Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Glorioski wrote:

Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.

Given that the foreskin essentially disappears during an erection its not likely to play much of a role in courtship.

Its there and it does no harm, therefore curcumcision is unnecessary surgery. You may as well start lopping off earlobes.

The ebbs and tides of a dakka thread....From documentary to the nature of faith to....a discussion on foreskins.

Interesting.

GG

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.

Given that the foreskin essentially disappears during an erection its not likely to play much of a role in courtship.

Its there and it does no harm, therefore curcumcision is unnecessary surgery. You may as well start lopping off earlobes.

As others have said, it aids cleanliness. Some men who have foreskin and think they clean down there properly may as well be calling their rectums clean really.

It's more comparable to removing an appendix.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.

The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442.[33] According to UNAIDS, it stated that circumcision was unnecessary for Christians;[34] El-Hout and Khauli, however, regard it as condemnation of the procedure.

What happened in 1442 is not really relevant to the modern day. At the time Catholicism wanted to further distance itself from other Abrahmaic religions like Judaism and Islam both of which practice circumcision.
By declaring circumcision unholy it was a short cut to declaring Jews unholy(unholier than before), its good political copy.

Biblically there is no condemnation of circumcision. The Bible presents the opinion that Christians can practice it, but if they do so they ought to practice Judaic law. Circumcision is an issue clearly dicussed in the New Testament and has clear Biblical principles preattached (1 Corinthians 7:17-20, Galationa 6:11-16) especially note Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. The Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 should be considered a political event not a religious one, there is no scriptural basis for its findings whatsoever and it directly defied Biblical teaching for political ends.

sirlynchmob wrote:
Are there any benefits from circumcision?

Plenty.

1. Because the skin is exceptionally thin under the foreskin the risk of disease transmission is much higher through unprotected sex.
2. Circumcision is an aid to genital cleanliness.

Both of these are reasons why circumcision was practiced in the ancient world, STI's are better protected by condoms and male genital cleanliness requires soap and water and a little diligence.

More modern reasons are given here:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm

Glorioski wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:

Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.

Given that the foreskin essentially disappears during an erection its not likely to play much of a role in courtship.

Its there and it does no harm, therefore curcumcision is unnecessary surgery. You may as well start lopping off earlobes.

As others have said, it aids cleanliness. Some men who have foreskin and think they clean down there properly may as well be calling their rectums clean really.

It's more comparable to removing an appendix.

Don't be ridiculous, an appendectomy is major abdominal surgery and is life saving. Curcumcison is removing some peripheral skin and is done for religious reasons with only some vague muttering that it is healthier. It is unnecessary surgery in almost all cases, even worse it is unnecessary surgery on infants.

Its not hard to clean the penis to an acceptable level, seriously. Masterbation is also a pretty good way of 'cleaning' the penis, maybe thats why it evolved

Orlanth wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Are there any benefits from circumcision?

Plenty.

1. Because the skin is exceptionally thin under the foreskin the risk of disease transmission is much higher through unprotected sex.
2. Circumcision is an aid to genital cleanliness.

Both of these are reasons why circumcision was practiced in the ancient world, STI's are better protected by condoms and male genital cleanliness requires soap and water and a little diligence.

More modern reasons are given here:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm

Palindrome wrote:

It's more comparable to removing an appendix.

Don't be ridiculous, an appendectomy is major abdominal surgery and is life saving. Curcumcison is removing some peripheral skin and is done for religious reasons with only some vague muttering that it is healthier. It is unnecessary surgery in almost all cases, even worse it is unnecessary surgery on infants.

Its not hard to clean the penis to an acceptable level, seriously.

Removing the appendix as a preventative measure to deny the chance of getting appendicitis is certainly comparable to removing the foreskin, which can prevent diseases also.

It only takes common sense to know you can clean the chassis better when you take body work off.

Palindrome wrote: Masterbation is also a pretty good way of 'cleaning' the penis, maybe thats why it evolved

And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Do you have a link that works?

it was working a minute ago. Basically its for a couple of developmental defects and extremely severe balanitis (but that takes a lot of soap dodging).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glorioski wrote:Removing the appendix as a preventative measure to deny the chance of getting appendicitis is certainly comparable to removing the foreskin, which can prevent diseases also.

It only takes common sense to know you can clean the chassis better when you take body work off.

