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.
This thread is a great example of how much contradictory information is floating around out there in cyberspace. Each side can post endless links with "facts" that support their side of the argument.
I feel sorry for anyone who's trying to seriously research this topic, in order to make a final decision about themselves, or for their child.
Let me save you some time. Apparently, you're damned if you do ... and you're damned if you don't.
The foreskin is created naturally by the human body/nature. Why is it that humanity is also hellbent on going against nature?
Also, penis foreskin is big business!!! (LOL) As Dr. Peter Charles Remondino wrote in 1891 in The History of Circumcision, “for skin-transplanting there is nothing superior to the plants offered by the prepuce of a boy.” So what happens to your child's foreskin after the procedure? Do they throw it away or sell it to the highest bidder??
"Many companies including Skinmedica and Vavelta use Baby’s foreskin removed after circumcision in their anti aging and anti wrinkle creams. According to Skinmedica, their products have used one single foreskin, and that it hasn’t acquired any new foreskin in over 20 years as 1 piece of foreskin is capable of producing 4 acres of fresh and new skin. The cells on the inside of the foreskin are rich in human dermal fibroblasts (HDF), which create collagen. This makes foreskin an ideal ingredient for an anti-wrinkle cream or injectable serum. Vavelta declares it’s injections based on baby’s foreskin as an ideal replacement of botox."
Quick follow up from over a yr ago. Due to a mix up at the VA my circumcision was never performed and am still intact. Infection has slowly decreased over the past couple months with a procedure that I used without a Doctors opinion or knowledge. One good mark for me.
Am 79 and soon to be 80...maybe I'll outlive the need for a surgery...time will tell. Steve
Whenever infection threatens dabbing an antbiiotic stops it in my case. However, before I had sex and the foreskin was unretractable, I was totally unable to practice proper hygiene and too embarassed to talk about it with my parents. In fact, I fellt like a freak since all other kids were circumcized. They had no such problems such as gradual smegma accumulation with the resultant foul smell!
BTW
First time sex was very painful and interfered due to the foreskn's initial strong resistance to stretching which of course dampened my zeal considerably. So if the accursed phimosis is probable by all means circumcize if that's the only solution available.
I have dozens of female friends, and NONE of them would ever be with someone uncircumcised. It's just a preference. Two of them said that they had given uncircumcised guys a chance, but that their hygiene was so poor that they couldn't go through with it. The women I've met who have been with uncircumcised guys have told me that there is no contest regarding pleasure - circumcised feels better. Not to mention uncut just looks nasty (as if the penis doesn't look gross enough without all that extra skin).
So wait, your DOZENS of female friends now represent all females?
Your not basing your argument on facts. Those with poor hygiene will have poor hygiene whether they are circumcised or not. There are plenty of circumcised men with smelly pits, or don't brush their teeth.
Then you give very objective opinions of these female friends who believes circumcised feel better which cannot pass as fact because it's either tested or proven.
Finally, you get to your real agenda where you state "uncut just looks nasty". Well, perhaps if our culture wasn't so biased for circumcisions, you'd have no opinions on the matter. Perhaps if you wandered to Africa or Asia, where there are no culturally embedded habits of circumcision, you'd find that women believe a mutilated penis looks unnatural and "nasty".
If you wish to participate in a debate as sensitive as this issue is, please stick to subjective facts rather than opinions asserted by few.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,799,298 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klato
The foreskin is created naturally by the human body/nature. Why is it that humanity is also hellbent on going against nature?
This seems valid, but glioblastoma multiforme is also created naturally by the human body/nature. I, for one, am hellbent against glioblastoma multiforme.
"Natural" isn't necessarily synonomous with "always best".
This seems valid, but glioblastoma multiforme is also created naturally by the human body/nature. I, for one, am hellbent against glioblastoma multiforme.
"Natural" isn't necessarily synonomous with "always best".
Your argument is baseless.
Glioblastoma multiforme is malignant brain tumor. No one is born with malignant brain tumors. All men are born with foreskins, we don't sprout one later on. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Also, medical dictionaries define tumors as unnatural and abnormal growth of cells.
So there you go, please stop misleading people by classifying brain tumors alongside penis foreskin.
I find it hilarious when on one hand religious people say that men and women are designed in God's image... and totally contradict themselves when they call an uncircumcised man imperfect and disgusting.
Oh you humans.
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.