Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Its not about a little bit of skin, its about a Childs rights and preventing his parents from mutilating him for no reasons other than religion or aesthetics.

It's also about a parent's rights, and a parent's decision to have a minor procedure carried out which has no health downside, and does have possible health benefits.

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Its not about a little bit of skin, its about a Childs rights and preventing his parents from mutilating him for no reasons other than religion or aesthetics.

It's also about a parent's rights, and a parent's decision to have a minor procedure carried out which has no health downside, and does have possible health benefits.

Health benefits which could be gained by allowing the child to choose. Yet we all know what a child will say if given an opinion free of any parental pressures.

In fact if you mentioned the medical benefits the child would likely make sure to keep it extra clean!

I would imagine if you carried out a poll of 100 men who haven't had the snip, they would all say theirs looks better.

99 maybe.

I was circumcised when I was 15 going on 16 years old, not only was it one of the most embarrassing times of my life (being shaved down there by a young female nurse and having dressings change later by said nurse) but it is also f#@ing painful for more than a couple of days.

Can anyone tell me what useful function this piece of skin serves?

Can anyone tell me what useful function this piece of skin serves?

it preserves the sensitivity of a pecker's tip and prevents the development of hard skin on it. circumcision causes frustration in men which is quite understandable. it's not fun to remove hard skin once a week with a rasp and then hone away the roughage with three different grades of sandpaper.

frustration caused by circumcision is the main reason why Jews and Arabs can't live in harmony. it might also have caused bin-Laden to establish al-Qaeda.

source: naams_bullshit.org

funny, same argument used for tonsils. Now proven to be highly effective and necessary.

Actually I believe its a well documented fact that uncircumcised men have greater sensitivity since the frenulum is protected it is more sensitive. So yes in a way it is very similar to removing the hood over the clitoris. By exposing sensitive nerve endings, they become less sensitive. So, better sex for one thing.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

So far only Taddy can tell us the difference....I feel sure with his effervescent personality he had a plethora of girlfriends before being marched up Tower Hill.....

In fact he makes a good point as plenty of guys have it done between the ages of 16-21 if they are too tight and it causes pain during intercourse. Usually marched along to the quack by the girlfriend.

Possibly kicking and screaming...I always wear earplugs on those occasions.

funny, same argument used for tonsils. Now proven to be highly effective and necessary.

Actually I believe its a well documented fact that uncircumcised men have greater sensitivity since the frenulum is protected it is more sensitive. So yes in a way it is very similar to removing the hood over the clitoris. By exposing sensitive nerve endings, they become less sensitive. So, better sex for one thing.

Male circumcision which is normal and acceptable is NOT equivalent in any imaginable way to the barbaric and totally unacceptable practice of female genital mutilation.

Many muslim countries imprison women who are raped, as adulterers or stone them to death & yet that position is being challenged even today, should those women just accept the practice because it is religiously held?

The first word in the part of your post quoted above is incorrect. Pakistan and Afghanistan are probably the only countries where this practice is, if not common, at least recorded regularly. (In the backwoods, mainly)

It is an interpretation of the written word by clerics raised in certain madrasseh (religious schools) and is not the written word itself. Circumcision is directly commanded in the Old testament and the Q'ran. This will not change and attempts to do so are direct attacks on the basic foundation of the religion(s) in question. One may attempt to change the view of an individual cleric who has interpreted the scripture in one way or another by reasoned argument. One should not impose a change in the basic 'book of rules' of any religion unless one is desirous of affecting that religion and it's adherents.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

foreskin fetishists?

In most of europe this is not a normal practice. Women expect their men to have foreskins, seeing one for the first time actually put me off sex. When we did finally get to it the sensation was wrong. There was no movemement of the foreskin (cause it was removed) agains the vaginal wall, therefore denying additional sexual pleasure.

Sure, if the only ones you've experiences are cut then they would be normal & seeing one uncut might give you the same reaction as mine but I can tell you which one is better from a purely sexual sensation point of view but you wont like it Jing thing.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

foreskin fetishists?

In most of europe this is not a normal practice. Women expect their men to have foreskins, seeing one for the first time actually put me off sex. When we did finally get to it the sensation was wrong. There was no movemement of the foreskin (cause it was removed) agains the vaginal wall, therefore denying additional sexual pleasure.

Sure, if the only ones you've experiences are cut then they would be normal & seeing one uncut might give you the same reaction as mine but I can tell you which one is better from a purely sexual sensation point of view but you wont like it Jing thing.

You don't qualify for my poll. You clearly have NOT experienced a bountiful sample of cut AND uncut appendages. So you don't know what you don't know. Your experience is way too limited to have an INFORMED opinion. I am telling you with a qualified sample, CUT will win every time.

BTW, you sound like you never heard about foreskin fetishists. That's funny. Again, your experience really sounds extremely limited.

