Yeah I'm also really curious as to the reasoning of the ancient peoples on this one. Was it a solution to some actual problem? Or did some guy get really high one day and decide to cut his penis and everyone else was like, 'hey, that's really neat, do me next'.
I really don't understand why anyone thinks genital mutilation of any kind is a good idea
I mean how did that even start? What would inspire the idea to chop off a bit of your cock?
God said to.
der
Really, it has much more to do with cultural and family pressure. Tossing the "why" question away with a "moldy old book" reference is way to simple. Circumcision is not nearly the strangest of the things groups of people do because they always have.
Yeah but that only explains why they do it now
There is always a reason for any cultural item's existence
Edit: Also, Eddy, it is genital mutilation. Mutilation does not have to impair function, it just has to damage or excise a part and disfigure in an irreparable fashion.
If doctors can turn a penis into a vagina, I'm willing to bet they can graft foreskin onto a penis if someone really wants one. Hell, they can probably add foreskin to your earlobe if you really wanted it.
Edit: Also, Eddy, it is genital mutilation. Mutilation does not have to impair function, it just has to damage or excise a part and disfigure in an irreparable fashion.
If doctors can turn a penis into a vagina, I'm willing to bet they can graft foreskin onto a penis if someone really wants one. Hell, they can probably add foreskin to your earlobe if you really wanted it.
Who the fuck really wants that? That is disgusting.
I really don't understand why anyone thinks genital mutilation of any kind is a good idea
I mean how did that even start? What would inspire the idea to chop off a bit of your cock?
God said to.
der
Really, it has much more to do with cultural and family pressure. Tossing the "why" question away with a "moldy old book" reference is way to simple. Circumcision is not nearly the strangest of the things groups of people do because they always have.
Yeah but that only explains why they do it now
There is always a reason for any cultural item's existence
Where the hell did circumcision come from?
Circumcision predates recorded human history, with depictions in stone-age cave drawings and Ancient Egyptian tombs.[2] Theories include that circumcision is a form of ritual sacrifice or offering, a health precaution, a sign of submission to a deity, a rite of passage to adulthood, a mark of defeat or slavery, or an attempt to alter esthetics or sexuality.[3] Male circumcision is a religious commandment in Judaism, expected in Islam,[4][5] and customary in some Oriental Orthodox and other Christian churches in Africa. The decision freeing Christians from circumcision is recorded in Acts 15, so it is not prescribed by the major Christian denominations. Nor is it a requirement of the other great world religions.
*shrug* - Wikipedia. It's sourced, though.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
My parents screwed up like half the decisions they made in my regards, so that's really not a really good comparison to make.
Intentionally limiting a child's choices in a long-term manner outside of things which are provably destructive is to be avoided.
Okay, I can get behind that reasoning. But, unless there is convincing research to suggest that circumcision is actually harmful, and unless my (eventual) wife has a really big problem with it, I'll most likely have my child circumcised because, well, I think that extra flap of skin is gross and I know I'm damn glad it was taken care of for me before I could talk. I don't want to have nightmares about someone snipping at my adult penis, and I don't want my child to deal with that either. :P
Plus, most of the girls I know prefer a circumcised penis. Most of the others don't care. I don't know any girl that prefers an uncircumcised penis.
If something goes wrong during a baby's circumcision, the damage is usually far and away much worse than if it had gone wrong during an adult's circumcision. Add to that the fact that it's a completely unnecessary procedure whose "benefits" can be offset by simply cleaning the target area often and effectively, and voting against it should be a no brainer.
And if you think lopping off a piece of your manhood will make you more attractive, you're retarded; it retracts when the penis becomes erect. During sexual excitement it just looks like normal skin on the shaft of the penis. It might as well be invisible.
Hey, I'm not a girl, I only know what I'm told, dude. I don't walk around with my dick hanging out so, no, I don't think having a circumcised penis makes me "more attractive," but a majority of the girls I know that I've spoken to on the subject prefer a circumcised penis. I'll give you their numbers so you can call them retarded, if you like.
(I'm not really going to give you their numbers.)
They are retarded though. The only time it would be apparent that the guy is un/circumcisized would be when they're flacid. When they're fully erect there's no difference. It's absurd and irrational.
There is always a reason for any cultural item's existence
Where the hell did circumcision come from?
