Circumcision poll - ladies too

redrock

chadwick wrote:

it has to be more than 50% in the u.s.
i'd guess it's in the 90% range like someone said above

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

"The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States."

Thankfully, this practice of mutilating a poor lil' baby's penis is in decline in the US.

All this talk about hygiene (especially in the western world) is ridiculous. Also, being circumcised desensitizes the penis. Circumcised men will never know what they could be missing!

pandora

this might be a case of....
learn something new everyday

and what is considered 'normal' at the time can influence a parents decision
but times they change.

Claireack

catefrances wrote:

Claireack wrote:

Stoning is a whole different kettle of fish and you know it. There are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes, they are wrong.

No I'm not saying that. Male circumcision is by no means as dangerous as female circumcision.

If you write anything else and I don't reply, it's not because I haven't got more to say, I've got to go to work now.

hows it different??? theyre both done in the name of religion. and both are delivered due to a male oppressive society. you say there are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes theyre wrong BUT you cant condem female circumcison done in the name of religion?? im sorry claire but im not understanding your logic.

I can and am condemning female circumcision, not sure why you didn't get that. Whether it's done for religious reasons or not, it threatens the life of women.

JonnyPistachio

redrock wrote:

Also, being circumcised desensitizes the penis. Circumcised men will never know what they could be missing!

This might be a good thing. If they were any more sensitive, a lot of us would be in sexual addiction recovery classes.

dimitrispearljam

im Greek..we do those things our way here..

IrishGuy

Claireack wrote:

catefrances wrote:

Claireack wrote:

Stoning is a whole different kettle of fish and you know it. There are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes, they are wrong.

No I'm not saying that. Male circumcision is by no means as dangerous as female circumcision.

If you write anything else and I don't reply, it's not because I haven't got more to say, I've got to go to work now.

hows it different??? theyre both done in the name of religion. and both are delivered due to a male oppressive society. you say there are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes theyre wrong BUT you cant condem female circumcison done in the name of religion?? im sorry claire but im not understanding your logic.

I can and am condemning female circumcision, not sure why you didn't get that. Whether it's done for religious reasons or not, it threatens the life of women.

So you have one standard for the girls and another for the boys? Female genital mutalation = not okay under any circumstances. Male genital mutatalion = okay if done in the name of religion, is that what you are saying?
Check the link I posted before. Baby boys also die from circumcision. Its not like cutting fingernails.

mickeyrat

Heres the thing. Its MY body. A choice was made FOR me without my consent.

What we have here is a part of the anatomy that is covered by skin. Once that skin is removed , the underlying skin is exposed and toughens up due to friction. Thereby losing some sensitivity.

ShimmyMommy

catefrances wrote:

ShimmyMommy wrote:

...On the topic of female circumcision, it is a practice used in some countries to keep young virgins pure for marriage. The practice is being fought against as it is unnecessary mutilation, which destroys all their sensation...

female circumcision is a barbaric practice and it is one that is imposed by men. i say fuck men most of the time.. what they do is about control and im tired of it. i am not here for your amusement or even for your approval. if you want me to get you off im all for that BUT quid pro quo, i want you to get me off.. if i do not have a clitoris then that aint gonna happen is it?? so fuck you with your primitive manipulative control freak ideas of sexuality... and when i say it is your loss, trust me.. it is.

I am agreeing with you. I am sorry if wasn't being clear. My friend had actually traveled to some of the countries that do it. Barbaric doesn't even begin to describe what she witnessed.

I disagree with circumcision of any kind on any person, male or female. The only time i would feel different is if there is a serious life-altering condition that requires it to be done.

Claireack

IrishGuy wrote:

Claireack wrote:

catefrances wrote:

hows it different??? theyre both done in the name of religion. and both are delivered due to a male oppressive society. you say there are many barbaric practices done in the name of religion and yes theyre wrong BUT you cant condem female circumcison done in the name of religion?? im sorry claire but im not understanding your logic.

I can and am condemning female circumcision, not sure why you didn't get that. Whether it's done for religious reasons or not, it threatens the life of women.

So you have one standard for the girls and another for the boys? Female genital mutalation = not okay under any circumstances. Male genital mutatalion = okay if done in the name of religion, is that what you are saying?
Check the link I posted before. Baby boys also die from circumcision. Its not like cutting fingernails.

I personally wouldn't want my son circumcised and he isn't. I can understand why a lot of people do it for religious reasons, understanding why someone does something on a religious basis is different from saying that what they are doing is right. A religious argument isn't what this thread is about.

