Quote:The "intactivists" — anti-circumcision people who are trying to get the practice outlawed in the U.S. and elsewhere — claim that cutting off an infant's foreskin reduces his capacity for sexual pleasure as an adult. Whenever I hear that, I always say, "Huh?" That's because I'm a member of the circumcision generation.

SNIP

Quote:Meanwhile, the intactivists have been busy in the U.S. Last year they qualified a measure for the ballot in San Francisco that would have made it a crime punishable by a year in jail or a $1,000 fine to circumcise any male under age 18. Activists in Santa Monica tried to introduce a similar law.

Their case wasn't helped by the circulation of an anti-circumcision comic book featuring a blond and hyper-Aryan "Foreskin Man" rescuing a baby from a hook-nosed, side-curled caricature of a mohel that could have come straight out of Der Stürmer. And eventually, a judge ruled that only the state of California, not its localities, had the power to enact health laws. Undaunted, the intactivists continue to press their "Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation in the U.S." in state legislatures and theU.S. Congress.

Circumcision is integral to Jewish identity. In Genesis, God commands Abraham to circumcise himself and to have his male offspring circumcised when they are 8 days old. Circumcision of 8-day-old boys has thus been a Jewish tradition for as long as there have been Jews.

Muslims, who also trace themselves to Abraham, similarly circumcise their male children, although often at a later age. The Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus was circumcised "after eight days had passed." As a Christian, I've always thought: If circumcision was good enough for Jesus, how bad can it be?

The intactivists like to paint circumcision in lurid colors. The phrase they use to describe it — "male genital mutilation" — evokes the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. But the two have almost nothing in common. Female genital mutilation is invasive and ghastly, and results in long-term health risks for women subjected to it, not to mention the diminution or elimination of the ability to feel sexual pleasure. Male circumcision involves snipping off about three-eighths of an inch of skin. It hurts, briefly, but so do the shots that babies routinely receive. And according to the World Health Organization, it "reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/12/...s-20120812

Quote:Undaunted, the intactivists continue to press their "Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation in the U.S." in state legislatures and theU.S. Congress.

But D&C is ok.

I'd be willing to bet that the male makeup of this group was laughed at by females when they saw the grub worm in a turtleneck. Wait until you're 18??? THAT'S torture. Kids won't remember it being done. I felt horrible for all four of my boys when it was done because of the pain they were in, but at the same time, mine was snipped at birth too, and I don't remember one iota of the pain it caused.

If you're not feeling pleasure with a circumcised teedler, I have news for ya... It's not your wiener's fault, it's the girl you're in.

Or, maybe they're referring to homosexual activity, in which case I have no idea which would be better for feel, nor will I ever attempt to find out.

I think GTS has some pretty strong opinions on this one. I don't remember why it came up before though.

At first, I thought "intactivists" would be the people who linger around one area to protest day and night, like they were a part of the land now...

(12-17-2014 04:26 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I think GTS has some pretty strong opinions on this one. I don't remember why it came up before though.

It is an unnecessary medical procedure.

It leads to several deaths every year.

It does reduce sensation.

The person who's adult life you are altering has no say so in the transaction.

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It does reduce sensation.

Kind of difficult to prove.

(12-18-2014 02:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It does reduce sensation.

Kind of difficult to prove.

You are reducing the surface area and nerve ending count of the glans ... which might as well be the male g-spot.

(12-18-2014 02:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:29 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  It does reduce sensation.

Kind of difficult to prove.

You are reducing the surface area and nerve ending count of the glans ... which might as well be the male g-spot.

Exaggerations don't prove your point.

Much ado about nothing. Especially if people don't object to D&C (and anything related)

(12-18-2014 02:49 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Much ado about nothing. Especially if people don't object to D&C (and anything related)

Dilation and Curettage is not necessarily a medically unnecessary procedure. It can necessary after miscarriage if an infection occurs.

But most of the time it is probably unnecessary and as such should not be done.

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 04:26 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I think GTS has some pretty strong opinions on this one. I don't remember why it came up before though.

It is an unnecessary medical procedure.

It leads to several deaths every year.

It does reduce sensation.

The person who's adult life you are altering has no say so in the transaction.

Balony...smegma...infection...stricture causing obstruction...nasty

(12-18-2014 03:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:49 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Much ado about nothing. Especially if people don't object to D&C (and anything related)

Dilation and Curettage is not necessarily a medically unnecessary procedure. It can necessary after miscarriage if an infection occurs.

But most of the time it is probably unnecessary and as such should not be done.

So, when you have male children - don't have it done. Meanwhile, others can if they choose.

(12-18-2014 03:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  So, when you have male children - don't have it done. Meanwhile, others can if they choose.

Agree 100%. While I am not personally for circumcision I am also not for using the state to hold a gun to your head and say you can't.

(12-18-2014 04:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 03:50 PM)Crebman Wrote:  So, when you have male children - don't have it done. Meanwhile, others can if they choose.

Agree 100%. While I am not personally for circumcision I am also not for using the state to hold a gun to your head and say you can't.

Cool! Imagine that, a difference of opinion, but not enlisting the government to force one persons view on on another!

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 04:26 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I think GTS has some pretty strong opinions on this one. I don't remember why it came up before though.

It is an unnecessary medical procedure.

It leads to several deaths every year.

It does reduce sensation.

The person who's adult life you are altering has no say so in the transaction.

So when it comes to foreskin, you're pro-life? I've never met a girl that didn't laugh at an uncircumcised winky. How does it reduce sensation?

I'm wondering how the pro-choice crowd feels about this

You can abort your unborn child or pierce your child's ears or decline or accept many vaccines, but you can't circumcise them?

I'm honestly not at all interested in the 'sensation' argument because that's part of 'choice'. Not that the debate doesn't have merit... just that someone's right to do something shouldn't depend on a determination of what someone else thinks they should want.

(12-18-2014 04:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'm wondering how the pro-choice crowd feels about this

You can abort your unborn child or pierce your child's ears or decline or accept many vaccines, but you can't circumcise them?

I'm honestly not at all interested in the 'sensation' argument because that's part of 'choice'. Not that the debate doesn't have merit... just that someone's right to do something shouldn't depend on a determination of what someone else thinks they should want.

Exactly. My wang never got any complaints, and the sensation is all over the place when my GF diddles around with it.

(12-18-2014 04:45 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 02:17 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 04:26 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I think GTS has some pretty strong opinions on this one. I don't remember why it came up before though.

It is an unnecessary medical procedure.

It leads to several deaths every year.

It does reduce sensation.

The person who's adult life you are altering has no say so in the transaction.

So when it comes to foreskin, you're pro-life? I've never met a girl that didn't laugh at an uncircumcised winky. How does it reduce sensation?

The snip goes across the glans. You are losing part of your glans when you get circumsized.

I'm sure some find it giggly. But it is only getting more common and that too will change.

I imagine one might lose some sensation but Im not complaining about what I've got. Trying to jam that thing in whenever I can.

Yep, I said that....and I will be looking for employment soon. Also, I see a day where this is banned by law until 18. It's just the way we seem to be-heading (get it?).

(12-18-2014 07:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The snip goes across the glans. You are losing part of your glans when you get circumsized.

I'm sure some find it giggly. But it is only getting more common and that too will change.

And some find it gross unless it's the first one they've seen. I'm not trying to insult anyone that isn't circumcised. If a boy has to wait until he's 18 to do this, the pain is going to be unbearable for about two weeks, why make him suffer?