Its nothing of the sort. Seriously. Elective appendectomies are not performed anymore anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Glorioski wrote:
And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.

Ah that forum favourite, the personal attack, has reared its overly familar head.

Palindrome wrote:Its nothing of the sort. Seriously. Elective appendectomies are not performed anymore anyway.

Neither is removing ear lobes to my knowledge. The procedure you stated was more comparable.

Palindrome wrote:

Glorioski wrote:
And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.

Ah that forum favourite, the personal attack, has reared its overly familar head.

Wasn't really an attack. It's a fairly relevant piece of information when someone who thinks masturbation is a good way of cleaning behind their foreskin denounces circumcision as pointless.

Glorioski wrote:. It's a fairly relevant piece of information when someone who thinks masturbation is a good way of cleaning behind their foreskin denounces circumcision as pointless.

Heh, masturbation is a really good way of mechanically removing dead skin and debris, exactly the kind of thing that would lead to infections. Perhaps you should think things through before denouncing me.

Removing earlobes is on exactly the same medical footing, or as near as damn it, to removing foreskins. Appendectomies are life saving, curcumcisions aren't.

As we appear to have reached that fluffy pink level that these threads always seem to degenerate to its time for me to do something else; perhaps talk to my sexually frustrated wife about why my son has red hair?

In all fairness these threads don't usually devolve into people taking great concerns over other peoples penis's.

Hey maybe they should. Noting the level of hygiene in my local FLGS I'd say wargamers would be a good place to start in the war against STDs.

...no wait sexualy transmite,,,scratch that. Didn't think it through.

Orlanth wrote:Thing is female circumcision goes against the RAW in the Koran.

You would have thought that ought to stop them.

No, wrong. Female circumcision is not commanded by the Qu-ran, but it also isn't forbidden.

Orlanth wrote:
1. Because the skin is exceptionally thin under the foreskin the risk of disease transmission is much higher through unprotected sex.

Yeah, that open hole at the end of the penis is totally safe.

Mannahnin wrote:The same faith of believing that the Earth will still be there beneath your feet between one step and the next.

I think we've all been at the point in our lives, where that faith was tested. In those situations I find it best to lay down and hold onto the ground for dear life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Palindrome wrote:Whhat are you trying to say then? Science does not work on blind faith.

And yet you can still be blinded by science.

Only if you can smell the chemicals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

dæl wrote:Children in primary school are forced to engage in a certain amount of prayer each day, that is compulsory

In what country mate?

Not the UK right? I don't remember any of that gak in primary school anyway!

Actually I've found from personal polling there's a lot of prayer right before pop quizzes...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Its funny though, I always mock my missus about America being super Religious, but she doesn't know any hymns!

American religiosity is really more of the, "Do as I say, not as I do," variety.

No.
I don't want you to do as I say. I just want you to stay the hell off my lawn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I've been circumcised, and I assure that pleasuring myself has never been a problem.

TMI!!!

I'm 26, what can I say?

I've always wondered about people who say that intercourse is more pleasureable if you still have your foreskin.

Do they try it with, and then get operated upon to try it without?

Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages.

That statement is about 30 years behind the medical studies. There's no difference in health standards between circumcised and not, as either way a basic level of cleaning is needed, and the cheese that is more likely to build up is anti-bacterial anyway.

Doctors now will tell you do or don't for cultural or personal reasons, it doesn't really mean anything medically. Except for the very small number of cases where a foreskin might cause problems, obviously.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I've always wondered about people who say that intercourse is more pleasureable if you still have your foreskin.

Do they try it with, and then get operated upon to try it without?

Its a known fact that the head of the penis gets desensitized when it doesn't have the foreskin to protect it. An uncircumcised person will find it extremely uncomfortable to the point of actually being painful if the head of the penis is kept in contact with their underwear, for example.

Also, what is so difficult in pulling back your foreskin and actually washing your gland? If people do this every time they shower then there really shouldn't be any issue of cleanliness. Provided that people shower at least once a day that is, but if people don't shower regularly I'm guessing having foreskin or not is the least of their problems...

Oh Emperor...What have I done?

