Circumcision

[Alex.]

Sure it did read, it again when you are sober. Oh BTW you just told me you had me on ignore. Please follow through on your promises. I think you are a dick hungry cookoo bird and I am not on here for that. I did not bother you you came after me.

So you show up in her thread and she came after you? Interesting take....

I responded substantively to the OP and your crazy BF went off the rails attacking and stalking me. Now why don't you answer my post.

 

[irosie91]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

what biological function does the male foreskin serve in human males?

 

[Alex.]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

what biological function does the male foreskin serve in human males?

"In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane that covers and protects the glans penis and the urinary meatus when the penis is not erect."

Foreskin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protection

 

[irosie91]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

what biological function does the male foreskin serve in human males?

"In male human anatomy, the foreskin is a double-layered fold of smooth muscle tissue, blood vessels, neurons, skin, and mucous membrane that covers and protects the glans penis and the urinary meatus when the penis is not erect."

Foreskin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protection

right-----protection in monkeys as they climb trees. Humans wear undies. In humans the foreskin creates a nidus for infection. The exudate which lubricates
the glans-----becomes sequestered and easily infected. For man who do not climb
trees in the nude-----the foreskin serves no function at all other than creating a situation that holds bacteria. It is also an annoyance to examining physicians who are supposedly supposed to retract it in the general physical exam. It also can be
a bit of trouble for a mother of an infants who SHOULD retract it to make sure the situation is properly cleaned

 

[defcon4]

right-----protection in monkeys as they climb trees. Humans wear undies. In humans the foreskin creates a nidus for infection. The exudate which lubricates
the glans-----becomes sequestered and easily infected. For man who do not climb
trees in the nude-----the foreskin serves no function at all other than creating a situation that holds bacteria. It is also an annoyance to examining physicians who are supposedly supposed to retract it in the general physical exam. It also can be
a bit of trouble for a mother of an infants who SHOULD retract it to make sure the situation is properly cleaned

It comes to proper hygiene. Your argument seems to support circumcision instead of cleanliness. It is not what you suggest, is it?

 

[irosie91]

right-----protection in monkeys as they climb trees. Humans wear undies. In humans the foreskin creates a nidus for infection. The exudate which lubricates
the glans-----becomes sequestered and easily infected. For man who do not climb
trees in the nude-----the foreskin serves no function at all other than creating a situation that holds bacteria. It is also an annoyance to examining physicians who are supposedly supposed to retract it in the general physical exam. It also can be
a bit of trouble for a mother of an infants who SHOULD retract it to make sure the situation is properly cleaned

It comes to proper hygiene. Your argument seems to support circumcision instead of cleanliness. It is not what you suggest, is it?

There are limitations to the ability to keep the space between the glans and the
foreskin "clean" which is why the transmission of both the human papilloma virus
and the HTLV viruses are more commonly transmitted by non-circumcised males
than circumcised males. Irritation of the glans can also lead to phimoses.
The foreskin serves no FUNCTION in human males------it can cause problems and often does including a much higher incidence of cancer of the glans in the uncircumcised than in the circumcised. The argument that it serves an important
function is incorrect -------on the other hand, the procedure sometimes, itself,
causes problems----especially when performed inexpertly

 

[longknife]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

Please explain your supposition.

At age 75, I was circumcised again for a perfectly valid reason in that the foreskin was preventing me from urinating freely. I see no mutilation whatsoever in having it done at any age. It does not affect sexual function as does FGM.

 

[ZackB]

The main reason you get circumcised is that it makes it easier to keep your dick clean so you don't get yeast infections on your dick, and it is so it does not look like you have a dog dick.

Now it is time for all of you sensitive types to shield your eyes from what I am about to say. Bonzi, Lucy, Chris, Westwall, and the rest of those with delicate sensibilities, please read no farther, for I do not want to get you upset. Go check the weather or something.

One time I screwed this chick who had a yeast infection. She told me she had it, but we started screwing around, one thing led to another, and next thing you know we are banging. I got a yeast infection on my dick. Let me tell you, it hurt like hell. It burned and itched relentlessly. So unless you keep that uncircumcised dick clean then you are going to be getting these painful infections. I am circumcised, and I shower every day. But there are a lot of assholes out there who don't stay clean. Plus, there are the poor and homeless who cannot stay clean except to bathe in a convenience store restroom. Circumcision is a blessing, as it prevents a lot of needless infection and wicked pain.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

On another thread the other day, thread topic involved Female Genital Mutilation, one of the great evils, someone responded to me "what about male genital multilation?"

I

The stupid person who did so was simply indulging in the typical Tu Quoque fallacy that is the stock and trade of Islamic apologists. These people don;t know WHY they are expected to defend any and all things Islamic, they haven't the least little bit of concern about whether or not their views have any consistency, and they are motivated by such fear that they will say literally anything to avoid being called a racist as all they know is that they absolutely have to defend Islam and so defend Islam they do.

All the infantile "Well, they do it TOO" arguments never seem to compare apples to apples. That is not the intent. The intent is stupid and dishonest by very nature.

 

[jillian]

FGM is defined by the WHO as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". It is recognised as a violation of the human rights of women and girls.
What is female genital mutilation and where does it happen?


circumcision is a surgical procedure that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the glans (rounded tip) of the penis. Circumcision may be performed for religious or cultural reasons, or for health reasons.

Circumcision: Learn Pros and Cons of the Surgical Procedure

Not even in the same universe, just a lame excuse to talk about a penis. Different theme same result as other threads.

it's an excuse to do that, but it's also something the anti-semites like doing to vilify and marginalize jew.

just saying

 

[PK1]

"what about male genital multination?"

