PDA

View Full Version : Video: Penn&Teller/Others on Circumcision




Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 12:20 PM
This came up recently, so here's a video about circumcision featuring Dr. Dean Edell and Penn and Teller...discusses medical and human rights issues.

http://www.nocirc.org/


YouTube - Circumcision - Just say NO! Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHVvB1oHAgg)

YouTube - Circumcision - Just say NO! Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAo1PCDtgBY)

Meatwasp
04-22-2009, 12:28 PM
This article will make a lot of young men upset. This practice has to go away like the chinese wrapping of their little girls feet.

angelatc
04-22-2009, 12:50 PM
Actually it seems to be a tradition that probably began as a means to prolong the life of men. Circumcised men have less of certain medical conditions. Today we can just go to the doctor and get antibiotics, but in ancient times that wasn't exactly possible.

I doubt that our ancestors knew why they were doing it, but their instincts were absolutely correct.

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 12:55 PM
Actually it seems to be a tradition that probably began as a means to prolong the life of men. Circumcised men have less of certain medical conditions. Today we can just go to the doctor and get antibiotics, but in ancient times that wasn't exactly possible.

I doubt that our ancestors knew why they were doing it, but their instincts were absolutely correct.

Actually, it was a marker. To indicate going through a right of passage ritual, or to identify members of your own tribe.

ladyjade3
04-22-2009, 01:02 PM
Actually, it was marker. To indicate going through a right of passage ritual, or to identify members of your own tribe.

But angelatc is right. God couldn't exactly explain biology and pathogens and germs and stuff, so He says, uhhhh, just do this because I said so and to show your devotion to me.

Same reason He said not to eat pork. They didn't understand about cooking temperatures and salmonella and e.coli, so He hands it down as a religious edict.

But I think now that we DO understand all these things and we DO have anti-biotics, we should stop circumcising and we should eat more bacon. Jews too. :)

That's my theory and opinion.

Let them eat bacon.

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 01:07 PM
Actually it seems to be a tradition that probably began as a means to prolong the life of men. Circumcised men have less of certain medical conditions. Today we can just go to the doctor and get antibiotics, but in ancient times that wasn't exactly possible.

I doubt that our ancestors knew why they were doing it, but their instincts were absolutely correct.

From what I understood, in areas like the Middle East, where there is a lot of sand and not a lot of water to wash oneself, sand would get inside the penis and cause infections. Foreskin removal would reduce the probability of this happening.

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 01:12 PM
But angelatc is right. God couldn't exactly explain biology and pathogens and germs and stuff, so He says, uhhhh, just do this because I said so and to show your devotion to me.

Same reason He said not to eat pork. They didn't understand about cooking temperatures and salmonella and e.coli, so He hands it down as a religious edict.

But I think now that we DO understand all these things and we DO have anti-biotics, we should stop circumcising and we should eat more bacon. Jews too. :)

That's my theory and opinion.

Let them eat bacon.

Ancient Biblical circumcision was a minor clip compared to today's radical removal. The old method didn't really change the anatomy very much.

You may find the entire link below interesting:


The circumcision that Abraham and his descendants practiced was something entirely different from modern circumcision. It merely involved cutting the tip of the foreskin, not removing it!

http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html

Meatwasp
04-22-2009, 01:17 PM
From what I understood, in areas like the Middle East, where there is a lot of sand and not a lot of water to wash oneself, sand would get inside the penis and cause infections. Foreskin removal would reduce the probability of this happening.

Teutanic tribes didn't believe in this did they? I really never heard that the Native Americans or latin American people pacticed this. I thought it was stickly religious.

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 01:18 PM
Dunno, it isn't traditional in Europe, if that tells you anything.

sdczen
04-22-2009, 01:53 PM
Circs are done mainly for health & medical reasons. There are a myriad of infections that circs significantly reduce the risks. AIDS especially. Here are some articles for the inquiring minds:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html
http://www.circinfo.net/summary.html

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Circs are done mainly for health & medical reasons. There are a myriad of infections that circs significantly reduce the risks. AIDS especially.

