to make the decision himself. While it's true the nerves aren't damaged in the gland of the penis the act of removing the foreskin does desensitize the penis which can lead to less pleasure when copulating. This is because the tip of the penis is usually under the protective cover of the foreskin so it is a lot more sensitive when it cuts loose of it through a boner. Circumcism has also been linked to erectile disfunction in several medical reports www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/circs.org/library/fink/index.html(although the later one is regarding men who were cut as adults so to speak) There are also theories that the foreskin naturally helps during intercourse by easing the penis's entry into the vagina. It is also said to aid a woman in achieving orgasm faster and more often by increasing clitoral stimulation. I believe in America the AMA routinely promotes circumcision as a health issue as dirt and bacteria can accumulate under the hood if proper hygiene is not followed. Much of this is because parents have something of a stigma in pulling back the foreskin of a young child to wash underneath it correctly. Infections are quite common in dirty uncircumcized cocks and can be quite painful leaving a red throbbing, pus dripping extremity. I feel better hygiene or education is all that is needed to combat this unpleasantness rather than the extreme measures of the surgeon's knife as soon as on is born.
|
|
|
Post by jameson on Sept 14, 2007 17:45:53 GMT -6
So science really has proven it desensitizes .Curse you maniacal rabis.!!!The knife is America's solution for most things.Are we any much better than third world asian or african countries where a young girl is held down ,and a few locals take a piece of glass off the street removing the clitoris and labia off of a young girl?Ethically I think not.In truth however it isn't as crippling but still.Circumcision is nothing more than a fad.Keep yourself clean and let the parents do thier jobs and it souldnt be an issue.Talk about lazy.
|
|
|
Post by youma on Sept 21, 2007 13:34:04 GMT -6
I had a boyfriend who was circumcised, and who said that sex pulled the skin around the urethra rather painfully. I had another who didn't think so. I always thought the first one was a little wussy.
Not exactly the same thing but related issue: My mother pierced my ears when I was a baby. The infection never healed, over twenty-five years later it's still full of pus and bloody and itchy. So I'm against parents deciding of body modification for their children (unless it's medically required or to correct a difformity but that's another story)
|
|
|
Post by jameson on Sept 21, 2007 14:21:03 GMT -6
Your first bf probably was circumcised as an adult so it hurt him.But as to your other point,yeah parents shouldn't decide on bodily modifications unless it's tumor removal or deformity corrections.And as always for all those nations that butcher a woman's flower,I hope they perish in a nuclear hailstorm.Yep I said it
|
|