Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/6/11 12:27 AM, jlwelch wrote: intimacy [...] from people I care about

gahahahahahahahahahaha

caring about, that's rich

Would it be wise to seek out an adult circumcision or not?

Sounds like a waste of time and money. Caring about being circumcised or not is like caring about the shape of one's navel -- a pointless waste of energy.

At 1/7/11 12:06 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: there's no benefit to having a circumcised penis.

Yes there is. It is the mark of the covenant with God and Abraham. Also, it makes the penis look more appetizing to females lol.

So, not only will a circumsized penis have favor from heaven make women salivate, but it will also avoid issues such as cheese, smell, etc.

My advice, find a good Jewish doctor and get the chop.

Are we having Cut VS Uncut threads now?

Oh great, that means I can stand firmly on the Uncut side and fire my verbal splooge all over you other guys who aren't!

"But 'tisn't this GAY?" You say?

NAY! Dicks aren't touching, so therefore it CANNOT be!

I came words.

Also. It's really easy to beat it if you aren't cut. You just take matters into your own hands and slide that shit up and down, up and down, and guess what happens next? Yep, it's up and down all over again! Unless you come of course, in which case I envy your mastery of the technique. I've heard knife'd men need lube or ridiculous amounts of precum. Is this true?

How can this thread NOT come down to a Show & Tell where we all just take off our pants and grade our dicks in terms of attractiveness? rate mai cawk plz!

u had a stupid sex ed teacher, circumcisited ppl is a minority, not even close to be expected

To save debate and to save effort in typing out an articulate statement of my own point, this video pretty much sums it up. It also has a lovely long list of citations.

Circumcision should be disallowed for those too young to decide against having it done.

At 1/10/11 08:19 PM, zephiran wrote: Is this true?

No it isn't, circumcised guys can masturbate just like anyone else, grab the shaft and work it.

Since it doesn't seem like there's any reason to circumcise people I think we should stop doing it.

Personally I think people shouldn't be circumcised unless they are like Jewish then we can't do anything about that, for some reason Americans have it fucking fixated in their heads that circumcision is necessary.

At 1/18/11 10:20 AM, <deleted> wrote: Circumcision should be disallowed for those too young to decide against having it done.

Who is this guy and why was he deleted?

im uncircumcised and it doesnt seem like the worst thing in the world.

they say its unhealthy for sex which is sorta good thing because I shouldnt be having sex at this age.

Uncircumcision seems like a good thing because if someone doesnt like it im sure they can have ti removed later on in life.

if its easier or better to do it when your a baby then I can understand why people are complaining.

At 1/23/11 10:24 AM, yonokowhat wrote: im uncircumcised and it doesnt seem like the worst thing in the world.

they say its unhealthy for sex which is sorta good thing because I shouldnt be having sex at this age.

Huh? Who says that? Who the heck is saying that uncircumcised penises shouldn't have sex?

At 1/23/11 10:34 AM, Drakim wrote:
Huh? Who says that? Who the heck is saying that uncircumcised penises shouldn't have sex?

not have sex but unhealthy. only if your some dumbarse who sticks his dick into a rotten shit corpse then pulls the foreskin forward and yet your too retarded to remeber what you just did so you fuck a women therfor being very dangerous but like only if you dont wash you cock.

I doubt that circumsicion is going to be a huge political topic. Any politician with a brain is not going to touch that topic because there are more pressing matters than whether or not foreskin should be sliced off.

At 1/6/11 05:02 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Personally, I don't think mutilation should be on the list of parents rights over their children. Unless there is a medical reason, I think young children should never be circumcised and I don't think it can be excused with religion, as a small child can't make a choice on religion. It's much like how I wouldn't find it acceptable to tattoo small children either.

And no, some vague hygienal reason doesn't cut it for me. Parents can make sure a kid stays clean without getting the knife out. As if hygiene isn't already overrated times a thousand. We need more dirt today.

i lold when you said mutilation it not mutilation it cutting a piece of skin off not a big deal it your making it sound like like they are cutting your ear or another important part of you

Circumcision is pretty damn stupid , you cut off a piece of a mans junk for absolutely no reason . But there's still a lot more important things we could be fighting other then circumcision , it would be a lot smarter to educate the public in general than to waste time arguing about circumcision as a specific issue.

I was circumcised when I was 13. It was supposed to be a medical thing, but 5 years on, I've still no need to be circumcised. So, I'm really against it. Completely pointless act, which causes a loss in sexual feeling. NO BOY should have to be circumcised.