Ex post facto bullshit. There is NO medical reason for infant male circumcision except for in the most minute and extreme situations. Its a goddamned barbaric tribal practice that was reintroduced in the late 19th Century by quack assclown Dr. Kellog to cure little boys of masturbation. Its a fucking brutal practice that should have been outlawed long ago and the continued falsification of the reasons for its continued practice is fraudulent and criminal.

The sooner our country sheds this inane Victorian Age horseshit we're carrying around, the better off we'll be. I might remind you that its the same assholes that gave us Prohibition and other forms of Chrisitian Socialist/Progressive asshatery that we now have to contend with. Its just another way to control people, in this case men. We're supposed to be ashamed of having the full experience of masturbation and sexual intimacy, so some jackass whacks off the vast majority of the nerve cluster that creates sexual fulfillment.

MRoCkEd
04-22-2009, 02:05 PM
I want my foreskin back. :(

Anti Federalist
04-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Ex post facto bullshit. There is NO medical reason for infant male circumcision except for in the most minute and extreme situations. Its a goddamned barbaric tribal practice that was reintroduced in the late 19th Century by quack assclown Dr. Kellog to cure little boys of masturbation. Its a fucking brutal practice that should have been outlawed long ago and the continued falsification of the reasons for its continued practice is fraudulent and criminal.

The sooner our country sheds this inane Victorian Age horseshit we're carrying around, the better off we'll be. I might remind you that its the same assholes that gave us Prohibition and other forms of Chrisitian Socialist/Progressive asshatery that we now have to contend with. Its just another way to control people, in this case men. We're supposed to be ashamed of having the full experience of masturbation and sexual intimacy, so some jackass whacks off the vast majority of the nerve cluster that creates sexual fulfillment.

Not much different than female clitoral circumcision common in Africa.

Mr. Rocked is right...I want my foreskin back.:rolleyes::confused::D

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Circs are done mainly for health & medical reasons. There are a myriad of infections that circs significantly reduce the risks. AIDS especially. Here are some articles for the inquiring minds:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html
http://www.circinfo.net/summary.html

Wrong.

For every study you put up, I can put up one saying the opposite.

Circumcision does not reduce HIV:

http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 02:21 PM
Not much different than female clitoral circumcision common in Africa.


But like here in the US, there are such compelling health reasons for circumcision. She goes into the health benefits of circumcision in this video (@1Min36Sec):

YouTube - Female circumcision (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMSQPDd1B2g#t=1m36s)

Meatwasp
04-22-2009, 02:24 PM
Ex post facto bullshit. There is NO medical reason for infant male circumcision except for in the most minute and extreme situations. Its a goddamned barbaric tribal practice that was reintroduced in the late 19th Century by quack assclown Dr. Kellog to cure little boys of masturbation. Its a fucking brutal practice that should have been outlawed long ago and the continued falsification of the reasons for its continued practice is fraudulent and criminal.

The sooner our country sheds this inane Victorian Age horseshit we're carrying around, the better off we'll be. I might remind you that its the same assholes that gave us Prohibition and other forms of Chrisitian Socialist/Progressive asshatery that we now have to contend with. Its just another way to control people, in this case men. We're supposed to be ashamed of having the full experience of masturbation and sexual intimacy, so some jackass whacks off the vast majority of the nerve cluster that creates sexual fulfillment.

wow your still mad. You are right though.

Pennsylvania
04-22-2009, 02:30 PM
I want my foreskin back. :(

++;

Not too long ago I confronted both of my parents about this. It's mutilation, plain and simple.

sdczen
04-22-2009, 02:54 PM
Ex post facto bullshit. There is NO medical reason for infant male circumcision except for in the most minute and extreme situations. Its a goddamned barbaric tribal practice that was reintroduced in the late 19th Century by quack assclown Dr. Kellog to cure little boys of masturbation. Its a fucking brutal practice that should have been outlawed long ago and the continued falsification of the reasons for its continued practice is fraudulent and criminal.

