TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- are you circumcised?
Pages (18): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy true, though you must admit there wouldnt be many people lining up to have part of their penis chopped off when they'd become reposnsible descision making adults.

I agree, so why have circumcisions at all? Why should we force something on a child, that we are almost certain he himself would not choose to have done to himself, if he had the capacity to speak?


As for the whole sensitivity thing, basically it works like this:

The glans, is the male equivalent of the clitoris. It's purpose is to cause pleasure, it is packed with nerve endings and covered not by skin, but by a "mucus membrane" just like the inside of your mouth. This is covered by the foreskin which prevents anything rubbing against it. For an uncircumcized man during sexual intercourse, on the forward stroke the foreskin slides back on the shaft of the penis, exposing the sensitive glans to the walls of the vagina. On the backward or outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. It also provides for more comfortable erections and intercourse, as it gives some slack to the skin around the outside of the shaft of the penis.
Circumcision performed on a newborn child traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glanspenis that would normally occur as the boy grows older. As the wound, and the raw, exposed glans heals, the process measurably thickens the skin surface and results in a progressive desensitization of the head of the penis. the penis loses sensitivity not because of the tissue lost in the actual procedure, but because the glans rapidly develops protective skin tissue to compensate for the loss of protection. The glans also ceaces to produce natural lubrication. The glanspenis, or 'head' of the penis is an extension of the internal erectile tissue and is intended to be moist and slippery. Without this, it's natural mucous lubrication, the glanspenis dries out and the skin becomes keratinized or calloused. This reduces the penis' ability to feel sensation since this hardened skin creates a barrier to the delicate nerves beneath.

Here are some functions of a foreskin:
1. To cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glanspenis and inner foreskin.
2. To protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers.
3. To protect the glans of the penis from friction and abrasion.
4. To keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils.
5. To provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding.
6. To reduce friction and chafing during intercourse.
7. To provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I agree, so why have circumcisions at all? Why should we force something on a child, that we are almost certain he himself would not choose to have done to himself, if he had the capacity to speak? As for the whole sensitivity thing, basically it works like this: The glans, is the male equivalent of the clitoris. It's purpose is to cause pleasure, it is packed with nerve endings and covered not by skin, but by a "mucus membrane" just like the inside of your mouth. This is covered by the foreskin which prevents anything rubbing against it. For an uncircumcized man during sexual intercourse, on the forward stroke the foreskin slides back on the shaft of the penis, exposing the sensitive glans to the walls of the vagina. On the backward or outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. It also provides for more comfortable erections and intercourse, as it gives some slack to the skin around the outside of the shaft of the penis. Circumcision performed on a newborn child traumatically interrupts the natural separation of the foreskin from the glanspenis that would normally occur as the boy grows older. As the wound, and the raw, exposed glans heals, the process measurably thickens the skin surface and results in a progressive desensitization of the head of the penis. the penis loses sensitivity not because of the tissue lost in the actual procedure, but because the glans rapidly develops protective skin tissue to compensate for the loss of protection. The glans also ceaces to produce natural lubrication. The glanspenis, or 'head' of the penis is an extension of the internal erectile tissue and is intended to be moist and slippery. Without this, it's natural mucous lubrication, the glanspenis dries out and the skin becomes keratinized or calloused. This reduces the penis' ability to feel sensation since this hardened skin creates a barrier to the delicate nerves beneath. Here are some functions of a foreskin: 1. To cover and bond with the synechia so as to permit the development of the mucosal surface of the glanspenis and inner foreskin. 2. To protect the infant's glans from feces and ammonia in diapers. 3. To protect the glans of the penis from friction and abrasion. 4. To keep the glans moisturized and soft with emollient oils. 5. To provide sufficient skin to cover an erection by unfolding. 6. To reduce friction and chafing during intercourse. 7. To provide an aid to masturbation and foreplay because of its rich supply of erogenous receptors.

two parts, let me start with the second part of your post first.
i already understood how uncut would be more sensative, though i was wondering why insensativity in the cut would lead to premature ejacs as one guy said... to tell you the truth honestly i dont really care (as i dont have a problem with it ) it was just a random question that popped into my head
but ya the thought of a "mucusy" penis makes me go