I think the best argument against banning circumcision is that it would infringe on religious rights of some but besides that I don't see a lot of data that greatly favors either side. There are some good things about it though. This was taken from medicinenet:

* Circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis.
* Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis.
* Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
* Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
* Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
* Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.
* There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
Source

If it can help to prevent these things I don't see why it needs to be made illegal which is exactly what San Francisco wants to do. Will San Francisco Ban Circumcision?
Anyway, to me it doesn't matter whether you have it done or not. It's really just something that grew out of people being socialized to do it and it just happens to have a few added medical benefits.

Probably been brought up but it's genital mutilation plain and simple. We ban genital mutilation of girls even if it's done for religious reasons (and yes freedom of religion doesn't give you license to do anything your religion asks you to do).

So yeah...

I was circumcised before I even knew how to walk, and had no choice in the matter, AND unless stem cells can grow a foreskin, there is nothing I can do about it. YEAH, i'll say i'm all for the abolition of circumcision in infants.

Except genital mutilation provides zero benefits for women while it does provide some benefits for a man if you'll notice the references in my previous post. I do strongly agree with you though that just because people have freedom of religion does not mean they should be allowed to do anything they want.

At 2/12/11 09:29 PM, DylanJames wrote: Except genital mutilation provides zero benefits for women while it does provide some benefits for a man

How do you know this? I doubt any conclusive studies have been done on female circumcision , nor have there been shown to be conclusive benefits for male circumcision.

It's basically the exact equivalent of cutting off the vaginal hood which some pom stars actually get as elective surgery.

Female Genital Mutilation "Facts"
Male Genital Mutilation/Circumcision "Facts"

My first post actually stated outright some benefits of male circumcision but it also states that there is "no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of males". But it is very clear from what I understand that there are absolutely no benefits when it comes to females. I personally think that decreasing my risk for certain health problems by being circumcised was worth it.

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

If this is the case, maybe this surgeon shouldn't be doing a circumcision in the first place. I certainly don't want the new guy handling my genitals, as this can even lead to men losing their penises.

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

A good benefit, but I would like more supporting evidence for this.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

If a man is uncircumcised, he should be washing his junk frequently (from what i've heard, but I wouldn't know, now would I?), which should really do away with this. Honestly though, if a woman is sleeping with a dude who just goes around having sex with anyone and not taking 2 seconds to wash himself, she's begging for a virus.

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

Use a condom and safe sex, or avoid having sex with women who have AIDS altogether....This is an easy one.

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Source?

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

This, again. People who are sleeping around are begging to catch something.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Maybe, but if EVERYONE was uncircumcised, wouldn't this be irrelevant? I refer to the appearance thing...If circumcision didn't exist, there would be no basis for comparison. As for better smell and feel, if you're uncircumcised, you're supposed to be washing it often anyway....so this is irrelevant.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Quite honestly, I could deal with this, a bit of discomfort for my foreskin? Great. Well, I have scoliosis, so should I remove my spine to get rid of that?

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Again, someone isnt washing properly....

These are the benefits from http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.htm l which was what the last guy posted, i'll wait for some rebuttals....

Also, before someone says "Yeah, but if you're circumcised, you don't have to wash up.", I will tell you in advance you're not all there. That's like shaving your hair so you don't have to wash it, except it will never, ever grow back. As in, the benefits are outweighed by the negatives.

Unless, of course, you are a lazy SOB.

Comparing scoliosis to removing extra cockskin made my day.

Of the women I've talked to, the cut wins.

Sorry.

I was circumcised, but I wish I wasn't. If women prefers no foreskin, I would not care. I would prefer a natural penis than a cut one.

The only reason I am against infant circumcision, is because the child has no say in it what so ever.

At 2/15/11 02:41 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Comparing scoliosis to removing extra cockskin made my day.

Of the women I've talked to, the cut wins.

Sorry.

I compared a spine to a foreskin, not scoliosis, and my point was that it was a stupid reason to have a foreskin removed.

At 2/15/11 01:27 AM, basherboy357 wrote: 1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

If this is the case, maybe this surgeon shouldn't be doing a circumcision in the first place. I certainly don't want the new guy handling my genitals, as this can even lead to men losing their penises.

I agree with you there but I also don't think many boys have had their penises cut off. It is statistically one of the safest surgeries there is and I haven't found much data to indicate losing your penis is much of a risk. Source

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

A good benefit, but I would like more supporting evidence for this.

It's actually a very misleading statistic so it should be disregarded as a benefit so you were right to question it.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

If a man is uncircumcised, he should be washing his junk frequently (from what i've heard, but I wouldn't know, now would I?), which should really do away with this. Honestly though, if a woman is sleeping with a dude who just goes around having sex with anyone and not taking 2 seconds to wash himself, she's begging for a virus.