The sooner our country sheds this inane Victorian Age horseshit we're carrying around, the better off we'll be. I might remind you that its the same assholes that gave us Prohibition and other forms of Chrisitian Socialist/Progressive asshatery that we now have to contend with. Its just another way to control people, in this case men. We're supposed to be ashamed of having the full experience of masturbation and sexual intimacy, so some jackass whacks off the vast majority of the nerve cluster that creates sexual fulfillment.

:eek: Geeze, didn't mean to circumcise your nerves. Parents make the best choice they can when it comes to their children. There is plenty of evidence that supports parents choice in circumcising their children. It's not some conspiracy that the medical industry pushes onto people. In fact, I believe most insurance co.'s pay around $40 per circumcision. Nobody is getting rich there.

Personally, I could care less what procedures parents get for their children. Some are good, some are not. It's a voluntary procedure. If you don't want your children to have it done, then that is your choice.

A side note: I enjoyed your tirade. You used one of my favorite words "asshatery" and then you used the word masturbation and whack off in the same sentence. ;)

sdczen
04-22-2009, 02:56 PM
Wrong.

For every study you put up, I can put up one saying the opposite.

Circumcision does not reduce HIV:

http://www.nocirc.org/2008-07_Mothering-Fauntleroy.pdf

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

Then I guess we'll never really know who is correct then....

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 03:07 PM
Then I guess we'll never really know who is correct then....

Considering that both sides have an agenda, it's hard to say. Especially when these "studies" are just statistical and uncontrolled.

But the side effects, cost and risk of this elective operation itself are absolutely real. There have been plenty of times that a baby boy has been accidentally turned into a baby girl or non-functional male. They have literally come out and said, "whoops we turned your boy into a girl. Don't worry, we'll give her hormones and put her in a dress, and she'll never know". :eek:

ravedown
04-22-2009, 03:11 PM
meh...mutilation? i dont remember a thing....besides, the ladies i've polled (pun intended) say they prefer the modified version.

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Funny that all of you want your foreskin. I was born into a Polish family. Circumcision is a silly Jewish and Muslim tradition in the eyes of my culture. ;)

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 03:13 PM
meh...mutilation? i dont remember a thing....besides, the ladies i've polled (pun intended) say they prefer the modified version.

No circumcision = bigger penis.

I rest my case.

Zera
04-22-2009, 03:16 PM
No circumcision = bigger penis.

I rest my case.

Excuse me sir, but please do not just speak out of you ass.

sdczen
04-22-2009, 03:16 PM
Considering that both sides have an agenda, it's hard to say. Especially when these "studies" are just statistical and uncontrolled.

But the side effects, cost and risk of this elective operation itself are absolutely real. There have been plenty of times that a baby boy has been accidentally turned into a baby girl or non-functional male. They have literally come out and said, "whoops we turned your boy into a girl. Don't worry, we'll give her hormones and put her in a dress, and she'll never know". :eek:

Yes, I realize this. Then there are the parents that opt out of the procedure for their kid, then the kid develops some sort of issue that a circ could have prevented. There is no real winner here (as with most things). To each its own, I guess :)

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 03:22 PM
Excuse me sir, but please do not just speak out of you ass.

Lol!

Hate to say it, but what he said is actually a claim (which many believe is true) against circumcision. And it has just as much proof as the supposed health benefits. :rolleyes:

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 03:24 PM
Dunno, I actually saw the Penn & Teller episode on circumcision and that's what they said. If they say it, I believe it.

krazy kaju
04-22-2009, 03:25 PM
Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/killingthyme) is the P&T Bullshit episode, BTW.

Meatwasp
04-22-2009, 03:35 PM
meh...mutilation? i dont remember a thing....besides, the ladies i've polled (pun intended) say they prefer the modified version.

That wasn't true when I was young. Of cource we were more chaste then.

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 03:36 PM
Here (http://www.youtube.com/user/killingthyme) is the P&T Bullshit episode, BTW.

You need to put a big warning on that one!

Warning: Adult content, Crude and sexually explicit jokes, Nudity.

