Ah yes, but the real question is: How would Oscar do at that 400 without any arms?
And Oscar Pistorius can run a mean 400, but I'd rather have my legs, thanks.
>>
more than a little bit of difference between foreskin and arms and legs
>>
Yes, the difference is that without an arm I could still halfway "function".
However, if 70%-80% of the penis' sensitivity is gone, you won't ever get this sensitivity back.
Don't make this as if it's an issue about removing a "useless piece of skin"...because by coincidence almost any circumcision also involves removing the frenulum eg. where most sensitivity of the penis is.
And don't EVEN REMOTELY try to convince someone that those who "came up" with circumcision did not know that. There was a reason why they wanted to remove a huge portion of penis' sensitivity, it was never about a just "a piece of skin". All the crap about hygiene etc. was fabulated later or somehow given a religious context.
(In the same way as someone who would advocate cutting off clitorises would need a bunch of silly "out-of-the-hat" excuses to justify it...and then, once thousands of people fell for that nonsense, just silently disregard that cutting the clitoris [or removing a frenulum] also removes 70%+ of sensitivity).
From that point of view, it IS (almost) as significant as someone having an arm/leg etc. force-amputated - the debate here what someone sees as more important...two working arms/legs...or fully working genitals. This may be in in the eye of the beholder. One might possibly say he'd be fine with one less arm as long as he functions sexually.
Just because "many do it"...and "I don't know what I lost since I had it done as a baby" doesn't justify it or make it less worse than, say, amputating an arm. (The one who is born with only one arm may well live an "ok" life, he doesn't know better because he never had two. He might even tell you he doesn't need another arm, he's doing great with the one he has. See?)
And Oscar Pistorius can run a mean 400, but I'd rather have my legs, thanks.
Absolutely fascinating, truly! Please cite the peer reviewed and AMA accepted study that proves this.
What absolutely stunning hypocrisy on your part Alzan!
When I asked you to read, and comment on, the scientific, research-based, offering on the anti-AAP link offered by 'NotPosting' you refused to do so and said "No point Dude".
In short, your non-science mind was already made-up as a committed 'pro-circumciser'. On the basis of what, pray tell? Because your perfectly healthy uncut Daddy was persuaded to cut you! That was all the evidence you needed back then, remember?
You also said, in a later post, that the only document you trusted was a roll of lavatory paper. So now you are an evidential scientist!? Please, no one here believes you.
So, now you have had your 'Damascene moment' and are all 'pro-science' and 'published evidence', eh? Well, twenty posts ago you were saying the very opposite.
I am beginning to think that the surgeon who cut you threw away the wrong bit.
Let's at least have some basic consistency, please.
Beyond religious, it started as a health thing. "grew" into a religious thing. While a distasteful practice I won't call it immoral. But all that being said, my wife likes it better circumcised then not. :wub: and what really matters at the end of the day.
I am circumcised, I chose not to circumcise my son. I am a ER Physician of 20 years and could find no evidence that supported circumcision in the modern age.
It's odd that if you circumcised a puppy they'ed put you in jail, yet it's fine for little boys.
I think it's odd you consider a canine's sheath the same thing as a man's foreskin. The function of the two is so incredibly different in action ...
Your attack on Greenman is completely unjustified.
The FUNCTION of the penile sheath is the same in both man and male dog. It serves to protect the sensitive glans/bulbous glandis.
Mating in the dog is different in that the dogs baculum allows penetration to precede erection. But the function of the sheath is the same in both species.
You are correct, in actuality the argument should have been attacked from the angle of being silly and untrue. I mean, let's look at what we can do to our dogs: crop their ears, cut their tails off, lop off their nuts. I'm pretty sure if you wanted to get your puppy circumcised you could do that also without being put in jail.
Your attack on Greenman is completely unjustified.
The FUNCTION of the penile sheath is the same in both man and male dog. It serves to protect the sensitive glans/bulbous glandis.
Mating in the dog is different in that the dogs baculum allows penetration to precede erection. But the function of the sheath is the same in both species.
For "open observation" I take it that you mean 'muddled and ill-informed'.More of an open observation on just how different the DNA-producing members look between the two species.