Well, either go look it up or just think creatively for more than half a second. I'll get you started by noting that a circumcised penis, relative to a circumcised one, could be seen as being in a permanent state of arousal. I doubt our fertility- and potency-worshipping ancestors failed to notice that.
recurs|on on
0
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
Does circumcision increase or decrease risk of infection?
Having a skin makes for warm and moist, which bacteria loves.
Does circumcision increase or decrease risk of infection?
Having a skin makes for warm and moist, which bacteria loves.
Not having it gives exposure.
One "theory" is that a foreskin makes it easier for women to get cervical cancer because of bacteria colonizing on the foreskin, but there is no sufficient proof to substantiate that theory, as far as I know.
Hygiene probably. It was a bit hard to keep clean back in those days and it IS easier to keep a cut penis clean than an uncut one. However, with the advent of showers, that reasoning is sort of like shaving your hair off because it's easier to keep clean.
Does circumcision increase or decrease risk of infection?
Having a skin makes for warm and moist, which bacteria loves.
Not having it gives exposure.
Well it started in a desert region. I think the idea was that if sand gets under that skin it causes irritation and infection so they just lopped it off and it became a religious thing from this practice much like raising pigs to eat pork isn't feasible when you're nomadic.
A buddy of mine that was an anthropology major in college said that indigenous peoples of Australia cut their peni down the top so it is similiar to an emus penis. Can anyone confirm that?
It's the difference between clipping some useless foreskin and clipping off some of the labia. I can fully operate my penis happily and painlessly without my foreskin. A circumcised female, apparently, is forever uncomfortable/in pain while engaging in intercourse.
I'll most likely have my child circumcised because, well, I think that extra flap of skin is gross and I know I'm damn glad it was taken care of for me before I could talk.
And you consider that this decision is in some way yours to make, despite it being permanent and possibly mentally scarring? You are presumably aware that many circumcised men are sufficiently appalled as to attempt to reverse the process at great time and expense. You're certain your future son won't be one of these? You're not doing your son a favour. You're taking a choice out of his hands because you find it "gross".
Plus, most of the girls I know prefer a circumcised penis. Most of the others don't care. I don't know any girl that prefers an uncircumcised penis.
That's because you live in the states. Other countries take the opposite view, the UK for instance. So you've also made the decision that your future son is going to live in the United States his entire life, and not possibly move to another country where circumcision is unusual and taboo? Bearing in mind that while choosing to be circumcise is easy, choosing not to be after the operation is not.
Whatever. The American attitude towards this sickens me.
Hygiene probably. It was a bit hard to keep clean back in those days and it IS easier to keep a cut penis clean than an uncut one. However, with the advent of showers, that reasoning is sort of like shaving your hair off because it's easier to keep clean.
I was raised by my mother, who told me when I was young that I needed to retract my foreskin and clean it at least once a week. She assured me that this would become less and less of a hassle as I got older.
I'll most likely have my child circumcised because, well, I think that extra flap of skin is gross and I know I'm damn glad it was taken care of for me before I could talk.
And you consider that this decision is in some way yours to make, despite it being permanent and possibly mentally scarring? You are presumably aware that many circumcised men are sufficiently appalled as to attempt to reverse the process at great time and expense. You're certain your future son won't be one of these? You're not doing your son a favour. You're taking a choice out of his hands because you find it "gross".
Plus, most of the girls I know prefer a circumcised penis. Most of the others don't care. I don't know any girl that prefers an uncircumcised penis.
That's because you live in the states. Other countries take the opposite view, the UK for instance. So you've also made the decision that your future son is going to live in the United States his entire life, and not possibly move to another country where circumcision is unusual and taboo? Bearing in mind that while choosing to be circumcise is easy, choosing not to be after the operation is not.
Whatever. The American attitude towards this sickens me.
The reason it's done when in infancy is because:
It hurts fucking bad later in life, for a much longer period of time, and there's more of a chance for a mistake to be made.
I think most parents have this in mind. It's why they want their kids to have chicken pox while they're young, it's not like they're sadistic and evil.
silversh4d0w on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I'll most likely have my child circumcised because, well, I think that extra flap of skin is gross and I know I'm damn glad it was taken care of for me before I could talk.
And you consider that this decision is in some way yours to make, despite it being permanent and possibly mentally scarring? You are presumably aware that many circumcised men are sufficiently appalled as to attempt to reverse the process at great time and expense. You're certain your future son won't be one of these? You're not doing your son a favour. You're taking a choice out of his hands because you find it "gross".
