GameBanshee Forums

i wasnt sure whether or not to post this but im going to...its a poll so please answer yes or no, the question is what do you think of circumcision? is it good or bad?
my friend told me a few days ago that people were circumcised because their religion said they couldnt masturbate so they cut the skin of so it would hurt to masturbate, and also for cleanliness reasons, but i was wondering, is this religious thing true?

and ya, feel free to comment

Lol, it does not hurt to masturbate if you are circumsized.

It is done both for religous reasons (in the Jewish and Muslim faiths) and for easier hygeine (reduced risk of infection). As far as I know it has nothing to do with masturbation.

Yeah, definately doesn't hurt.

Someone, I cannot remember who, told me that in this day and age, there really isn't any true use to circumsize men any longer. Something about the risk of the diseases which were meant to be prevented being similar enough to not warrant it needing to be done. I don't know if that is true or not though, as it was one of those drunken conversations. One which was brought up regarding the pros and cons of circumsized vs non-circumsized men, and brought up by some female friends. Odd night that was, luckily it is drowned out in a blurred haze.

Well, in this province medicare does not cover circumcision because it is viewed as elective rather than mandatory surgery... which may support the view that it is not medically necessary.

I only recently became aware that male circumcision is actually something of a major controversy.
Here are some links on the subject:
History of male circumcision: Information from Answers.com
Male Circumcision and the Rights of the Child
Male Circumcision and Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner
Related Pages: Male and Female Circumcision
Male Circumcision in the USA: A Human Rights Primer, by Rich Winkel, 5/12/05

dragon wench wrote:Well, in this province medicare does not cover circumcision because it is viewed as elective rather than mandatory surgery... which may support the view that it is not medically necessary.

In the UK, I believe circumcision for religious or medical reasons is covered, but circumcision for cosmetic reasons is not. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Dowaco wrote:It is done both for religous reasons (in the Jewish and Muslim faiths) and for easier hygeine (reduced risk of infection). As far as I know it has nothing to do with masturbation.

one of the pages(the third one i believe) that DW put up says some religions did circumcise to prevent masturbation

In the UK, I believe circumcision for religious or medical reasons is covered, but circumcision for cosmetic reasons is not. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

i know in canada its covered, but the parents get to choose whether or not youre circumcised(believe it or not, you actually HAVE to ask the doctor to give the baby freezing or they wont...eek!)

Well, in this province medicare does not cover circumcision because it is viewed as elective rather than mandatory surgery... which may support the view that it is not medically necessary.

theres probably alot more people that are uncircumcised then?
interesting links btw, they definetly clear up any questions anyone would have

also, in the 3rd link it says that woman felt less discomfort, and got to an orgasm more often with an uncircumcised man, and that when they were circumcised it was more uncomfortable because there wasnt any loose skin rubbing against the vaginal walls, which irritated it more

one of the pages(the third one i believe) that DW put up says some religions did circumcise to prevent masturbation

I can assure you that if that was the case it is ineffective.:laugh:
Perhaps if it was done to an adult as a punishment, it might have some short term effectivness.

Dowaco wrote:I can assure you that if that was the case it is ineffective.:laugh:

I don't know very much about this, but the literature seems to suggest that having the extra skin makes masturbation more pleasurable.
So, I suppose there may have been some kind of hope that its removal might reduce 'self-pleasuring'
I suspect, though, it is one of those situations where if there is no comparison to be made..all efforts to curb said activity... fall flat

well apparantly the extra skin is kind of like a lubricant, as circumcised men use lubricant more often than not apparantly

I am not circumcised, and now that I am older, I am very glad my parents made that decision.

I gather there is actually a significant movement out there of men who feel angry about having been given the surgery without their consent, and they are actively attempting to restore their foreskins. I read a very long and interesting article on this subject while on a plane a few months back. While I can't provide the article I read, here is some information:

NORM - The National Organization of Restoring Men
REVERSING CIRCUMCISION: Before and After
Why Restore?

LordAce wrote:I am not circumcised, and now that I am older, I am very glad my parents made that decision.

if it doesnt make you uncomfortable, ofcourse, what are the reasons for being glad that you were not circumcised?
i wasnt either, and although i am only 16, i am glad i wasnt because that seems like cruelty more than anything...no offence meant to the people who are for it, this is just an opinion...

dragon wench wrote:I gather there is actually a significant movement out there of men who feel angry about having been given the surgery without their consent, and they are actively attempting to restore their foreskins. I read a very long and interesting article on this subject while on a plane a few months back. While I can't provide the article I read, here is some information:

NORM - The National Organization of Restoring Men
REVERSING CIRCUMCISION: Before and After
Why Restore?