Try cutting down on the Viagra. That permanent erection could get you into trouble in Home Depot.Humans have an erect outer member.
Artificially made dry, by unnecessary circumcision, yes. There is no need to do that these days. Read Matt Pegher's post (above). He is a doctor of medicine and he has an uncircumcised son. He passed his anatomy final exam. In the uncircumcised male the glans is kept moist. As nature designed us. Your DNA said 'give him a foreskin', and lo, it happened. Isn't evolution amazing?... in the case of circumcised men it's a completely dry environment.
Yep, just like the glans safely protected under the foreskin of an uncircumcised male human.A canine's shooter is an internal, wet environment
Although, it can be said that female circumcision was designed to eliminate female enjoyment of sex, in ancient times, the male circumcision was reasonably consistent with a decrease in certain sexually transmittable disease and male UTI's. Any conspiracy theory regarding an intentional decrease in sensitivity is absurd.
Male Circumcision (MC)
UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) have issued normative guidance stating that male circumcision should be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. PEPFAR supports MC as a component of a comprehensive HIV prevention program in sub-Saharan Africa, and is working to scale up quality MC programs as feasible and appropriate to the country context. In its next phase, PEPFAR is transitioning to a two-pronged MC assistance approach. This approach would simultaneously support the immediate demand for MC and allow governments to develop policies and the necessary infrastructure for more sustained service delivery.
The comprehensive MC interventions supported by PEPFAR include not only the MC surgery, but risk reduction counseling, sexually transmitted infection treatment, and HIV testing and counselling.
Personally, I resent my mother and others for taking it upon themselves to remove a part of my body that I will never get back. I find it disgusting, immoral and wrong. I want it back.
I have two boys and when the hospital asked me if I wanted to circumcise them, the answer was an easy one: NO, you will not be cutting at my baby boy. He's fine the way he is.
Obviously circumcision was and is a religious thing, but it lingers around in society as something that people just do without thinking.
So, what's your take?
I can't believe in 2015 influential organizations are perpetuating the dogma that circumcising boys reduces the risk of HIV transmission to girls. The whole assumption that innocent young boys are mere vectors for AIDS is an absolutely absurd notion to begin with. I am so upset by this discovery that I won't comment here any further, can't deal with all the blind support for circumcision here. Kudos to the few who see this practice for what it is, an exercise in control and wealth generation; hopefully this thread will dissuade other parents from perpetuating this cycle of insanity.
And BTW, I'm slightly concerned for the psychological welfare of your sexual partners. You obviously see a close connection between firearms and penises. I sincerely trust you never confuse the two.
"I'm going to stick my shooter up you" is hardly the greatest chat-up line.
Have a nice day. Disagree? Like you, I'm OK with that too.
no, it supposedly just decreases the chance of a man to get it, because the skin thickens.Reading this thread got me interested in this topic and I did some research of my own and I came across this organisation PEPFAR which is using more than $100 million dollars donated to 14 African countries to increase the rate of male circumcision to 80% as a way to prevent HIV transmission in girls.
no, it supposedly just decreases the chance of a man to get it, because the skin thickens.
I bet there isn't a proper study to see if the reduced sensitivity won't in turn discourage condom use anyway.
I am cut and can tell you that I don't feel ANYTHING on the corona(which is supposed to be the most sensitive part) there is no justification for removing not only the nerve endings but that which keeps the penis head moist and sensitive.I am circumcised, I chose not to circumcise my son. I am a ER Physician of 20 years and could find no evidence that supported circumcision in the modern age.
As for Flexy's comment, I also suggest that the function of a circumcised penis is not altered compared to that of an uncircumcised penis. The vast majority of men with circumcisions do not report any difficulty in achieving ejaculation. And the vast majority of men without circumcision do not report premature ejaculation. So the Urologic literature does not distinguish either as a preferred state for procreation or personal enjoyment.
Although, it can be said that female circumcision was designed to eliminate female enjoyment of sex, in ancient times, the male circumcision was reasonably consistent with a decrease in certain sexually transmittable disease and male UTI's. Any conspiracy theory regarding an intentional decrease in sensitivity is absurd.