Some men are quite unclean and you don't even have to be promiscuous to obtain HPV. Sleep with one wrong person and it could happen. Besides, the fact that women should or shouldn't sleep with certain men is a red herring. We are discussing benefits of circumcision not whether or not women should be more careful with who they sleep with. If 20% of cervical cancer could help be prevented because of male circumcision then I consider that a benefit no matter how lose a person may be. Also, washing does not get rid of HPV. You can have it for years and not realize it. Source

4 Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

Use a condom and safe sex, or avoid having sex with women who have AIDS altogether....This is an easy one.

This is still a red herring. Whether or not you think people should be careful about who they sleep with is not the point of this argument. The point is that this is yet another benefit of circumcision. Also, you don't always know if somebody has AIDS or not. Not until it's too late.

A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Source?

I could not find the source for this particular program but studies in 2006 showed that they found "new HIV infections among circumcised heterosexual men in Uganda and Kenya had dropped by approximately 50%." BBC News

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

This, again. People who are sleeping around are begging to catch something.

It doesn't matter if they are sleeping around. It still doesn't change the fact that circumcision can make things safer. It's like arguing that airbags shouldn't be in cars because if people didn't drive idiotically then there wouldn't be as big of a need for them. It still makes things safer for all whether or not you agree with their sexual relationships. You cannot use this as an argument against circumcision.

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Maybe, but if EVERYONE was uncircumcised, wouldn't this be irrelevant? I refer to the appearance thing...If circumcision didn't exist, there would be no basis for comparison. As for better smell and feel, if you're uncircumcised, you're supposed to be washing it often anyway....so this is irrelevant.

It indeed is irrelevant. It's completely opinionated. I for one know some women who prefer uncircumcised penises. Still, appearance is neither a good argument for or against because either way it's personal opinion. The fact remains that we do have a basis for comparison and that would take a long time to change if circumcision were made illegal. Whether women liked your junk circumcised or not is up to their personal preference.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Quite honestly, I could deal with this, a bit of discomfort for my foreskin? Great. Well, I have scoliosis, so should I remove my spine to get rid of that?

Would others want to deal with it though? You speak for nobody but yourself so your argument isn't valid as it is a fallacy to assume that what is true for you applies to others.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Again, someone isnt washing properly....

Again, that hardly matters it is still fact that UTI in infants decreases with circumcision. And to go completely off course here, a parent must wash their infant child which can make it more difficult to make sure they are clean enough.

These are the benefits from http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.htm l which was what the last guy posted, i'll wait for some rebuttals....

Also, before someone says "Yeah, but if you're circumcised, you don't have to wash up.", I will tell you in advance you're not all there. That's like shaving your hair so you don't have to wash it, except it will never, ever grow back. As in, the benefits are outweighed by the negatives.

Unless, of course, you are a lazy SOB.

This is most certainly true. It's absurd to think such a thing.
Here is also a more reliable source on circumcision decreasing the risk of HIV.
WebMD

I agree with you there but I also don't think many boys have had their penises cut off. It is statistically one of the safest surgeries there is and I haven't found much data to indicate losing your penis is much of a risk. Source

Sure it's a SAFE surgery, but wouldn't even LESS than those numbers listed have complications from circumcision if men were only circumcised if it were medically necessary?

Some men are quite unclean and you don't even have to be promiscuous to obtain HPV. Sleep with one wrong person and it could happen. Besides, the fact that women should or shouldn't sleep with certain men is a red herring. We are discussing benefits of circumcision not whether or not women should be more careful with who they sleep with. If 20% of cervical cancer could help be prevented because of male circumcision then I consider that a benefit no matter how lose a person may be. Also, washing does not get rid of HPV. You can have it for years and not realize it. Source

This is still a red herring. Whether or not you think people should be careful about who they sleep with is not the point of this argument. The point is that this is yet another benefit of circumcision. Also, you don't always know if somebody has AIDS or not. Not until it's too late.

It doesn't matter if they are sleeping around. It still doesn't change the fact that circumcision can make things safer. It's like arguing that airbags shouldn't be in cars because if people didn't drive idiotically then there wouldn't be as big of a need for them. It still makes things safer for all whether or not you agree with their sexual relationships. You cannot use this as an argument against circumcision.

This might be a stretch to ask about, but if no one was circumcised, would the increase in diseases force people to practice safer sex, thus reducing the numbers over time anyway?

I could not find the source for this particular program but studies in 2006 showed that they found "new HIV infections among circumcised heterosexual men in Uganda and Kenya had dropped by approximately 50%." BBC News

How do we know that what the government fears won't happen eventually? In that the decrease of infection rates doesn't embolden people and INCREASE the rate over time?

Would others want to deal with it though? You speak for nobody but yourself so your argument isn't valid as it is a fallacy to assume that what is true for you applies to others.

Others may not want to deal with it, true, but it's a bit of a stretch to have your junk in pain for a couple of days, then say "Fuck it" and get a part of it cut off in my opinion.