I'll always be my parents' son, but my body belongs to me and no one else. No one had my permission to circumcise me. Since there was absolutely no medical threat from my foreskin, it is a clear violation of my basic human rights. Could some doctors be giving wrong advice on infant circumcision because it is a big business in the U.S.?
-G.D., Arizona

that was from your first site...very true, if you are going to be circumcised it should be at an age in which you get to decide whether or not you are going to be circumcised or not...(remember its an opinion dont get mad at me)

from your third site

Some of the reasons for the existence of foreskin can be seen by comparing intact men with circumcised men. The foreskin of intact males produces pheromones—sexual stimulants—which have been proven to increase the man’s attractiveness to others. Removing the foreskin also removes its natural gliding, "lubricating" function.

this proves the lubrication thing i was saying before...and it is interesting that "extra skin" would produce pheromones, apparantly its only hygenic reasons for circumcision...apparantly not?

very informative sites DW

dragon wench wrote:I don't know very much about this, but the literature seems to suggest that having the extra skin makes masturbation more pleasurable.
So, I suppose there may have been some kind of hope that its removal might reduce 'self-pleasuring'
I suspect, though, it is one of those situations where if there is no comparison to be made..all efforts to curb said activity... fall flat

Religions have a strange way of thinking sometimes. If you want to prevent a person from seeing evil, taking his eyes away will work. In this case, you cannot take all the pleasure away or the species would die out in one generation.

If you were an adult who was circumsized, you would have something to compare to before and after. I doubt, however, that a man would say "its not fun anymore so I am not going to do it".

Men who are circumcized as infants have no knowledge of what it would be like with foreskin and since there is still pleasure to be had, they take what they can get. I would think that removal of a part that makes it easy to feel pleasure would make the man who does not have that part work all that much harder to achieve the desired effect. So, rather than reduce self pleasuring, it would increase the time and effort spent.

Sean The Owner wrote:if it doesnt make you uncomfortable, ofcourse, what are the reasons for being glad that you were not circumcised?
i wasnt either, and although i am only 16, i am glad i wasnt because that seems like cruelty more than anything...no offence meant to the people who are for it, this is just an opinion...

Takes a lot more than that to make me uncomfortable, so no problem. I am glad I'm not circumcised basically due to everything that I have read since I've gotten older. It seems pretty barbaric, considering it has no REAL medical purpose. The fact that being circumcised reduces sensitivity is also a good reason to not have it done. When I was younger I always wished I was circumcised, but that's just due to the fact that I didn't want to be different than everyone else. May I ask why you weren't cirumcised? Just curious, I wasn't because my parents actually couldn't afford it when I was born. Kids having kids is generally bad, but it worked out for me on this one.

Personally I believe that all circumcision of children should be prohibited, both on males and females.

I believe the chances for that are close to zero though, as Jews practice circumcision. In 2001 it was made law in Sweden that all circumcisions on boys most be accompanied by effective pain control, administered by medical professionals. Personally I see that as a concession to religious irrationality, but many Jewish groups where in contrast very upset about the law.

Amen!

LordAce wrote:I am not circumcised, and now that I am older, I am very glad my parents made that decision.

In some ways, I second this due to similar circumstances (which my mom told me about a few years ago).

LordAce wrote:Takes a lot more than that to make me uncomfortable, so no problem. I am glad I'm not circumcised basically due to everything that I have read since I've gotten older. It seems pretty barbaric, considering it has no REAL medical purpose. The fact that being circumcised reduces sensitivity is also a good reason to not have it done. When I was younger I always wished I was circumcised, but that's just due to the fact that I didn't want to be different than everyone else. May I ask why you weren't cirumcised? Just curious, I wasn't because my parents actually couldn't afford it when I was born. Kids having kids is generally bad, but it worked out for me on this one.

i wasnt because my mom watched a baby get circumcised and saw the look of pain on their face and just said "no, im not putting my sons through that, its too cruel"

Men who are circumcized as infants have no knowledge of what it would be like with foreskin and since there is still pleasure to be had, they take what they can get. I would think that removal of a part that makes it easy to feel pleasure would make the man who does not have that part work all that much harder to achieve the desired effect. So, rather than reduce self pleasuring, it would increase the time and effort spent.

no they dont have knowledge, but it is easy to find sites that say how being circumcised makes sex less pleasuring, and as most males think of sex constantly(<----dont change to this topic plz) they would want it to be better, which apparantly it is if you arent circumcised...

Personally I believe that all circumcision of children should be prohibited, both on males and females.

i agree, its the persons choice whether they are circumcised or not IMO so if they want to be circumcised let them be circumcised when they are ready to say yes or no and dont question it...

Could someone please point me to any reputable research showing that male circumcision lowers the pleasure derived from sex?

fable wrote:Could someone please point me to any reputable research showing that male circumcision lowers the pleasure derived from sex?

Male Circumcision and Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner

thats the one i got most of the information from