The foreskin fetishists have struck again. Those who devote their lives to the preservation of foreskins are hurriedly gathering signatures to put a circumcision ban on San Francisco’s November ballot. The measure would assess fines as high as $1,000 and provide for up to one year in jail for someone who performs a circumcision.

http://www.skeptical...ruck-again.html

Many muslim countries imprison women who are raped, as adulterers or stone them to death & yet that position is being challenged even today, should those women just accept the practice because it is religiously held?

The first word in the part of your post quoted above is incorrect. Pakistan and Afghanistan are probably the only countries where this practice is, if not common, at least recorded regularly. (In the backwoods, mainly)

It is an interpretation of the written word by clerics raised in certain madrasseh (religious schools) and is not the written word itself. Circumcision is directly commanded in the Old testament and the Q'ran. This will not change and attempts to do so are direct attacks on the basic foundation of the religion(s) in question. One may attempt to change the view of an individual cleric who has interpreted the scripture in one way or another by reasoned argument. One should not impose a change in the basic 'book of rules' of any religion unless one is desirous of affecting that religion and it's adherents.

everything in any religious text is an interpretation by the religious leaders of that religion, at that time. Sorry but unless god reveals himself to me & tells me to my face that he wants this to happen then like everything else people try to claim is a will/word of god, I just let it go over my head & use my own judgment & common sense.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

foreskin fetishists?

In most of europe this is not a normal practice. Women expect their men to have foreskins, seeing one for the first time actually put me off sex. When we did finally get to it the sensation was wrong. There was no movemement of the foreskin (cause it was removed) agains the vaginal wall, therefore denying additional sexual pleasure.

Sure, if the only ones you've experiences are cut then they would be normal & seeing one uncut might give you the same reaction as mine but I can tell you which one is better from a purely sexual sensation point of view but you wont like it Jing thing.

You don't qualify for my poll. You clearly have NOT experienced a bountiful sample of cut AND uncut appendages. So you don't know what you don't know. Your experience is way too limited to have an INFORMED opinion. I am telling you with a qualified sample, CUT will win every time.

I gave you one example & you are deciding my total experience? You really are grasping at straws here. Desperate people resort to the need to "tell" people what to do. If I did a straw poll of 100 people in UK, the answer would be with me. If you did it amongst jews, the answer will be with you. trying to claim this as fact shows real desparation. And besides, babies don't have sex, so it's a moot point.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

foreskin fetishists?

In most of europe this is not a normal practice. Women expect their men to have foreskins, seeing one for the first time actually put me off sex. When we did finally get to it the sensation was wrong. There was no movemement of the foreskin (cause it was removed) agains the vaginal wall, therefore denying additional sexual pleasure.

Sure, if the only ones you've experiences are cut then they would be normal & seeing one uncut might give you the same reaction as mine but I can tell you which one is better from a purely sexual sensation point of view but you wont like it Jing thing.

You don't qualify for my poll. You clearly have NOT experienced a bountiful sample of cut AND uncut appendages. So you don't know what you don't know. Your experience is way too limited to have an INFORMED opinion. I am telling you with a qualified sample, CUT will win every time.

I gave you one example & you are deciding my total exerience? You really are grasping at straws here. Desperate people resort to the need to "tell" people what to do.

So you are saying that you have widely slept around with a large sample of cut and uncut men? If so, my apologies. I get the strong feeling you have done no such thing. You have been clear that you think cut men are rare and odd in your foreskin laden universe.

Many muslim countries imprison women who are raped, as adulterers or stone them to death & yet that position is being challenged even today, should those women just accept the practice because it is religiously held?

The first word in the part of your post quoted above is incorrect. Pakistan and Afghanistan are probably the only countries where this practice is, if not common, at least recorded regularly. (In the backwoods, mainly)

It is an interpretation of the written word by clerics raised in certain madrasseh (religious schools) and is not the written word itself. Circumcision is directly commanded in the Old testament and the Q'ran. This will not change and attempts to do so are direct attacks on the basic foundation of the religion(s) in question. One may attempt to change the view of an individual cleric who has interpreted the scripture in one way or another by reasoned argument. One should not impose a change in the basic 'book of rules' of any religion unless one is desirous of affecting that religion and it's adherents.

everything in any religious text is an interpretation by the religious leaders of that religion, at that time. Sorry but unless god reveals himself to me & tells me to my face that he wants this to happen then like everything else people try to claim is a will/word of god, I just let it go over my head & use my own judgment & common sense.

I agree. Use your common sense for you and yours. Leave the rest of the world alone as far as their FREE CHOICE to follow established religions, be a PROUD member of their ethnic group (yes, JEWS), and authorize a perfectly safe minor surgical procedure IF they choose. Your business is your business. What right do you with your obvious prejudices about a safe medical procedure have to dictate your tired morality on large portions of the people of the planet?

