German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

Gackt said:
Are you so sure about that? Studies have been done which show that typically sensitivity, and even sex drive itself, is reduced after circumcision. Would that not fit in with the classic religious stance on sex being mainly, or solely designed for procreation and not recreation? It would be a 'perfect tool' for sexual oppression.
Click to expand...

What studies?

As someone who has been circumcised as an adult (so I have experience of both sensations) I can testify this is bolllards.

When I had it done I was told that it can slightly increase the sensation in some people or slightly decrease it in others. Luckily, I fall into the former camp :D

Castiel said:
It is also not the subject of this thread....Female genital mutilation and male circumcision are two very different debates.
Click to expand...

No they're not, stop being sexist.
 
Gackt said:
That doesn't justify it.
Click to expand...

Your justification is your own, what others feel what is justified is up to them.

As its been hammered on and on all ready in this thread:

  • There is no loss of sensitivity or function
  • Its not disfiguring quite contrary, its done by many as an enhancement to improve the look of the penis.
  • Its ACTUALLY does provide health benifits (however small)
  • Its more hygienic
  • It can save you from potential problem later on in life.
 
estebanrey said:
What studies?
Click to expand...

I don't really like to use Wikipedia as a source itself, but there are references to quite a few studies which do show a negative or potentially negative effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Penile_sensitivity_and_sexual_sensation

It also does show that in some there are seemingly positive effects - but I maintain that the ends do not justify the means in this case.

As someone who has been circumcised as an adult (so I have experience of both sensations) I can testify this is bolllards.

When I had it done I was told that it can slightly increase the sensation in some people or slightly decrease it in others. Luckily, I fall into the former camp :D
Click to expand...

Good for you.

Craterloads said:
Your justification is your own, what others feel what is justified is up to them.

As its been hammered on and on all ready in this thread:

  • There is no loss of sensitivity or function
  • Its not disfiguring quite contrary, its done by many as an enhancement to improve the look of the penis.
  • Its ACTUALLY does provide health benifits (however small)
  • Its more hygienic
  • It can save you from potential problem later on in life.
Click to expand...

First point - that is disputed.
Second point - cosmetic surgery should not be performed on children, and the 'improvement' is purely subjective and should not be used as a basis.
Third/Fourth/Fifth point - the health/hygeine benefits do not outweigh the risks
 
Last edited:
Gackt said:
Your last point is ridiculous, if you consider that evidence, then you should consult your GP.
Click to expand...

are you referring to the point of the US pornstars? i was simply pointing something out, circumcision is common place in the US. it's simply a coincidence, not to make them 'perform better as they can last longer' as was said the last time this 'discussion' was on here.

the sex and the city episode (yes, i know but bare with me) was mentioned because some women prefer it cut, some don't, the bottom line is, i don't see why people find it such a big issue in the grand scheme of things.

elmarko1234, made the comment about how someone must feel great that their parents mutilated them, which is an awful thing to say.

now i'm off to design a ***** with a functioning foreskin, there's obviously a market for it as it's how it's supposed to work, right?
 
Craterloads said:
Your justification is your own, what others feel what is justified is up to them.

As its been hammered on and on all ready in this thread:

  • There is no loss of sensitivity or function
  • Its not disfiguring quite contrary, its done by many as an enhancement to improve the look of the penis.
  • Its ACTUALLY does provide health benifits (however small)
  • Its more hygienic
  • It can save you from potential problem later on in life.
Click to expand...

I certainly prefer it, for me now having a foreskin is a bit like having an extra bit of skin over the ends of your fingers.

As I mentioned earlier biggest benefit I noticed was no more peeing in odd directions which used to sometimes happens when I had it.
 
  • There is no loss of sensitivity or function - It can go either way.
  • Its not disfiguring quite contrary, its done by many as an enhancement to improve the look of the penis. - Again, it's subjective and is something a baby has no understanding of and is therefore wrong to do.
  • Its ACTUALLY does provide health benifits (however small) - Which are?
  • Its more hygienic - Again, having a foreskin hardly makes your penis filthy.
  • It can save you from potential problem later on in life. - And it can therefore be removed if these problems DO occur.
 
Gackt said:
I don't really like to use Wikipedia as a source itself, but there are references to quite a few studies which do show a negative or potentially negative effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Penile_sensitivity_and_sexual_sensation
Click to expand...

