Ladies whats your opinion on foreskin?

[lahnnabell]

I don't believe any one person SHOULD feel one way or another. Maybe certain circumcised men are ignorant to what they are missing, to what was taken from them without consent, but what good does it do to let it haunt you for the rest of your life? You cannot change what happened and yet it still plagues you. I understand that this is an issue that runs deep for you, and I think it is wonderful that you are seeking to educate others based on your personal experience. I hope that some day you can make peace with these circumstances.

[doppelgaenger]

I have been thinking about reconstructive surgery, actually. I wish I could sue the state for not protecting my rights. They allowed my parents to decide whether or not to circumcise me when it was medically unnecessary.

I still have resentment towards my family and their religion because of all this. I love my parents and my family and I know they only do what they think is best for me. Too bad the one time they ****ed up, they caused some life-long issues for me.

[Junket]

Actually, that's not true. But of course, this has been pointed out MANY times before, and I am bored of saying it.

Vash, there is no SIGNIFICANT medical justification to cut off foreskins across the board.

Is it really that difficult to teach your children to clean themselves?

Actually as a child, I still had some kind of penile irritation, and burning, and that was without a foreskin. Even then I've read the occurrences with a foreskin are still so small it's not worth cutting a dick over.

People are just stuck over blind idiotic religious practices. That's the only real controversy. If man had gone all these thousands of years without ever cutting a child's dick, and one day a contemporary doctor said, "I have an idea! Lets chop off our infants foreskins!" Everyone would think he's a whack job.

We've stopped cutting out tonsils as a routine procedure, why not our foreskins?

That's not a question by the way.

[doppelgaenger]

I found a list of all that is lost in circumcision. Thank god I am only missing a few of those things and have very few defects.

[url=http://www.norm.org/lost.html]NORM - Lost List[/url]

[vashti]

We've stopped cutting out tonsils as a routine procedure, why not our foreskins?

Transmissions of STDs (Most especially HIV) is higher with a foreskin. Sorry.

doppel - I've never heard a psychologically healthy male harbor lasting, deep resentment over a circumcision. It's just silly. I understand not wanting to repeat it on your own baby, but jeez, get over it. Your penis hasn't lost sensation from the time your were a kid until now because of your circumcision, though it MAY have because of the abuse you put it through.

[doppelgaenger]

Transmissions of STDs (Most especially HIV) is higher with a foreskin. Sorry.

Pfffffffft. Sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted sexually, not via foreskin. That means if a person wants to avoid STDs, they should take precautions about having sex. It doesn't justify the unethical cluster**** circumcision bullshit.

It's a real double standard. Foreskin and glans are not keratinized naturally but they have immunological systems, just like the vagina. It's a bullshit reason and lame attempt to justify 'traditional' religious customs; something that is truly wrong.

doppel - I've never heard a psychologically healthy male harbor lasting, deep resentment over a circumcision. It's just silly. I understand not wanting to repeat it on your own baby, but jeez, get over it. Your penis hasn't lost sensation from the time your were a kid until now because of your circumcision, though it MAY have because of the abuse you put it through.

Go **** yourself. You're ****ed up in the head and you don't have any empathy. The only way you could possibly ever understand would be if your clitoris were removed, in which case, I wish upon you.
My penis is connected to my body, not yours and you're not going to dictate to me how I feel or should feel about it to justify your foolish, unethical reasoning.

[vashti]

Okay, but as a matter of clarification, removing the entire clitoris would NOT be the equivalent of circumcising a male... removing the clitoral hood would be.

I suppose it's true I have no empathy for this. There's a reason I'm not a psych nurse. I'll save my empathy for people with REAL problems. (shrugs)

[dewilliams2]

I'm cut...I really don't care...I don't miss it....personally I think it looks better than it would have but its also what I'm used to.

And it is easier to keep clean....nobody likes a dirty penis.

[dono01]

I have been thinking about reconstructive surgery, actually. I wish I could sue the state for not protecting my rights. They allowed my parents to decide whether or not to circumcise me when it was medically unnecessary.

I still have resentment towards my family and their religion because of all this. I love my parents and my family and I know they only do what they think is best for me. Too bad the one time they ****ed up, they caused some life-long issues for me.

Seriously dude? Listen to what you're saying. I would bet there's something else going on if you have resentment toward people about being circumcised. You want to sue the state?? That is all just loony man.

It's a dick, be thankful you still have one.

Man up and get over it.

[Tiay]

I've been watching this thread like an eagle and trying not to post...I can't resist anymore.


any woman who supports male circumcision deserves to have her clitoral hood involuntarily surgically removed. Not only will she lose the nerve endings in the hood (the foreskin has tons of nerve endings too, btw) but her clitoris will constantly rub against her clothes and eventually the skin of the clitoris will harden and it will become desensitized. She'll still be able to orgasm and have a pretty normal sex life, but she will never again have that feeling of the clitoris peeking out of the protective folds of the hood, all pink, slippery and sensitive; same as a circumcised guy will never feel his glans emerge from the protective foreskin that keeps it sensitive and moist. (Not to mention the other very pleasurable functions performed by the foreskin during sex.)
And if she complains that what happened to her was in any way unfair, I will simply shrug and tell her "naww.. but hey it looks neater now so you should be happy."

any man who supports male circumcision or makes light of it deserves to be treated as if he had been talking about female circumcision instead, which is (rightly so) socially accepted as being barbaric and stupid.

dono01, if I had had my hood cut off as a baby, you would NOT be telling me to "get over it", at least not without having every woman on this forum lining up to kick your ass and call you a completely, utterly retarded barbarian.

Note that I'm not calling you that, dono. Read the next bit to find out why:

---

Devils advocate argument: The guy who makes light of circumcision might be circumcised himself. Doesn't this give him the right comment in this way, after all he is himself "afflicted"?

An answer: No, this does not affect the actual, real world merit of his opinion. Circumcised women in third world countries frequently see nothing at all wrong with being circumcised. They don't know any different, it's just the norm. If there was one among them who recognized female circumcision as a stupid practice, they'd probably tell her to get over it, too.
I'm sure you'll agree: this does not mean that they are right, and that we should start circumcising our daughters, or that we should treat female circumcision as not a big deal rather than a violation of human rights.

I wouldn't insult those women by calling them stupid or anything; they're simply uneducated, and that's not their fault. They're in their little world and don't see anything wrong with it. Same as dono01.

-----

There is one exception to all of the above: If you're talking about people don't have access to clean water or condoms, because in those situations, research suggests that male circumcision can reduce the spread of disease. As far as I know there is only research supporting this theory for male circumcision, though it logically follows that the same would be true of female circumcision because it's simply a matter of reducing the amount of moist folds that diseases can live in. But that's taboo, so nobody would even fund study about the potential AIDS-reducing effect of female genital mutilation. It simply doesn't sound right.
of course, it would be preferable for those people to get clean water, condoms and good medical care. But this simply isn't always possible, so this is a notable exception.


Tiay has spoken. That's my personal opinion. You can rant and shove your fingers in your ear and go "lalala I can't hear you" all you want. You can extrapolate all kinds of crazy shit from my above arguments to make me look stupid. I don't care. I'm done arguing about this, it makes me too crazy, and it drives stakes through friendships that I genuinely hold very dear. Long time LF regulars will know what I mean.

If you actually are curious and you want to know more, PM me. If you just PM me to piss me off or offer me some more insults, then you can not expect to get a reply.

[dono01]

dono01, if I had had my hood cut off as a baby, you would NOT be telling me to "get over it", at least not without having every woman on this forum lining up to kick your ass and call you a completely, utterly retarded barbarian.

Note that I'm not calling you that, dono.

I don't care what you call me. I for one, have no trouble calling you a loony. GET OVER IT.