YouTube - circumcision is barbaric mutilation part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZLna_uzLQ&feature=channel_page)

Victor
04-22-2009, 05:06 PM
Lol!

Hate to say it, but what he said is actually a claim (which many believe is true) against circumcision. And it has just as much proof as the supposed health benefits. :rolleyes:

I had to do a circumsition because my foreskin was too tight, I have heard many adults suffers from the same problem.

Concerning, the size, it has nothing to do with being circumsized or not, although the size was the reason why I had to do it.

Yes, it hurts a lot, I did this 10+ years ago, when I was around 20 years old. Still remember it clearly. And this I do not wish my own children will ever experience, since we men are very sensitive down there. So nay, I do not believe newborns should be circumsized, although, if your kid has problems in latter years, you might need to do it.

aravoth
04-22-2009, 05:59 PM
lol @ this thread.

Seriously, don't take a knife to your son's junk, thats just fucked up.

AutoDas
04-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Does masturbation help prevent the foreskin from getting tight?

aravoth
04-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Does masturbation help prevent the foreskin from getting tight?

It was only a matter of time................

brandon
04-22-2009, 06:12 PM
Ex post facto bullshit. There is NO medical reason for infant male circumcision except for in the most minute and extreme situations. Its a goddamned barbaric tribal practice that was reintroduced in the late 19th Century by quack assclown Dr. Kellog to cure little boys of masturbation. Its a fucking brutal practice that should have been outlawed long ago and the continued falsification of the reasons for its continued practice is fraudulent and criminal.

The sooner our country sheds this inane Victorian Age horseshit we're carrying around, the better off we'll be. I might remind you that its the same assholes that gave us Prohibition and other forms of Chrisitian Socialist/Progressive asshatery that we now have to contend with. Its just another way to control people, in this case men. We're supposed to be ashamed of having the full experience of masturbation and sexual intimacy, so some jackass whacks off the vast majority of the nerve cluster that creates sexual fulfillment.

This post is awesome on so many levels.

Well done. :D

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 06:12 PM
I had to do a circumsition because my foreskin was too tight, I have heard many adults suffers from the same problem.

Concerning, the size, it has nothing to do with being circumsized or not, although the size was the reason why I had to do it.

Yes, it hurts a lot, I did this 10+ years ago, when I was around 20 years old. Still remember it clearly. And this I do not wish my own children will ever experience, since we men are very sensitive down there. So nay, I do not believe newborns should be circumsized, although, if your kid has problems in latter years, you might need to do it.

Aye carumba! I hope it wasn't a standard radical circumcision? If any medical intervention is required in a "tightness" situation, it is usually just a small cut to loosen it (No skin removal).

And as another poster inferred, skin can be stretched...

klamath
04-22-2009, 06:14 PM
I feel sorry for those poor guys that got their weinnie wacked.:D:p

brandon
04-22-2009, 06:15 PM
On a positive note for all of us with less than 100%of our penises, most American women prefer the look of a cut penis.

I still wish I was uncut though.

orafi
04-22-2009, 06:15 PM
I'm fine with my flap off. Haven't met anyone circumcized that has complained. And yeah, once you hack the slack, you CAN go back.

brandon
04-22-2009, 06:17 PM
How to non-surgically restore your foreskin (http://foreskinrestorationchat.info/completeguide.htm)

I have never attempted to do this and doubt I ever will, but if anyone's interested there is a ton of info available.

sdczen
04-22-2009, 06:21 PM
Uggh, when is this thread going peter out? :)

brandon
04-22-2009, 06:27 PM
I just found this and it is a really good read. Written by a doctor...

Why a man would want to restore his foreskin (http://foreskinrestorationchat.info/jfaq.html)

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 07:07 PM
I just found this and it is a really good read. Written by a doctor...

Why a man would want to restore his foreskin (http://foreskinrestorationchat.info/jfaq.html)

Interesting. Of course you don't get the nerves back, and there is still scar tissue...

BKV
04-22-2009, 07:16 PM
Moderators, this is a bit dirty, let's move this to off topic.

I'm afraid sensitive Jews would be offended.

(and yes, graphic scenes)

Brian4Liberty
04-22-2009, 08:12 PM
Moderators, this is a bit dirty, let's move this to off topic.


Yeah, that other Penn&Teller is a little racy. Thus the big warning I added.



I'm afraid sensitive Jews would be offended.


Like Dr. Dean Edell? Dr. Fleiss?



(and yes, graphic scenes)

Yeah, it's hard to watch...

Working Poor
04-22-2009, 08:25 PM
I am so glad I did not have that done to any of my children...

Met Income
04-22-2009, 08:29 PM
Health BENEFITS? LOL Come on, people. Come. On.

Victor
04-22-2009, 08:44 PM
Aye carumba! I hope it wasn't a standard radical circumcision? If any medical intervention is required in a "tightness" situation, it is usually just a small cut to loosen it (No skin removal).

And as another poster inferred, skin can be stretched...

Well, at the time, I just wanted it done, and being at that age, I do not believe (at least I do not remember) the doctors giving me any other option than to do a standard circumcision, I think they even recommended that.

Nonetheless, as a person that has experienced the benefits of both having and not having. I can say that there is not a huge difference.

I guess what I am trying to say, is that doing it on newborns is wrong. Although if you are forced or want to do it later when you are an adult, then fret not, you will function normally.

Anyways, enough of the private parts.

Anti Federalist
04-22-2009, 09:25 PM
Uggh, when is this thread going peter out? :)

Dang, beaten to the punch.

:D

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 09:02 AM
I do not believe (at least I do not remember) the doctors giving me any other option than to do a standard circumcision, I think they even recommended that.

They probably did. There has been this dogma about circumcision in the US for far too long. Even the medical profession has been involved in this conditioning that you should do it, don't even question it.

But if you step back and look at it objectively, you may think otherwise. Hopefully this thread will save a few baby boys from an absolutely unnecessary surgery, which has physical and emotional side effects, risks, and sometimes terrible accidents.

This is a tough subject for people to look at objectively. People don't want to consider that maybe it wasn't the right thing to do, and they did it to their children or had it done to them. As someone said, people try to do what's best. And they put full faith in the medical profession.

But it's not the end of the world, and parents get over being harassed about it every time it comes up... :D ;)

andrewh817
04-23-2009, 12:06 PM
It's not some conspiracy that the medical industry pushes onto people. In fact, I believe most insurance co.'s pay around $40 per circumcision. Nobody is getting rich there.

Well it's estimated that 70% of male babies born in the US are circumcised so that $40 per child actually adds up pretty fast, but I think you're right it's just a weird tradition.

Paulitician
04-23-2009, 12:34 PM
I have a personal question about circumcision.

I don't think I was born circumcised, mainly because I had foreskin covering the head of my penis all my childhood (I'd ask my parents but it's a bit weird...). However, when I went through puberty, I started to pull the foreskin back and whatnot, mostly to keep myself clean. I could remember it hurting sometimes, and the head was ultra sensetive, but I don't think I caused any tears or trauma down there (I didn't try to force it). Then eventually the foreskin never covered the entire head, even when I'm limp, essentially making me circumcised now. Is this normal? Has this happened to anyone else? Personally, I like it better this way. Looks better, and I no longer have to feel the discomfort of pulling the skin back.

sdczen
04-23-2009, 12:57 PM
Well it's estimated that 70% of male babies born in the US are circumcised so that $40 per child actually adds up pretty fast, but I think you're right it's just a weird tradition.

It's certainly not a money maker for the Pediatrician to do Circs. They spend 30 minutes with the patient and have to purchase/supply the procedure kit for each one. I would say the Doc's are doing this pretty much for free.

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 01:24 PM
It's certainly not a money maker for the Pediatrician to do Circs. They spend 30 minutes with the patient and have to purchase/supply the procedure kit for each one. I would say the Doc's are doing this pretty much for free.