* edit - speaking of "mucusy", here's a new question that popped into my mind - is there a 'taste' difference between uncut and cut pen0rs? (and im talking about just the shaft/skin/understuff/head part)

anyways about the choice thing, what i was saying is just the scary thought of a knife being anywhere remotely close, let alone directly on your most sexual organ is frieghtening, and enough to emotionally scare away people who would have otherwise wanted it.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy two parts, let me start with the second part of your post first. i already understood how uncut would be more sensative, though i was wondering why insensativity in the cut would lead to premature ejacs as one guy said... to tell you the truth honestly i dont really care (as i dont have a problem with it ) it was just a random question that popped into my head but ya the thought of a "mucusy" penis makes me go

Yeah that second part of the post was aimed at everyone in the forum as there seemed to be some confusion. The premature ejaculation thing doesn't make any sense to me either.
As for mucusy... its not like your dick is covered in snot lol. If you dry out the inside of your cheek and touch it (use a serviette or something to absorb all the saliva), that's basically the same kind of tissue that covers the glans.

quote:

* edit - speaking of "mucusy", here's a new question that popped into my mind - is there a 'taste' difference between uncut and cut pen0rs? (and im talking about just the shaft/skin/understuff/head part)

I wouldn't know anythign about that, nor would I like to know

quote:

anyways about the choice thing, what i was saying is just the scary thought of a knife being anywhere remotely close, let alone directly on your most sexual organ is frieghtening, and enough to emotionally scare away people who would have otherwise wanted it.

Well, if it's enough to scare you, then you probably shouldn't do it. Just like piercngs or tattoos. It certainly doesn't justify you assuming your kid's gonna want one when he's older and getting him circumcised based on that unfounded assumption. If I gave my baby kids genital piercings and tattoos thinking they would want them when they're older, everyone would be shocked and they'd be taken away from me, yet no-one reacts that way to circumcison, which is a far more drastic and permanent body-alteration. Seems irrational to me.

I think most circumcisions today are for health reasons, not for religious purposes. You can look back at my previous posts for examples of why. And just because it's painful doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Immunization shots are painful for babies, but should we stop giving those since they are unable to give their express consent? Or should parents who pierce their little girls ears also not be able to do that?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think most circumcisions today are for health reasons, not for religious purposes. You can look back at my previous posts for examples of why. And just because it's painful doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Immunization shots are painful for babies, but should we stop giving those since they are unable to give their express consent? Or should parents who pierce their little girls ears also not be able to do that?

Except for the fact that there are no health benefits to circumcisions.

At all.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Except for the fact that there are no health benefits to circumcisions. At all.

Thank you for not reading any of my previous posts.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Except for the fact that there are no health benefits to circumcisions. At all.

Right, we get circumcisions just because foreskin is uncomfortable

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think most circumcisions today are for health reasons, not for religious purposes.

Mostly its through tradition or habit. Health benefits are perceived rather than real, as there are also health benefits to retaining a foreskin. Most non-religious surgeons, at least in this country, will be reluctant to perfrm circumcisions on babies.

quote:

And just because it's painful doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Of course it doesn't. Particularly if there are real, tangible benefits, and no real health or lifestyle detriments, such as in the entirely different case of:

quote:

Immunization shots...

quote:

Or should parents who pierce their little girls ears also not be able to do that?

I would contend that they shouldn't be able to. But even if they do, at least its not something that will permanently, and practically irreversibly effect an important part of their lives, for most of their adult life.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Thank you for not reading any of my previous posts.

I read your posts, they contained plenty of false research and outdated information. They didn't contain anything of interest, however.

There are no health benefits of circumcision. If there were, then it would be a common practice worldwide. It's not. It's very rare in most of the western world. Try using a little common sense.

quote:

Right, we get circumcisions just because foreskin is uncomfortable

"We" get circumcisions for exactly the same reason women do in many middle eastern nations: culture. There are no demonstrable benefits of any kind.

of course the fact that most of the religions that circumsise at birth beleive its the only way for there songs to get to heaven and they were commanded by God to do it as a mark of there religion...