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Its not about a little bit of skin, its about a Childs rights and preventing his parents from mutilating him for no reasons other than religion or aesthetics.

It's also about a parent's rights, and a parent's decision to have a minor procedure carried out which has no health downside, and does have possible health benefits.

Jews and Muslims don't snip because of health reasons. they snip because of ol' Abe's "covenant" with the Lord himself.

About the aesthetics thing, consider the PARTNERS.

I challenge you to do a POLL of women and gay men who have slept with a good sample of cut and uncut men.

I guarantee the results will favor CUT in all aesthetic aspects.

Yes, I know there are foreskin fetishists. It takes all kinds. But I am talking about the majority.

Also, quite interesting to me, but certainly not a scientific analysis different ETHNIC groups who are uncut appear to me to have different levels of aesthetics issues than others. As a very rough generalization uncut Thai men would rate higher than uncut Filipino men. Just saying ...

foreskin fetishists?

In most of europe this is not a normal practice. Women expect their men to have foreskins, seeing one for the first time actually put me off sex. When we did finally get to it the sensation was wrong. There was no movemement of the foreskin (cause it was removed) agains the vaginal wall, therefore denying additional sexual pleasure.

Sure, if the only ones you've experiences are cut then they would be normal & seeing one uncut might give you the same reaction as mine but I can tell you which one is better from a purely sexual sensation point of view but you wont like it Jing thing.

You don't qualify for my poll. You clearly have NOT experienced a bountiful sample of cut AND uncut appendages. So you don't know what you don't know. Your experience is way too limited to have an INFORMED opinion. I am telling you with a qualified sample, CUT will win every time.

BTW, you sound like you never heard about foreskin fetishists. That's funny. Again, your experience really sounds extremely limited.

The foreskin fetishists have struck again. Those who devote their lives to the preservation of foreskins are hurriedly gathering signatures to put a circumcision ban on San Francisco’s November ballot. The measure would assess fines as high as $1,000 and provide for up to one year in jail for someone who performs a circumcision.

http://www.skeptical...ruck-again.html

When it comes to a female opinion on sex, I think I'll take Boo's limited exprience over JT's extensive experience.

An inch is better than a mile in the right direction

SC

I agree. Use your common sense for you and yours. Leave the rest of the world alone as far as their FREE CHOICE to follow established religions, be a PROUD member of their ethnic group (yes, JEWS), and authorize a perfectly safe minor surgical procedure IF they choose. Your business is your business. What right do you with your obvious prejudices about a safe medical procedure have to dictate your tired morality on large portions of the people of the planet?

i know proud Jews and how proud Jews behave JT. you are not one of them!

Somehow, I don't think that anyone that is not a intolerant fanatic will ever compare saving a little bit of skin from a quick precedure that is less painful than having a tooth filled and has many proven health benefits with a life in chains.

Its not about a little bit of skin, its about a Childs rights and preventing his parents from mutilating him for no reasons other than religion or aesthetics.

It's also about a parent's rights, and a parent's decision to have a minor procedure carried out which has no health downside, and does have possible health benefits.

Jews and Muslims don't snip because of health reasons. they snip because of ol' Abe's "covenant" with the Lord himself.

I can't speak for Muslims but I can speak for Jews.

The main reasons Jews snip are:

-- Membership in our ethnic group as most Jews are SECULAR and not religious but still relate to the tribal feeling of being a Jew and a Jewish man is cut. The vast majority of Jewish men, if you asked them, would you support a ban on infant circumcision and would you have preferred being forced to wait for maturity to get the cut would say NO and say it LOUDLY!

-- Fundamentalist religious reasons (less so than ethnic identity as this represents a minority of Jews)

-- Health reasons plays into to some degree sometimes (many Jews are doctors and many doctors feel there are health benefits, so many Jews are influenced by doctors)

my point was that it isn't up to you to state that being uncut is the preferred choice, whether I have had sex once or 1000 times with a cut man, I know what I like, having more sex with cut men won't change my mind or are you now "telling" me that the ones I did have sex with somehow "got it wrong"?.

It is down to every individual to decide what they prefer & up to them how they reach that conclusion but you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you are resorting to "telling" people it is so. It really is quite amusing.

I agree. Use your common sense for you and yours. Leave the rest of the world alone as far as their FREE CHOICE to follow established religions, be a PROUD member of their ethnic group (yes, JEWS), and authorize a perfectly safe minor surgical procedure IF they choose. Your business is your business. What right do you with your obvious prejudices about a safe medical procedure have to dictate your tired morality on large portions of the people of the planet?

i know proud Jews and how proud Jews behave JT. you are not one of them!