I have heard figures of between $300 and $3000 as the total cost per circumcision. That may include extending the stay of mother and baby in the hospital for half a day, which is expensive. I am sure it's a lot more than what the doctor personally gets paid. Especially if it's in a hospital performed on someone who is uninsured or non-citizen. Nothing is cheap in our screwed up health system, especially if it can be billed back to the taxpayers at some point.

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 01:43 PM
I have a personal question about circumcision.


It sounds normal. Check out these two links:

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet4.html

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet6.html

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 01:50 PM
Uggh, when is this thread going peter out? :)

Peter ran out of the room screaming a long time ago. :D

sdczen
04-23-2009, 02:35 PM
I have heard figures of between $300 and $3000 as the total cost per circumcision. That may include extending the stay of mother and baby in the hospital for half a day, which is expensive. I am sure it's a lot more than what the doctor personally gets paid. Especially if it's in a hospital performed on someone who is uninsured or non-citizen. Nothing is cheap in our screwed up health system, especially if it can be billed back to the taxpayers at some point.

The really messed up thing is, I believe that medicaid pays $200.00 per Circ. Yet most insurance co.'s pay around $40.00. Isn't that a Assbackwards way of doing things? Gov at it's best. :rolleyes:

Xenophage
04-23-2009, 02:37 PM
It pisses me off that I was circumcised.

BlackTerrel
04-23-2009, 03:17 PM
It pisses me off that I was circumcised.

Why? How often do you think about this?

heavenlyboy34
04-23-2009, 03:59 PM
It pisses me off that I was circumcised.

You're an objectivist, if I recall correctly. Please discuss the morality(or immorality) of neonatal circumcision from the objectivist POV. (if you don't mind)

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 07:54 PM
Why? How often do you think about this?

Only when it comes up...

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 07:56 PM
The really messed up thing is, I believe that medicaid pays $200.00 per Circ. Yet most insurance co.'s pay around $40.00. Isn't that a Assbackwards way of doing things? Gov at it's best. :rolleyes:

I thought that when they did it in the hospital, one baby aspirin costs $40... :eek:

asimplegirl
04-23-2009, 08:08 PM
What is the big deal with circumcision?

And, WTH were people taking about in that other thread when it related to women? How do you circumcise a woman? Why?

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 09:25 PM
What is the big deal with circumcision?

And, WTH were people taking about in that other thread when it related to women? How do you circumcise a woman? Why?

To be short, both result in the removal of tissue. Both result in some loss of sensation and protection. Both have all of the risk associated with surgery, and the costs (which taxpayers sometimes have to pay). For males, it removes slightly more square inches of adult surface tissue. For females, it removes a type of tissue that is not removed in the males (skin plus a very small organ if you will).

There was a video earlier in this thread where a woman explains female circumcision.

asimplegirl
04-23-2009, 09:34 PM
I can't youtube now, so I was hoping for an explanation....a little too much for a forum? LOL.

Brian4Liberty
04-23-2009, 09:45 PM
I can't youtube now, so I was hoping for an explanation....a little too much for a forum? LOL.

hehe! Yep. And we don't have a sub-forum for "Gross Medical Procedures"...

asimplegirl
04-23-2009, 09:46 PM
LOL.. Alright, thanks anyway. :)

Xenophage
04-24-2009, 10:33 AM
You're an objectivist, if I recall correctly. Please discuss the morality(or immorality) of neonatal circumcision from the objectivist POV. (if you don't mind)

Its mutilation, for mystical reasons, of a young child. Penn and Teller are both objectivists, so if you're looking for objectivist POV's then just listen to what they have to say on this issue.

Xenophage
04-24-2009, 10:34 AM
Why? How often do you think about this?

How many nerve endings are in the foreskin? I have no idea what sex might feel like if my penis wasn't disfigured!

Brooklyn Red Leg
04-24-2009, 03:32 PM
I have no idea what sex might feel like if my penis wasn't disfigured!

