Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,034,272 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Agreed... although it actually is safER. That's the point.
Aww, you were doing so well too. Unfortunately for you, circumcision WILL make life less risky in terms of major risks such as the conditions I've already repeated to you numerous times. In fact, it completely prevents three of them, and significantly lowers the risk of penile cancer...
"The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the penis carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the penis."
I don't advocate removing all risks. But I do have a problem with people wanting to force others into accepting major risks (either for themselves or for their children) out of concern for minor ones.
Well I COULD hold a seance in hopes to speak with someone who was probably a racist or sexist or both. But I'd rather appeal to logic instead. No one said men would be "suffering in droves" without circumcision. Must you over-inflate my argument to disagree with it? Or can you directly disagree with something I've actually said?
That's false. Circumcised men can also get penile cancer. Penile cancer accounts for 0.1% of deaths from cancer among males in the US. Even if it's higher in other countries it's mostly because of medical care. If caught early it's one of the most treatable forms of cancer.
Either way, there are plenty of other types of cancers you should be worried about before penile cancer. Prostate cancer, for a start. To circumcise 80% of newborns because of the remote chance they might get penile cancer, even if it's no guarantee, is pretty excessive.
I have a problem with supposed freedom loving people forcing their own beliefs on their children. If babies could talk they'd probably tell them to **** off and stick the scalpel up their ass.
That's false. Circumcised men can also get penile cancer. Penile cancer accounts for 0.1% of deaths from cancer among males in the US. Even if it's higher in other countries it's mostly because of medical care. If caught early it's one of the most treatable forms of cancer.
WHAT'S false? No one said circumcised men can't get it, only that it occurs much more frequently in uncircumcised men. But if you're going to argue with something the article frome MedicineNet DID say, shouldn't you at least cite a reference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Either way, there are plenty of other types of cancers you should be worried about before penile cancer. Prostate cancer, for a start. To circumcise 80% of newborns because of the remote chance they might get penile cancer, even if it's no guarantee, is pretty excessive.
Concern for penile cancer and concern for other cancers are not mutually exclusive. And obviously, some parents disagree with you; they think to NOT circumcise an infant and put them at greater risk of penile cancer and other serious conditions, all because of some personal ideal of "wholeness" or that sex is more enjoyable with a foreskin is excessive. Who's right depends on WHY they're right, if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
I have a problem with supposed freedom loving people forcing their own beliefs on their children. If babies could talk they'd probably tell them to **** off and stick the scalpel up their ass.
If babies could talk, they'd tell their parents to never let them be immunized, give them chocolate milk from the very beginning, leave their toenails and fingernails alone, stop cleaning their faces, let them stay on the bottle indefinitely, or just to leave them in the womb for that matter. These are all decisions made by parents in which the infant has absolutely no say. YES, I know you're going to say "Absurd comparisons". But WHY? Because you see the value of these practices as surpassing that of the baby's rights. Parents such as myself see the value of circumcision as surpassing that of the baby's rights, and I don't know how else to elaborate the reasons why.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,034,272 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
WHAT'S false? No one said circumcised men can't get it, only that it occurs much more frequently in uncircumcised men. But if you're going to argue with something the article frome MedicineNet DID say, shouldn't you at least cite a reference?
Concern for penile cancer and concern for other cancers are not mutually exclusive. And obviously, some parents disagree with you; they think to NOT circumcise an infant and put them at greater risk of penile cancer and other serious conditions, all because of some personal ideal of "wholeness" or that sex is more enjoyable with a foreskin is excessive. Who's right depends on WHY they're right, if you ask me.
If babies could talk, they'd tell their parents to never let them be immunized, give them chocolate milk from the very beginning, leave their toenails and fingernails alone, stop cleaning their faces, let them stay on the bottle indefinitely, or just to leave them in the womb for that matter. These are all decisions made by parents in which the infant has absolutely no say. YES, I know you're going to say "Absurd comparisons". But WHY? Because you see the value of these practices as surpassing that of the baby's rights. Parents such as myself see the value of circumcision as surpassing that of the baby's rights, and I don't know how else to elaborate the reasons why.
Circumcision is lifelong in case you didn't know. It's just a less extreme version of female circumcision, but the principle is the same.
The real reason for circumcision is to curb sexual stimulation. Don't believe me? Do some research. You're getting short-changed, buddy.
The risk is so remote, you might as well remove the prostate because of the risk of prostate cancer. Same type of thinking. What's so hard for you to accept that the foreskin is part of the body? Circumcision is removing part of the body. Your defense of this deformation of the human body is pretty sad, if you ask me.
Circumcision is lifelong in case you didn't know. It's just a less extreme version of female circumcision, but the principle is the same.
Maybe the principle is the same, maybe it isn't. But what very little function of the natural foreskin can't be regained through foreskin restoration is negligible. From earlier posts:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
Here again are some of its practical functions:
It's rich in nerve ending and adds to erotic pleasure, especially via the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscles. It acts as a rolling bearing in intercourse and masturbation. It prevents dyspareunia (painful intercourse). It stores pheromones and releases them on arousal. It stores, releases and helps distribute natural lubricants ("smega" and pre-ejaculatory fluid). It prevents the gl*ns from becoming keratinised, and keeps it soft and moist. It protects the thin-skinned gl*ns against injury. It protects the nerves of the gl*ns, retaining their erotic function. It provides lysosomes for bacteriostatic action around the gl*ns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
I'm guessing what I put in bold, the restored foreskin might do also (I asked what the natural foreskin does that the restored foreskin cannot do). In fact, some of my guesses are correct, as you can verify at the websites below. You can correct me if/wherever I'm wrong, though.
So, at very most, you're arguing for the sake of even more sexual stimulation that the restored foreskin can provide, and lysosomes for "bacteriostatic action", which for all I can tell refers to immunity and this happens to be one of circumcision's biggest pros as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
The real reason for circumcision is to curb sexual stimulation. Don't believe me? Do some research. You're getting short-changed, buddy.
Oh heavens, whatever shall I do! I think I've shown the ability (and inclination) to do my research on the subject, thank you. I consider the curbed sexual pleasure from circumcision worth the protection it provides for myself, and certainly for my son.
"The real reason". C'mon, Trimac, get in the heads of parents from THIS century and in THIS country
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
The risk is so remote, you might as well remove the prostate because of the risk of prostate cancer. Same type of thinking. What's so hard for you to accept that the foreskin is part of the body? Circumcision is removing part of the body.
Is it? Is it really? Because if it really is the SAME type of thinking, then yeah, we should be getting rid of those too.
Never argued with the last two facts; I just find it irrelevant to the debate over whether it should be removed. Why can't you accept THAT? To put it another way, what makes the foreskin so sacred so as to overlook the risks it poses, hmmmm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trimac20
Your defense of this deformation of the human body is pretty sad, if you ask me.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,034,272 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb
I challenge you to poll circumcised men and ask them whether they're dissatisfied with their lack of sexual stimulation.
I don't know what the difference is, the only ones who know are those who get circumcised later in life, but if it's appreciable I'd rather experience sex the way nature intended.
And neither do those who are circumcised. But as I look around me and around the world, it seems that circumcised men are doing just fine in the sexual satisfaction department. So, this argument about whether or not non-circumcised men have superior sexual stimulation is pretty much nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