[Petit Papillon]

Shut the **** up people

hehe just joking :p

Fras and Dopp are you Christians (or were) ? Cause I have never heard that circumcision was made from religious reasons in Christian circle. I thought just Jews and Muslims do that. Well I wouldn't do it to my child unless he would be dying of some infection or something but this is not much possible. Why just not educate about keeping it all clean? It's like we would erase all teeth and use denture 'just because it's easier to keep it clean'...Or we would all shave our heads 'just because it's easier to keep it clean'... Freaking bullshit. We don't extract teeth from little children even tho if they don't keep it clean, they can get big infection and die ( yes it's possible ) , or we don't shave our heads if we don't keep it clean even tho we can get several diseases or have lice... People,why such drastic moves? And religion ? So what? If they would tell you to stick a broom deep into your ass and keep it for 7 days,would you do it ? People....

[Gigabitch]

I once read a thread on a separate forum about a guy who'd never been taught how to clean his uncircumcised penis properly and he had developed a very nasty infection to the point where it was painful to pull back the skin. Ouch!! I've also read about several health benefits to having a circumcised vs. uncircumcised penis. How much of it is true, I am not sure of though.

That's disgusting. it reminds me of those stories about morbidly obese people going to the doctor because of a "strange smell" coming from their bodies and finding a rotting half sandwich in their flab folds. Being a nasty, dirty person doesn't have anything to do with circumcision.

There is one exception to all of the above: If you're talking about people don't have access to clean water or condoms, because in those situations, research suggests that male circumcision can reduce the spread of disease. As far as I know there is only research supporting this theory for male circumcision, though it logically follows that the same would be true of female circumcision because it's simply a matter of reducing the amount of moist folds that diseases can live in. But that's taboo, so nobody would even fund study about the potential AIDS-reducing effect of female genital mutilation. It simply doesn't sound right.
of course, it would be preferable for those people to get clean water, condoms and good medical care. But this simply isn't always possible, so this is a notable exception.

This is why there are those "health benefits" associated with circumcision. These stats are taken from places like sub-Saharan Africa where people are living in squalor.

I will not be circumcising my son. My husband, who is circumcised and says he doesn't miss his foreskin, still feels strongly that his son should not be mutilated in any way at birth. We live in clean circumstances and bathe often, and have no intention of letting our son have a nasty wiener. If it's that important to him later, he can get himself circumcised when he's older.

Three of my girlfriends here are nurses and are active in trying to stop circumcision as a general practice.

[vashti]

I've been watching this thread like an eagle and trying not to post...I can't resist anymore.

Hah! I knew you'd be watching!

There is one exception to all of the above: If you're talking about people don't have access to clean water or condoms, because in those situations, research suggests that male circumcision can reduce the spread of disease. As far as I know there is only research supporting this theory for male circumcision, though it logically follows that the same would be true of female circumcision because it's simply a matter of reducing the amount of moist folds that diseases can live in. But that's taboo, so nobody would even fund study about the potential AIDS-reducing effect of female genital mutilation. .

This part isn't true. It isn't a matter of "moist folds" - it has to do with the cellular makeup of foreskin. And that single study* was HUGE, and irrefutable.

Anyway, you know we've had this same argument 100x. No point in rehashing it once again!

*EDITED TO ADD: I just looked it up, and it wasn't a single study. I saw 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study, all with the same findings.

[Tiay]

Tiay had spoken.. but she's her own worst enemy apparently. I cannot resist research. You're right, it's not all about the moist folds which was my rather primitive layperson logic, the protective effect of circumcision is mostly accounted for by "hiv target cells" in the foreskin? I totally just skimmed the page I found that on but I think that's the gist of it.
However as far as I've read (which isn't much), women have these target cells too. HIV rates in america are still higher than in first world countries where circumcision is not the norm so the real world effect of all this is questionable once you have access to condoms and are educated to use them.

hehe yeah I agree let's not have another giant debate. I'll leave it at that.

honest. >.<