Yea, thats pretty much my take on it too. Fucking barbaric tribal bullshit from brought to us by asstard Christian Socialists. I wanna punch someone in the face when I read 'Oh, come on. Its just a little skin'. The worst in my opinion is 'But women love a cut penis'. I don't give a flying fuck WHAT they want as its NOT their body. If a woman wont have sex with you cause you're uncircumcised, then she is a twat who you shouldn't be sleeping with anyway. Mutilation is mutilation, period. The fact its done to someone who has no say in the matter is all the more disgusting.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_UXXtCpkeKiA/ScunZiKhBwI/AAAAAAAAIZk/yZGxfd1bjkk/s400/circumcision-Dont.jpg

heavenlyboy34
04-24-2009, 03:36 PM
How many nerve endings are in the foreskin? I have no idea what sex might feel like if my penis wasn't disfigured!


FYI...

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
"Intact men enjoy four times more penile sensitivity than circumcised men, according to the "Fine-touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis" article published today in the British Journal of Urology International. The study was conducted to map fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and noncircumcised males to compare the two populations.

Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis. The results surprised the research team, according to Morris Sorrells, MD, lead researcher, who said, "The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar itself."

Previous studies documented that circumcised penises are shorter; now researchers have compared and found them lacking in sensitivity, too. From their findings, researchers of this study conclude that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. These findings come several decades after Masters & Johnson said there is no sensitivity difference in a circumcised and a non-circumcised penis. Now their questionable findings have been disproved and the results of this study provide additional evidence about the importance of preserving the protective, sensitive foreskin. "

sdczen
04-24-2009, 06:18 PM
Geeze after this thread is said and done......we should all be awarded the foreskin Merit Badge :)

Paulitician
04-24-2009, 11:07 PM
It sounds normal. Check out these two links:

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet4.html

http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet6.html
Ah, thank you. Pamphlet 6 truly answered my question. I was starting to get confused... thinking that maybe I did get surgically circumcised without knowing it when I was a pre-teen, but surely that's something one wouldn't forget at that age :p. Going personal again, maybe it would have been better if the foreskin hadn't fully retracted as it did, mainly because I've lost quite a bit of sensitivity. Oh well.

My view: I don't see the need for neonatal circumcision. I also believe its unlibertarian. I believe a pre-teen or teenager could make the choice pro or con if foreskin doesn't already retract naturally.

Freedom 4 all
04-25-2009, 03:32 PM
I want my foreskin back. :(

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html Dave Barry did a hysterical column about it. Believe it or not it's a good thing.

BlackTerrel
04-25-2009, 05:48 PM
How many nerve endings are in the foreskin? I have no idea what sex might feel like if my penis wasn't disfigured!

Your penis is disfigured? That sucks for you man.

I'm circumcised and sex is pretty fucking awesome. If that isn't the case for you I suggest you're doing it wrong.

BlackTerrel
04-25-2009, 05:50 PM
FYI...

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
"[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Intact men enjoy four times more penile sensitivity than circumcised men, according to the "Fine-touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis" article published today in the British Journal of Urology International. The study was conducted to map fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and noncircumcised males to compare the two populations.

Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis.

How would you like to take part in that "study" :eek:

tropicangela
04-25-2009, 06:25 PM
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently state that there is no medical reason for circumcision. They are reviewing the recent HIV studies and may or may not release a new statement expressing otherwise.

Yieu
04-25-2009, 06:39 PM
Oh wow, I did not expect to see this thread, although since it is a liberty/non-aggression issue I would not be surprised if there were many more previous threads on it... I just did not see them. I see this as definitely a libertarian issue, and early on in the campaign I wondered what Ron Paul's position on Routine Infant Circumcision is, but never found out.

I'm seeing a lot of familiar links in this thread. :cool:

I saw the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode back when it aired -- I was happy to see the issue get more mainstream coverage (pun intended). I have not yet seen the Penn & Teller clip linked in the original post yet though, I'll watch that soon.

Maybe we could make a Ron Paul Forums/Liberty Forest social group regarding this issue.

Yieu
04-27-2009, 02:19 AM
//