Yes, I do think it is my decision to make judgments, as a parent, about my child's future well-being. That was precisely my point. You and others disagree about the extent to which a parent should do that, and while I respect your position, I absolutely believe that the concept of male circumcision falls under that "parent's decision" umbrella.
Plus, most of the girls I know prefer a circumcised penis. Most of the others don't care. I don't know any girl that prefers an uncircumcised penis.
That's because you live in the states. Other countries take the opposite view, the UK for instance. So you've also made the decision that your future son is going to live in the United States his entire life, and not possibly move to another country where circumcision is unusual and taboo? Bearing in mind that while choosing to be circumcise is easy, choosing not to be after the operation is not.
Whatever. The American attitude towards this sickens me.
No offense, but that's exceptionally melodramatic. If European/Asian girls are going to rebuff my future son because having a circumcised penis is unusual and taboo, then he is better off without them. Anyway, I've...had relationships with women of many non-American cultures (and I mean they spent most/all of their lives outside of America), and your claim is simply not true. I've never heard of a non-American breaking up with someone over foreskin.
Without that skin, there is no place for nerves to be.
Y..you understand how a penis works, right?
Like, the skin they cut off? Theres more stuff under there.
I swear
That's the point. It's like showing that people with one finger removed have the same sensation in the rest of their hand as everyone else. It's like, duh? You're still missing a finger.
Though come to think of it, a bloody stump is probably more sensitive anyway.
Hygiene probably. It was a bit hard to keep clean back in those days and it IS easier to keep a cut penis clean than an uncut one. However, with the advent of showers, that reasoning is sort of like shaving your hair off because it's easier to keep clean.
I was raised by my mother, who told me when I was young that I needed to retract my foreskin and clean it at least once a week. She assured me that this would become less and less of a hassle as I got older.
Looking back, I think my mum might be a slut.
You had to clean it once a week?
You should have had it removed in order to save yourself undue hassle.
There is always a reason for any cultural item's existence
Where the hell did circumcision come from?
Well, either go look it up or just think creatively for more than half a second. I'll get you started by noting that a circumcised penis, relative to a circumcised one, could be seen as being in a permanent state of arousal. I doubt our fertility- and potency-worshipping ancestors failed to notice that.
After actually doing research, it's inconclusive. The practice is far older than most.
It fits a number of symbolic and ritualistic parameters, sure, but how many other ancient, pre-historical rituals involve self-mutilation to that extent? How many involve cutting off not only a bit, but a very sensitive bit that is also part of something biologically vital and preprogrammed to be valued and protected? I have to wonder - probably unanswerably - not how someone could be dedicated enough to their beliefs to cut off their bits in the dawn of prehistory, but how it would catch on and be part of so many cultures.
The only thing I can think of that compares is body modification with neck-extenders and lip-stretchers and such, which is also really fucking weird. I'm not sure how old it is, but it probably goes back reasonably far. Thing is it's not as widespread, AFAIK.
Crippled people are "cripples," though, and while I won't run up to them and point it out to them, the word "handicapped" annoys me to no end. The euphemization of English sickens me.
Crippled people are "cripples," though, and while I won't run up to them and point it out to them, the word "handicapped" annoys me to no end. The euphemization of English sickens me.
Like Stephen Hawking, for instance. He is a cripple. He also has a brilliant mind, and is a hundred times more intelligent than I, but he is a cripple. That's just what the goddamn word means.
Subincision is traditionally performed around the world, notably in Africa, Australia, South America and the Polynesian and Melanesian cultures of the Pacific, often as a coming of age ritual. The practice has been taken up in the western world in recent years for the purpose of sexual pleasure or aesthetics.
There now you know that the US aren't the only freaks.
Posts
So mostly silly none sense then?
Yeah but that only explains why they do it now
There is always a reason for any cultural item's existence
Where the hell did circumcision come from?
If doctors can turn a penis into a vagina, I'm willing to bet they can graft foreskin onto a penis if someone really wants one. Hell, they can probably add foreskin to your earlobe if you really wanted it.
Who the fuck really wants that? That is disgusting.
*shrug* - Wikipedia. It's sourced, though.