Thumbs down to Smagma.

this thread about jhonson is kindda scary ... specially cause its so big

quote:

I read your posts, they contained plenty of false research and outdated information. They didn't contain anything of interest, however.

My sources included: the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the World Health Organization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, all from the last ten years. If you can find me more reputable sources than these contradicting their results, using comperable scientific methods, I'm all ears. Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs.

i got a hoodie

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 this thread about jhonson is kindda scary ... specially cause its so big

Yes, big like my internet pen0r. My internet penis is this big:

------------------------------------------------------------------------->

10 internet inches.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Except for the fact that there are no health benefits to circumcisions. At all.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Yes, big like my internet pen0r. My internet penis is this big: -------------------------------------------------------------------------> 10 internet inches.

Hehehe, I don't know what's your resolution or screen size, but on my screen it looks about 10 cm long at best

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hehehe, I don't know what's your resolution or screen size, but on my screen it looks about 10 cm long at best

No, you've got it all wrong. You see, the '-' symbol is representative of a larger sized portion of a pen0r. On the other hand, your resolution could be really fucked up.

10 inches, that is all.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono My sources included: the University of Washington, the University of Michigan, the World Health Organization and the Canadian Pediatric Society, all from the last ten years. If you can find me more reputable sources than these contradicting their results, using comperable scientific methods, I'm all ears. Until then, saying that they somehow contain "false research and outdated information" without a shred of proof comes down to your word versus theirs. I think I'm going to side with the PhD/MDs.

That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world.

There are two possibilities. Either:

1. Medical associations in the United States are privy to some information which is unavailable to those in Europe, where circumcision largely ceased to be an issue decades ago since medical evidence so unilaterally indicated it was a harmful procedure with no benefits, and therefore the U.S. institutions are producing more accurate results.

or

2. Medical assocaitions in the United States have framed their research from the standpoint of attempting to justify, rather than analyzing objectively, dated genital mutilation practices of entirely theistic origin. By manipulating results via positive outcome bias and through hiding the details of their studies behind "reports" such as the ones you posted which contain no analyzable data of any kind, they are able to avoid actually addressing the issue while purporting to espouse medical fact.

One of these is realistic. One of them is not. It's time for a wake-up call. If we listened to people like you, we'd still be sacrificing virgins at the sun temple to ensure a prosperous growing season.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That's exactly the problem. You haven't posted any "scientific methods" at all. You've posted articles which purport to interpret scientific data which is hidden from the reader. None of the articles you posted were written by PhD/MDs, none of them listed the methodology which was used in order to obtain their "results". And their "results" as presented are in direct contradiction to accepted medical dogma throughout the vast majority of the western world.

Please look at these two articles again and tell me there is no scientific methods, and that they weren't from PhD/MDs. I am yet to see any "evidence" to the contrary done in a controlled, scientific manner that would have me believe otherwise. I have heard very much rhetoric, with little to no substance. If this truly is not the case, and circumcision is such an obvious tragedy and detriment to human health, where is the overwhelming evidence from leading scientific researchers? Where is there proof from any throughly performed scientific research? It is easy to say that I am wrong, but I am still waiting for any evidence of that.


http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/to/

http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman/re...choenEdgarJ.pdf

http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm

"After looking at almost 40 years of research on the benefits and risks of circumcision, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) concluded that we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision."

CLOSE THE PENIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lephaid http://www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm "After looking at almost 40 years of research on the benefits and risks of circumcision, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) concluded that we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision."

Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD.

Well, it says on the bottom of the page:

quote:

� 2004 - American Academy of Pediatrics

So I guess they are PhDs or MDs.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Where's the research? That article wasn't written by a PhD/MD.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and its member pediatricians dedicate their efforts and resources to the health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents and young adults. The AAP has approximately 57,000 members in the United States, Canada and Latin America. Members include pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists and pediatric surgical specialists. More than 34,000 members are board-certified and called Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics (FAAP)."

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.