---
Circumcision is no longer needed in modern times, unless you are poor & homeless, and then it may be a health issue.
Like the Abrahamic religions, circumcision is a cultural relic.
.

 

[irosie91]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

Please explain your supposition.

At age 75, I was circumcised again for a perfectly valid reason in that the foreskin was preventing me from urinating freely. I see no mutilation whatsoever in having it done at any age. It does not affect sexual function as does FGM.

my very young assistant in one of the places where I worked-----about 15 years ago-----then about 26 years old-----developed a phimosis-----and was circumcised. We were friendly enough for
me to ask how much "EFFECT" it has on his-----"abilities"-----the answer was
NONE AT ALL. There is actually no reason, physiologically, that it would---HOWEVER it is a lot more traumatic for an adult than for a one week old baby.
SHEEEESH -----did they sedate you? I am convinced that the male foreskin is a
VESTIGIAL structure-------protection for apes that need something to protect the
tender glans------whilst he swings on vines and climbs trees or for dogs who get so
sexed up at the scent of a woman that they attempt to hump the firehydrant/ First
time I saw an uncircumcised male------I had to hold my breath to keep from laughing----I have four brothers-----(jews) I was just not accustomed to seeing a
man who whose family jewels resemble that of a dog

 

[saveliberty]

Start a lobotomy or lack of reading comprehension thread Lucy. You have attracted numerous contributors.

If I read the OP correctly, you suggest there is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and a male circumcision. Did anyone really dispute that or just troll you?

 

[martybegan]

On another thread the other day, thread topic involved Female Genital Mutilation, one of the great evils, someone responded to me "what about male genital multilation?"

I said to them that there was no similarity at all between Female Genital Mutilation and male circumcision, for there to be essentially the entire penis pretty much would have to be removed.

Here is the link to the FGM thread I refer to:

Increased "risk" of female genital mutilation?

The response though has me curious, male genital "mutilation"

So for the males who've been circumcised, do you think you've been mutilated?

Would you have preferred to have been given a choice to have been circumcised, rather than your parents make that choice for you as a baby and/or child?

Or are you quite happy with the situation?

Edited to add link.

Well I'm snipped, and everything works just fine. Less maintenance as well.

I'm married to someone from a culture that doesn't do male circumcison, but my wife said it is up to me, and I am probably gonna get it done if we have boys.

 

[martybegan]

Start a lobotomy or lack of reading comprehension thread Lucy. You have attracted numerous contributors.

If I read the OP correctly, you suggest there is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and a male circumcision. Did anyone really dispute that or just troll you?

There are a few groups out there that think male circumcision is just the worst thing in the world.

 

[irosie91]

Start a lobotomy or lack of reading comprehension thread Lucy. You have attracted numerous contributors.

If I read the OP correctly, you suggest there is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and a male circumcision. Did anyone really dispute that or just troll you?

there are DEGREES of FGM-----not all of them are all that horrific------but it is true
that they have no value at all and probably all are dangerous and diminish sexual
"pleasure"-------

 

[martybegan]

Start a lobotomy or lack of reading comprehension thread Lucy. You have attracted numerous contributors.

If I read the OP correctly, you suggest there is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and a male circumcision. Did anyone really dispute that or just troll you?

there are DEGREES of FGM-----not all of them are all that horrific------but it is true
that they have no value at all and probably all are dangerous and diminish sexual
"pleasure"-------

Some cultural groups have gone with a symbolic method, where they basically just prick the clitoris with a pin as if to say "yeah we did it" and then its done.

Not sure how prevalent that is, but I would assume doing it this way wouldn't be considered mutilation.

 

[PK1]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

my very young assistant ... 26 years old-----developed a phimosis-----and was circumcised. ...

---
Pathological phimosis is rare.
Otherwise, the non-pathological variant is normal and easily overcome (pun intended) with frequent masturbation.

Circumcision is only needed for families who don't practice decent hygiene and criticize masturbation.
.

 

[defcon4]

The foreskin serves valid biological purposes in the function of the penis. Removing it without medical cause is absolutely mutilation.

Please explain your supposition.

At age 75, I was circumcised again for a perfectly valid reason in that the foreskin was preventing me from urinating freely. I see no mutilation whatsoever in having it done at any age. It does not affect sexual function as does FGM.

my very young assistant in one of the places where I worked-----about 15 years ago-----then about 26 years old-----developed a phimosis-----and was circumcised. We were friendly enough for
me to ask how much "EFFECT" it has on his-----"abilities"-----the answer was
NONE AT ALL. There is actually no reason, physiologically, that it would---HOWEVER it is a lot more traumatic for an adult than for a one week old baby.
SHEEEESH -----did they sedate you? I am convinced that the male foreskin is a
VESTIGIAL structure-------protection for apes that need something to protect the
tender glans------whilst he swings on vines and climbs trees or for dogs who get so
sexed up at the scent of a woman that they attempt to hump the firehydrant/ First
time I saw an uncircumcised male------I had to hold my breath to keep from laughing----I have four brothers-----(jews) I was just not accustomed to seeing a
man who whose family jewels resemble that of a dog

You are referencing uncircumcised people as dogs and monkeys. Is that a goyim hatred? I thought you weren't racist. Oh well... it makes no difference if there is one more or less....

 

[Coyote]

There is no comparison between FGM and circumcision done on male infants. Regardless of what you think of male circumcision there are no known negative health effects, and no memory of it. Doing it on an adult female is horrendous. I don't see how you can make comparisons in that case.