Well, either go look it up or just think creatively for more than half a second. I'll get you started by noting that a circumcised penis, relative to a circumcised one, could be seen as being in a permanent state of arousal. I doubt our fertility- and potency-worshipping ancestors failed to notice that.
Having a skin makes for warm and moist, which bacteria loves.
Not having it gives exposure.
I am against female genital mutilation though.
One "theory" is that a foreskin makes it easier for women to get cervical cancer because of bacteria colonizing on the foreskin, but there is no sufficient proof to substantiate that theory, as far as I know.
And it grosses me out.
Well it started in a desert region. I think the idea was that if sand gets under that skin it causes irritation and infection so they just lopped it off and it became a religious thing from this practice much like raising pigs to eat pork isn't feasible when you're nomadic.
A buddy of mine that was an anthropology major in college said that indigenous peoples of Australia cut their peni down the top so it is similiar to an emus penis. Can anyone confirm that?
He--now fully healed--prefers it, and says overall it made him more sensitive, because more of his head is exposed.
His girlfriend also likes it, and apparently he feels cleaner too.
So... what.
No.
It's the difference between clipping some useless foreskin and clipping off some of the labia. I can fully operate my penis happily and painlessly without my foreskin. A circumcised female, apparently, is forever uncomfortable/in pain while engaging in intercourse.
And you consider that this decision is in some way yours to make, despite it being permanent and possibly mentally scarring? You are presumably aware that many circumcised men are sufficiently appalled as to attempt to reverse the process at great time and expense. You're certain your future son won't be one of these? You're not doing your son a favour. You're taking a choice out of his hands because you find it "gross".
That's because you live in the states. Other countries take the opposite view, the UK for instance. So you've also made the decision that your future son is going to live in the United States his entire life, and not possibly move to another country where circumcision is unusual and taboo? Bearing in mind that while choosing to be circumcise is easy, choosing not to be after the operation is not.
Whatever. The American attitude towards this sickens me.
I was raised by my mother, who told me when I was young that I needed to retract my foreskin and clean it at least once a week. She assured me that this would become less and less of a hassle as I got older.
Looking back, I think my mum might be a slut.
The reason it's done when in infancy is because:
It hurts fucking bad later in life, for a much longer period of time, and there's more of a chance for a mistake to be made.
I think most parents have this in mind. It's why they want their kids to have chicken pox while they're young, it's not like they're sadistic and evil.
I swear, sometimes I think our culture has the norms it does just to piss off the rest of the world.
Yes, I do think it is my decision to make judgments, as a parent, about my child's future well-being. That was precisely my point. You and others disagree about the extent to which a parent should do that, and while I respect your position, I absolutely believe that the concept of male circumcision falls under that "parent's decision" umbrella.
No offense, but that's exceptionally melodramatic. If European/Asian girls are going to rebuff my future son because having a circumcised penis is unusual and taboo, then he is better off without them. Anyway, I've...had relationships with women of many non-American cultures (and I mean they spent most/all of their lives outside of America), and your claim is simply not true. I've never heard of a non-American breaking up with someone over foreskin.
That's the point. It's like showing that people with one finger removed have the same sensation in the rest of their hand as everyone else. It's like, duh? You're still missing a finger.
Though come to think of it, a bloody stump is probably more sensitive anyway.
You had to clean it once a week?
You should have had it removed in order to save yourself undue hassle.
Don't call my penis mutilated. I find that really offensive.
You go up to the handicapped and call them cripples?
After actually doing research, it's inconclusive. The practice is far older than most.
It fits a number of symbolic and ritualistic parameters, sure, but how many other ancient, pre-historical rituals involve self-mutilation to that extent? How many involve cutting off not only a bit, but a very sensitive bit that is also part of something biologically vital and preprogrammed to be valued and protected? I have to wonder - probably unanswerably - not how someone could be dedicated enough to their beliefs to cut off their bits in the dawn of prehistory, but how it would catch on and be part of so many cultures.
The only thing I can think of that compares is body modification with neck-extenders and lip-stretchers and such, which is also really fucking weird. I'm not sure how old it is, but it probably goes back reasonably far. Thing is it's not as widespread, AFAIK.
Only the annoying ones.
Touche.
And I'd have no problem calling a handicapped person crippled, depending on what was wrong with them. Don't lump them all into the same category.
Sicko.
There now you know that the US aren't the only freaks.