PhantomViper wrote:Its a known fact

IF you read the materials you would know it is people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference, but that those who had it done as a child report no such issues. So the question then remains whether it is the surgery, or the timing of the surgery, or some psychological factor, or a combination of them. We don't have an absolute answer to that question, and those who say we do just have an axe to grind. We know the medical reasons aren't quite once what was thought, as sebster pointed out above, but saying that we absolutely know that a circumcised man can't, or doesn't, enjoy sex as much as an uncircumcised one is silly.

Ahtman wrote:
IF you read the materials you would know it is people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference, but that those who had it done as a child report no such issues. So the question then remains whether it is the surgery, or the timing of the surgery, or some psychological factor, or a combination of them. We don't have an absolute answer to that question, and those who say we do just have an axe to grind. We know the medical reasons aren't quite once what was thought, as sebster pointed out above, but saying that we absolutely know that a circumcised man can't, or doesn't, enjoy sex as much as an uncircumcised one is silly.

You said it yourself: "people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference", of course people that were circumcised as a child didn't note a difference, they are babies, they don't even remember the procedure let alone if they had more or less sensitivity in their glands before it, they have no frame for comparison!

Why is it silly if the reports say otherwise? Because you say so?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/CIrcumcision-Decreases-by-Four-Times-Penis-039-s-Sensitivity-52117.shtml

Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure carried out for psychological and social reasons.

There isn't any reliable medical evidence that it promotes or degrades penile health. That's based on millions of men in dozens of countries with different customs in the area.

Simple: A glans with circumcision is dry. The foreskin evolved exactly for this purpose: to keep the glans wet and sensitive. The glans skin is a membrane and like any membrane, when it's dry it loses sensitivity as the nervous terminations can no longer work.

This is comical.

dogma wrote:

Simple: A glans with circumcision is dry. The foreskin evolved exactly for this purpose: to keep the glans wet and sensitive. The glans skin is a membrane and like any membrane, when it's dry it loses sensitivity as the nervous terminations can no longer work.

This is comical.

Indeed, If that was true and your wang was way more sensitive if you were uncircumcised, then my missus wouldn't routinely complain about my crude and pathetic performances in the sack, culminating in me ejaculating far too early and going to sleep only moments after starting.

On a serious note, she also said that most Americans are circumcised for no reason at all?

I am, but only cos I went for a piss when I was about 6 and it hurt, so they took it off for some sorta medical reason. I remember walking around the hospital as a kid trying not to brush my bell-end against the front of my dressing gown for a few days.

I am aware were hugely OT, but if that is true, why the feth is that the case?! In the UK If people aren't doing it for a medical reason, I reckon 99% of blokes come as nature intended!

Is she yanking my chain!?

I've been in a fair few locker rooms in the States, and most are cut. I guess its non-medical, and just assumed practice?

Never really thought about it, never really cared. It works, that's the substance.

Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said

Weird eh? Must just be a cultural thing...

There must be foreskins floating all over the fething place Stateside!

Don't ever have stew or soup in a hospital canteen!

PhantomViper wrote:You said it yourself: "people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference", of course people that were circumcised as a child didn't note a difference, they are babies, they don't even remember the procedure let alone if they had more or less sensitivity in their glands before it, they have no frame for comparison!

You are making an assumption that those who where circumcised as infants have just adjusted but don't truly have the same sensation, but you have no medical proof to back that up. Anyone who has surgery later in life notices a difference, so there isn't necessarily anything to say this is somehow a special case. Outside of that we don't have evidence that circumcised men don't enjoy sex just as much as uncircumcised, but do have studies that say that they do.

It isn't because I say so, but because science doesn't work by filling in the blanks with what you want. I'm not pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision, but I am against calling an assumption is a fact.

That link doesn't exactly strike me as The NEJM or OJM, and the language used seems questionable as well. For example, referring to circumcision as only done to control a boy's sexual sensitivity because of personal bias. That isn't medical language.

SilverMK2 wrote:Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said

Once again the web is your friend.

http://www.circumstitions.com/USA.html

mattyrm wrote: On a serious note, she also said that most Americans are circumcised for no reason at all?

I think tha last number I saw was something like 56%, but it wasn't for no reason at all. Much of it was from the idea that it was healthier to do so. There are some benifits, but it was considered much greater at the time. We are finding out new things all the time though.

I think KK has cut to the meat of the issue though with "Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure carried out for psychological and social reasons."