At 2/16/11 02:06 AM, basherboy357 wrote:

Sure it's a SAFE surgery, but wouldn't even LESS than those numbers listed have complications from circumcision if men were only circumcised if it were medically necessary?

Of course there would be less complications but there would be less complications in any surgery if it's simply not performed. The surgery is still deemed quite safe. In the Uganda study if circumcision hadn't been performed young men's risk for HIV wouldn't have dropped 50 percent. So there are indeed benefits to having the surgery that outweigh the likelihood of complications. Of course one could argue that they don't but then again that is no reason to say that circumcision shouldn't be allowed but rather that it is your personal opinion that you wouldn't have it done to your child. Just for clarification, I am not arguing that circumcision is a must for all children but merely arguing against the outlawing of it.

This might be a stretch to ask about, but if no one was circumcised, would the increase in diseases force people to practice safer sex, thus reducing the numbers over time anyway?

How do we know that what the government fears won't happen eventually? In that the decrease of infection rates doesn't embolden people and INCREASE the rate over time?

That is is stretch. This is a complete hypothetical and are you suggesting we should not allow for people to choose to have their infant males circumcised in order to attempt to possibly increase the rate of safe sex? Besides you can't possibly know what would happen. People seem to be practicing unsafe sex now in defiance to everything else. It wouldn't necessarily deter anything and studies would have to be done to confirm or deny your statement therefore it should not be used to make decisions. Female circumcision is performed sometimes with the intent of decreasing pleasure derived from sex so you could conclude that this would lead to safer sex but that still doesn't make it a good thing.

You can surmise that the scenario you mentioned is possible but it is impossible to know factually so it doesn't hold any water. It may very well increase the rates because people might become more willing to take risks but you can neither confirm or deny that. It's better to try and prevent the disease than to let it take its course in hopes that this will deter people from unsafe sex.

Others may not want to deal with it, true, but it's a bit of a stretch to have your junk in pain for a couple of days, then say "Fuck it" and get a part of it cut off in my opinion.

But if you're circumcised that prevents it most of the time so it's not much of a worry then. And still it hardly matters what you think is absurd in this instance. Some people might be quite willing to do that. As it stands nearly preventing balanitis completely is still a benefit of circumcision. It should also be mentioned that recurring balanitis can lead to other more serious conditions so avoiding it is certainly a wise thing to do. I agree that it is a bit absurd for a full grown man who isn't circumcised to have the procedure done unless he had a severe problem with recurring balanitis but it certainly is helpful in preventing it in infants and keeping it away from the start. Again, this is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with the medical benefits of circumcision.

As far as I can tell, all of this leads to the conclusion that circumcision is a choice made by the parents in an attempt to safeguard their child's health. It should neither be forced nor outlawed as it is clear there are medical benefits to the procedure but it is also clear that some people may want nothing to do with it. I advocate choice and freedom above all else. I don't have much interest in arguing hypothetical scenarios about this subject which you keep presenting me with. I am basing my opinion on the medical facts available to me and I typically think that's what doctors should do.

As far as I can tell, all of this leads to the conclusion that circumcision is a choice made by the parents in an attempt to safeguard their child's health. It should neither be forced nor outlawed as it is clear there are medical benefits to the procedure but it is also clear that some people may want nothing to do with it. I advocate choice and freedom above all else. I don't have much interest in arguing hypothetical scenarios about this subject which you keep presenting me with. I am basing my opinion on the medical facts available to me and I typically think that's what doctors should do.

All right, so tell me flat-out if you think infants should or should not be circumcised. I can't tell if when you say "I advocate choice and freedom above all else." You mean it should be the parent's choice or the child's?

At 2/16/11 06:53 PM, basherboy357 wrote:

As far as I can tell, all of this leads to the conclusion that circumcision is a choice made by the parents in an attempt to safeguard their child's health. It should neither be forced nor outlawed as it is clear there are medical benefits to the procedure but it is also clear that some people may want nothing to do with it. I advocate choice and freedom above all else. I don't have much interest in arguing hypothetical scenarios about this subject which you keep presenting me with. I am basing my opinion on the medical facts available to me and I typically think that's what doctors should do.

All right, so tell me flat-out if you think infants should or should not be circumcised. I can't tell if when you say "I advocate choice and freedom above all else." You mean it should be the parent's choice or the child's?

I thought I was clear but I'll reiterate. I do condone the circumcision of infant males if the parents so choose but I don't think it is something that should be required. Children quite often have absolutely no say in what parent's choose to do as long as it is lawful. That's just the way it is in our society. Besides an infant can't really speak for itself nor do I think circumcision is something that it will remember vividly. If you don't want to circumcise your child than by all means don't and people shouldn't look down on you either way. I can understand that to some the risks don't outweigh the benefits.