ok, now before any one starts yelling at me these are not my opinions, i think that this is all a bunch of bull s*** but i still thought i should bring it up and give it its own thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=3e2eKFxxfxk
also if you read the comments of the video people are extremely against circumcision, one person actualy suggested suing parents for having them circumcised.
DISCLAIMER: once again these are not my views so please, don't shoot the messenger
EDIT: I DO NOT support female circumcision, i only posted it because of the male side
[QUOTE=pozzolane;218736]
It is genital mutilation and it does reduce sexual sensation in the penis for men. Female circumcision was once defended as a legitimate therapeutic procedure just as male circumcision is still currently. If female circumcision is genital mutilation, then why isn't it the same for men? The foreskin is not just a flap of useless skin. The glans of the penis is not an external organ. And a child should not be subjected to this barbaric bronze age medical practice in where the original purpose was to inhibit their sexual desire. It used to be common knowledge that the foreskin served an important sexual role. :[/QUOTE]
it doesn't reduce sensation..doesn't it make it more sensitive as it's exposing the glans??
female circumcision is dangerous..male circumcision is not compared to female. it is actually CLEANER to be circumcised than not..
Oh my god people can we please move on with our lives and look at something besides circumcision for a week or two? Weasel lets put an end to this vicious cycle and not post anymore things on this subject.
[QUOTE=Ducy;218688]Oh my god people can we please move on with our lives and look at something besides circumcision for a week or two? Weasel lets put an end to this vicious cycle and not post anymore things on this subject.[/QUOTE]I haven't even watched the video (and probably won't because I'm traveling at the moment) but honestly I don't understand pleas like this. If you're sick of the subject (don't blame you! :D) don't read the thread! I've seen comments like "I can't believe you people waste your time on this!" or "I won't debate this" and then jump right in and make ten more posts. It's a sex message board open to the public and doesn't have a limited number on threads. As long as it's not pointless or off topic spam I don't see the problem. If you're done with circumcision pass it by.
Before you dismiss the notion of routine circumcision being called genital mutilation as "a bunch of bull s***", you should know that the Canadian Children's Rights Council also regards "routine circumcision" as "genital mutilation":
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx
It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.
...
The Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.
Our position is that all children should be protected from all forms of genital mutilation (circumcision of all types) including but not limited to, circumcision that doesn't affect sexual function or that may be viewed by others as sexual enhancement surgery. Male circumcision does affect sexual function.
[QUOTE=weasel]
ok, i want peoples oppinios on this video, they call rutien circumsision genital mutalation and state that it causes males to have less of an orgasm http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=3e2eKFxxfxk
[/QUOTE]
I pulled this from another thread and placed it here as it is more appropriate that it be in this and not where ML has posted policy statements.
It is genital mutilation and it does reduce sexual sensation in the penis for men. Female circumcision was once defended as a legitimate therapeutic procedure just as male circumcision is still currently. If female circumcision is genital mutilation, then why isn't it the same for men? The foreskin is not just a flap of useless skin. The glans of the penis is not an external organ. And a child should not be subjected to this barbaric bronze age medical practice in where the original purpose was to inhibit their sexual desire. It used to be common knowledge that the foreskin served an important sexual role. I will quote a British medical journal from 1935:
[QUOTE]
I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature," but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that "God knows best how to make little boys.
[R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal. 1935;2:764.]
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=pozzolane;218736]I pulled this from another thread and placed it here as it is more appropriate that it be in this and not where ML has posted policy statements.
It is genital mutilation and it does reduce sexual sensation in the penis for men. Female circumcision was once defended as a legitimate therapeutic procedure just as male circumcision is still currently. If female circumcision is genital mutilation, then why isn't it the same for men? The foreskin is not just a flap of useless skin. The glans of the penis is not an external organ. And a child should not be subjected to this barbaric bronze age medical practice in where the original purpose was to inhibit their sexual desire. It used to be common knowledge that the foreskin served an important sexual role. I will quote a British medical journal from 1935:[/QUOTE]
my glans isn't lethery and is alot more sensitive than the rest of my body,
also in times before clothing it would act like the scrotum protecting it, now of days with threats to our genitals a lot lower and protected by 2 layers of clothing it is sort of like an apendix, it has lost it's original porpose, also, everyone who is claiming that male circumsision is acting like its scaring boys and men for life, i didn't even know that a part of my penis was removed, i doubt any one would know that a part of skin was cut away from their body if no one told them, therefore it isn't tramutsing anyone and i don't really hear any men saying their orgasms are unsatisfactory because of a leathery glans so i don't see what all the fuss against it is.
In response to the last two posts:
Please read the information that Andre has posted in this thread regarding male penile anatomy. Do this and then we can continue our discussion.
how about you do some work and paraphrase it
[QUOTE=weasel;218970]how about you do some work and paraphrase it[/QUOTE]
I will not do the work for you simply because you're lazy.