I did find your link really interesting and informative, I am not entirely sure why both you and cate both picked out specifics of what I posted. When in previous posts I stated that I belived it was an unnecessary procedure and the suggestion that an uncut man was somehow dirtier was completely outrageous. Did you actually read the whole thread? Possibly not.

Johnny Abruzzo

Wow, some really militant anti-circumcision people here. It's not the same as female circumcision, which is clearly a barbaric violation.

We had it done for my son. He was anesthetized. It's just what we do here, you know. Looked like there were some small medical advantages according to the articles people posted here - i.e. slightly lower cancer rates & STD rates, stuff like that. I think we made the right decision. If the next one is a boy we will do it again; kind of committed to it at this point.

Danimal

He has to be cut.

You don't want him known to be known as "Stinky Dink".

facepollution

catefrances wrote:

no you are wrong.. female circumcision involves the removal of the clitoris.. the clitoris IS NOT extra skin. im assuming youve seen or at least touched one.. by which case youd know this.
for many many women, the stimulus of the clitoris is the only way in which they can orgasm.. remove it and you remove an ultimate pleasure... and really when it comes to female circumcision thats what its all about isnt it??? the loss of male control that comes with female masturbation as well as the pleasure she recieves from her lover... both out of the control of men to varying degrees.

Actually Cate, there are varying degrees of female circumcision, from removal of the clitoral hood and clitoris, to the extreme removal of all of the inner and outer labia, clitoris and fusing of the wound leaving just a hole for urine and menstrual blood. And I never said the clitoris was just "extra skin"!!!!

For the sake of the point I was trying to make, which was completely hypothetical - would all the women posting in support of male circumcision be in favour of say removing the inner and outer labia for the sake of hygiene?

facepollution

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Wow, some really militant anti-circumcision people here. It's not the same as female circumcision, which is clearly a barbaric violation.

We had it done for my son. He was anesthetized. It's just what we do here, you know. Looked like there were some small medical advantages according to the articles people posted here - i.e. slightly lower cancer rates & STD rates, stuff like that. I think we made the right decision. If the next one is a boy we will do it again; kind of committed to it at this point.

Given how completely rare penile cancer is I just don't see how that can even be considered as a reason.

Female circumcision technically need not be barbaric (I'm in NO WAY in favour of it, just to clarify). It's just not accepted in the western world (and is completely unnecessary).

Saying it's just what you do there pretty much sums it up, it's become a tradition in the US (although it seems to be dying out) - so why try and justify it with 'slightly lower cancer/std rates'? Just call it what it is.

Johnny Abruzzo

facepollution wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Wow, some really militant anti-circumcision people here. It's not the same as female circumcision, which is clearly a barbaric violation.

We had it done for my son. He was anesthetized. It's just what we do here, you know. Looked like there were some small medical advantages according to the articles people posted here - i.e. slightly lower cancer rates & STD rates, stuff like that. I think we made the right decision. If the next one is a boy we will do it again; kind of committed to it at this point.

Given how completely rare penile cancer is I just don't see how that can even be considered as a reason.

Female circumcision technically need not be barbaric (I'm in NO WAY in favour of it, just to clarify). It's just not accepted in the western world (and is completely unnecessary).

Saying it's just what you do there pretty much sums it up, it's become a tradition in the US (although it seems to be dying out) - so why try and justify it with 'slightly lower cancer/std rates'? Just call it what it is.

What it is is a choice, and no damage is done either way.

JK_Livin

Penis Penis Penis

Vagina Vagina Vagina

Sorry, had to be done.

Black Diamond

Didn't have much of a choice in the matter... Neither did my boys

When this guy is doing it ... you know it's being done with love

facepollution

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

What it is is a choice, and no damage is done either way.

Yeah but whose choice? Not the individual's.

As far as no damage........

"One must also consider that the foreskin contains 50% of the surface area of the penis. Each circumcision cuts off what would grow to be 6 inches of tissue, laden with 240 feet of nerves and 1,000 nerve endings Removal of it can only lead to a drastic loss of sensation during sexual activity."

CAVSTARR313

Its cut and its wonderful!!

Jennytree

I can't believe that in this day and age you think that being uncut is unhygenic :shock: I also wasn't aware that it was so prominent in the States.

Only 400 men a year in the UK are diagnosed with penile cancer (Source)

mysticweed

thanks everyone

she absolutely fucking refuses to cut him

i have only seen one hooded in person and a few pictures
i just think unhooded is so much more appetizing
literally