Your opinion. Thanks for sharing your personal insult.

my point was that it isn't up to you to state that being uncut is the preferred choice, whether I have had sex once or 1000 times with a cut man, I know what I like, having more sex with cut men won't change my mind or are you now "telling" me that the ones I did have sex with somehow "got it wrong"?.

It is down to every individual to decide what they prefer & up to them how they reach that conclusion but you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you are resorting to "telling" people it is so. It really is quite amusing.

I am suggesting it sounds pretty clear you have a small sample and can only speak for YOURSELF. I am proposing a POLL of people, all with wide experience, which quite clearly you don't even have. That's OK but don't act like you could possibly have an OBJECTIVE opinion with a small experience.

I see JT removed his little dig about foreskin festists but fortunately SC had it in his quote. They are not foreskin fetishists, they are people looking to preserve the rights of children. Offensive name calling really makes you look bad.

Jingthing, I'm sure you are really proud at have had ALOT of sexual partners, what my experiences is or not is none of your business but I do know what I like & as I already posted, your desperate attempts to prove your point are just amusing me no end.

yesterday evening, after two glasses of Port, i told my wife about TV's heated snip discussion. her reaction was "and you say these are all rather educated people ?" then i mentioned that i am considering to have my pecker snipped because i will spread much less diseases globally. that made her sit up and shout "don't you dare! every millimeter counts!"

Actually I believe its a well documented fact that uncircumcised men have greater sensitivity

According to The American Academy of Family Physicians it is not a "fact". It is a matter of great controversy.The AAFP Commission on Science has found that:

The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. (24) No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction. http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/clinical/clinicalrecs/children/circumcision.html

my point was that it isn't up to you to state that being uncut is the preferred choice, whether I have had sex once or 1000 times with a cut man, I know what I like, having more sex with cut men won't change my mind or are you now "telling" me that the ones I did have sex with somehow "got it wrong"?.

It is down to every individual to decide what they prefer & up to them how they reach that conclusion but you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you are resorting to "telling" people it is so. It really is quite amusing.

I am suggesting it sounds pretty clear you have a small sample and can only speak for YOURSELF. I am proposing a POLL of people, all with wide experience, which quite clearly you don't even have. That's OK but don't act like you could possibly have an OBJECTIVE opinion with a small experience.

and as I already posted, it would depend entirely where you did this "poll". But it really is beside the point, this thread was about cutting off babies foreskins. Babies don't have sex so what pleasure they or their partners may or may not get out of it is irrelevant as...... babies don't have sex.

I see JT removed his little dig about foreskin festists but fortunately SC had it in his quote. They are not foreskin fetishists, they are people looking to preserve the rights of children. Offensive name calling really makes you look bad.

Jingthing, I'm sure you are really proud at have had ALOT of sexual partners, what my experiences is or not is none of your business but I do know what I like & as I already posted, your desperate attempts to prove your point are just amusing me no end.

Really, I have NO IDEA what you are talking about that you claim I removed. I really don't. I make edits all the time for hundreds of reasons (I used to be a professional writer, and writers edit more than write) but in this case I don't know where you are coming from:

my point was that it isn't up to you to state that being uncut is the preferred choice, whether I have had sex once or 1000 times with a cut man, I know what I like, having more sex with cut men won't change my mind or are you now "telling" me that the ones I did have sex with somehow "got it wrong"?.

It is down to every individual to decide what they prefer & up to them how they reach that conclusion but you are so desperate to prove yourself right that you are resorting to "telling" people it is so. It really is quite amusing.

I am suggesting it sounds pretty clear you have a small sample and can only speak for YOURSELF. I am proposing a POLL of people, all with wide experience, which quite clearly you don't even have. That's OK but don't act like you could possibly have an OBJECTIVE opinion with a small experience.

and as I already posted, it would depend entirely where you did this "poll". But it really is beside the point, this thread was about cutting off babies foreskins. Babies don't have sex so what pleasure they or their partners may or may not get out of it is irrelevant as...... babies don't have sex.

Babies grow up, dear.

Actually I believe its a well documented fact that uncircumcised men have greater sensitivity

According to The American Academy of Family Physicians it is not a "fact". It is a matter of great controversy.The AAFP Commission on Science has found that:

The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. Opinions differ about how this decreased sensitivity, which may result in prolonged time to orgasm, affects sexual satisfaction. An investigation of the exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination of the glans of circumcised and uncircumcised men found no difference on comparison. (24) No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction. http://www.aafp.org/...rcumcision.html

Thanks for that. The radical anti-freedom of choice, anti-freedom of religion, anti-freedom for Jews to preserve their ethnic identity, anti-science foreskin fetishist activists are constantly making up false claims for their propaganda.

BTW, this is definitely an amusing thread. Too bad it's buried in Bedlam.

Ok, I know this is OTB, but calm the *bleep* down everyone.