You must be one of the regurgitators, this has all ready been proven nonsense.

McGill researchers use videos, high-tech sensors to measure arousal

McGill researchers using the latest technology may have finally debunked the enduring belief that circumcised men experience reduced sexual sensation compared to those who are uncircumcised.

"It was interesting how well-accepted this notion was, despite the fact that there was no empirical basis for it," said Kimberly Payne, PhD, the article's principal author.

The study, published in the May issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted on circumcised and uncircumcised volunteer participants between the ages of 18 and 45. Both groups were tested during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal, and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain

and results showed no difference between the two groups in genital sensitivity to touch or pain
Click to expand...

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=26068
 
Moothead2 said:
  • There is no loss of sensitivity or function - It can go either way.
  • Its not disfiguring quite contrary, its done by many as an enhancement to improve the look of the penis. - Again, it's subjective and is something a baby has no understanding of and is therefore wrong to do.
  • Its ACTUALLY does provide health benifits (however small) - Which are?
  • Its more hygienic - Again, having a foreskin hardly makes your penis filthy.
  • It can save you from potential problem later on in life. - And it can therefore be removed if these problems DO occur.
Click to expand...

Why is circumcision performed and does it have any health benefits?


1) Smegma production/formation is pretty much eradicated. Given the fact I didn't even know what Smegma was until yesterday is a proving point. According too many it produces a foul smell and requires daily cleaning. Also referred too as **** cheese, which from experience girls prefer giving oral to a clean circumcised penis.

2) Bundled together from - http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

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!

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

3) As mentioned by Noughtboy -The reduction of HIV transmission by 51% to 60% ceteris paribus
http://www.unaids.org/en/resources/p...wad2011report/

4) As mentioned by Noughtboy - It reduces the risk of acquiring HPV by 35% and Herpes Simplex 2 by 28% (again both ceteris paribus)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29882368...ome-std-risks/

5) Circumcision reduces the risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI), such as a bladder infection. (NHS)

6) Circumcision reduces the risk of getting some types of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV. (NHS)

7) Circumcision reduces the risk of developing cancer of the penis. (NHS)

8) Paraphimosis

9) Balanoposthitis

10) Research in Africa found that heterosexual circumcised men are 38-66% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised men.

It is thought that the foreskin contains special cells that attract the cells of the HIV virus. This means that uncircumcised men who have vaginal sex with an HIV positive woman are more likely to develop the infection
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Why-is-it-necessary.aspx

11) My own personal favourite reason for circumcision is :p - Prince Charles and his brothers are circumcised! Yes the future King of England is circumcised, its only patriotic to follow suit.

Now for me, any one of these health benefits would warranty circumcision of any children I may have in the future. It's my opinion based off actual health benefits for my child. If you do not feel any of these health benefits warrant circumcision then please feel free to not have your children circumcised, but DONT try to force them on to us who do feel it is warranted for OUR children.
 
Craterloads said:
You must be one of the regurgitators, this has all ready been proven nonsense.

http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/item/?item_id=26068
Click to expand...

You are boring me now with your thinly veiled insults, and I will not be drawn into a mud-slinging match (i.e. I could just as easily call you a regurgitator or fanatic).

As for your source, it does not conclusively prove that circumcision is better than being uncircumcised which is what you're essentially being asked to prove. And there are many studies at the link that I posted which have results contrary to your singular source.
 
estebanrey said:
As well as myself, I know two other people who have had it done as adults and none of us have experienced any loss in sensation.

Small sample size I know but if it were that common you'd expect at least one of us would have experienced it.
Click to expand...

Its been proven there is no loss of sensitivity countless times or the very least its inconclusive.

Yet you see people regurgitating the same story, only becuase there entire argument against circumcision is based on this lie.
 
Gackt said:
You are boring me now with your thinly veiled insults, and I will not be drawn into a mud-slinging match (i.e. I could just as easily call you a regurgitator or fanatic).

As for your source, it does not conclusively prove that circumcision is better than being uncircumcised which is what you're essentially being asked to prove. And there are many studies at the link that I posted which have results contrary to your singular source.
Click to expand...

Apologies, no offence intended.

I can provide you with multiple sources to back up my standpoint, and so can you. Hence why i stated earlier in this thread its "inconclusive" as there is evidence for and against and the whole "sensitivity" thing should not be used in this debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom