[quote user=proofinlife] Who's side of the argument was it, it was either circumsized or non-circumsized were easily infected. I'd assume the cut ones were. [/quote]
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
proofinlife wrote:
Who's side of the argument was it, it was either circumsized or non-circumsized were easily infected. I'd assume the cut ones were.
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
[quote user=tuoni] [quote user=proofinlife]Who's side of the argument was it, it was either circumsized or non-circumsized were easily infected. I'd assume the cut ones were. [/quote]
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD [/quote]
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
tuoni wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Who's side of the argument was it, it was either circumsized or non-circumsized were easily infected. I'd assume the cut ones were.
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
[quote user=proofinlife] [quote user=tuoni]Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD [/quote]
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable. [/quote]
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
proofinlife wrote:
tuoni wrote:
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
[quote user=tuoni] [quote user=proofinlife]Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable. [/quote]
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless. [/quote]
I forget where I learned it, could've been school for all I know, but they said that some less experienced doctors cut too much of something off, and leave some people with irrepairable nerve damage. This was back in the 90's when those j00s were probably still using sharpened bones from all the people they starved in Europe.
tuoni wrote:
proofinlife wrote:
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
I forget where I learned it, could've been school for all I know, but they said that some less experienced doctors cut too much of something off, and leave some people with irrepairable nerve damage. This was back in the 90's when those j00s were probably still using sharpened bones from all the people they starved in Europe.
The glans and the foreskin are one of the most nerve-dense tissues outside the brain, make a wrong cut and you will naturally end up with irreparable damage.
Fucking jews.
Ewwww X(
The glans and the foreskin are one of the most nerve-dense tissues outside the brain, make a wrong cut and you will naturally end up with irreparable damage.
I'm cut, and glad i was cut, and i had my boy cut.
i don't care about cleanliness cause i already keep Bruiser nice and clean as is. i would do the same if i was uncut. so neither side makes any difference for me
second, the girls i have been with wanted a cut man ("been with" means long enough for the conversation to come up) or didn't care. and as with the above, am sure that someone else's sampling of the correlating side would show the opposite.
I have read that people that are cut, have a easier time of lasting longer when they want to. i am sure there are just as many uncut that can last as long or longer. again it is a flip of an opinion.
i dont think there is enough scientific proof either way to show a benefit/harm ratio that is near definitive, only interesting reading.
religion may be a poison and a toxic, but we still can extract useful things from both. ie. beer
i think getting cut is one of those useful things
female cutting is a product of backwards thinking.
if a woman these days could improve their child's sexual pleasure later in life by having the skin cut to expose her clit more, i would be in support of it, instead of the operation being with the intent that it diminish sexual pleasure
I'm cut, and glad i was cut, and i had my boy cut.
i don't care about cleanliness cause i already keep Bruiser nice and clean as is. i would do the same if i was uncut. so neither side makes any difference for me
second, the girls i have been with wanted a cut man ("been with" means long enough for the conversation to come up) or didn't care. and as with the above, am sure that someone else's sampling of the correlating side would show the opposite.
I have read that people that are cut, have a easier time of lasting longer when they want to. i am sure there are just as many uncut that can last as long or longer. again it is a flip of an opinion.
i dont think there is enough scientific proof either way to show a benefit/harm ratio that is near definitive, only interesting reading.
religion may be a poison and a toxic, but we still can extract useful things from both. ie. beer
i think getting cut is one of those useful things
female cutting is a product of backwards thinking.
if a woman these days could improve their child's sexual pleasure later in life by having the skin cut to expose her clit more, i would be in support of it, instead of the operation being with the intent that it diminish sexual pleasure
^ i like being uncut. and i reckon if you we're also uncut, you'd like that as well. overall it probably makes no difference, which is why there's no point doing it unless there's a medical reason, or if you choose to.
^ i like being uncut. and i reckon if you we're also uncut, you'd like that as well. overall it probably makes no difference, which is why there's no point doing it unless there's a medical reason, or if you choose to.
I have to agree with Tuoni on this one. Respectfully, Cyril, because I know this'll come off as an insult to you, but it's just my opinion, that I believe circumcision is abuse in the fact that the child can't help make the decision of whether he wants to have his foreskin removed or not. Regardless of religion or any health belief, I just believe it to be barbaric to do that to an unwitting child. I say let the educated male make that decision later in life, and if it is truly safe then all the more power to his choice and your belief, he made that decision
I have to agree with Tuoni on this one. Respectfully, Cyril, because I know this'll come off as an insult to you, but it's just my opinion, that I believe circumcision is abuse in the fact that the child can't help make the decision of whether he wants to have his foreskin removed or not. Regardless of religion or any health belief, I just believe it to be barbaric to do that to an unwitting child. I say let the educated male make that decision later in life, and if it is truly safe then all the more power to his choice and your belief, he made that decision
[quote user=tuoni] @Cyril: you could go chop off your arm for all I care, you're an adult and entitled to making your own decisions.
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers. [/quote]
yes, and as adults, we make children. also as adults, we make decisions for our kids until they can make their own. I don't think any parent has a perfect tract record on deciding what is best for their child. we just do what we think is right for them. and for me the right decision was to have my boy cut. it wasnt based on religion, there wasnt even much thought put into it right at the decision time, don't regret it, and i have no doubt that if i have another boy some day that i will have him cut.
It is based on nothing more than my own experiences.
just like any other adults decision on whats best for their child.
tuoni wrote:
@Cyril: you could go chop off your arm for all I care, you're an adult and entitled to making your own decisions.
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers.
yes, and as adults, we make children. also as adults, we make decisions for our kids until they can make their own. I don't think any parent has a perfect tract record on deciding what is best for their child. we just do what we think is right for them. and for me the right decision was to have my boy cut. it wasnt based on religion, there wasnt even much thought put into it right at the decision time, don't regret it, and i have no doubt that if i have another boy some day that i will have him cut.
It is based on nothing more than my own experiences.
just like any other adults decision on whats best for their child.
I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was about 6 or so. I remember it being sore, I remember the journey home from hospital being somewhat fraught because I was still tender... but the pain of, and following, the operation were as nothing compared to the constant pain I was in for over a year before the operation. My younger brother was also circumcised for the same reason. If I had a kid in the same situation I'd recommend it in a heartbeat. The idea of living in that pain until I was old enough to make an informed decision is just fucking ludicrous, and cruel. We tried the alternatives, the creams, the expansion balloons... yeah, just try expaning a kid's foreskin over a period of months and tell me that's kinder than cutting off the foreskin.
Also, it wasn't until I was about 20 that I heard of smegma for the first time, and I near vomitted at the concept.
I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was about 6 or so. I remember it being sore, I remember the journey home from hospital being somewhat fraught because I was still tender... but the pain of, and following, the operation were as nothing compared to the constant pain I was in for over a year before the operation. My younger brother was also circumcised for the same reason. If I had a kid in the same situation I'd recommend it in a heartbeat. The idea of living in that pain until I was old enough to make an informed decision is just fucking ludicrous, and cruel. We tried the alternatives, the creams, the expansion balloons... yeah, just try expaning a kid's foreskin over a period of months and tell me that's kinder than cutting off the foreskin.
Also, it wasn't until I was about 20 that I heard of smegma for the first time, and I near vomitted at the concept.
[quote user=proofinlife] I have to agree with Tuoni on this one. Respectfully, Cyril, because I know this'll come off as an insult to you, but it's just my opinion, that I believe circumcision is abuse in the fact that the child can't help make the decision of whether he wants to have his foreskin removed or not. Regardless of religion or any health belief, I just believe it to be barbaric to do that to an unwitting child. I say let the educated male make that decision later in life, and if it is truly safe then all the more power to his choice and your belief, he made that decision [/quote]
not at all, we are human, and we do have a barbaric nature. there are lots of things that we do that are still barbaric. the only difference is how much it is accepted by society.
Spending more on war than we do our own sick, impoverished, hungry...i think that is barbaric and much worse than circumcision. and widely accepted by society.
Digital has the most important to say about the subject.
we who are one way and want to stay that way, are of course probably only doing it that way because that's the way we are. the people who have gone from one side to the other, are the ones that we should listen to. imagine being so distraught about this,,,that you actually have surgery to replace the cut skin. that baffles me
or being cut as an adult, and wanting bad enough to have it done, that takes more balls than the skin that is being clipped
proofinlife wrote:
I have to agree with Tuoni on this one. Respectfully, Cyril, because I know this'll come off as an insult to you, but it's just my opinion, that I believe circumcision is abuse in the fact that the child can't help make the decision of whether he wants to have his foreskin removed or not. Regardless of religion or any health belief, I just believe it to be barbaric to do that to an unwitting child. I say let the educated male make that decision later in life, and if it is truly safe then all the more power to his choice and your belief, he made that decision
not at all, we are human, and we do have a barbaric nature. there are lots of things that we do that are still barbaric. the only difference is how much it is accepted by society.
Spending more on war than we do our own sick, impoverished, hungry...i think that is barbaric and much worse than circumcision. and widely accepted by society.
Digital has the most important to say about the subject.
we who are one way and want to stay that way, are of course probably only doing it that way because that's the way we are. the people who have gone from one side to the other, are the ones that we should listen to. imagine being so distraught about this,,,that you actually have surgery to replace the cut skin. that baffles me
or being cut as an adult, and wanting bad enough to have it done, that takes more balls than the skin that is being clipped
[quote user=Observer] Many support abortion but circumcision is a problem? There is something very wrong here. . . [/quote]
Completely unrelated. A wayward foreskin doesnt shit the bed for the next 3 years. Also I dont think medical circumcision is the topic here. If the need arises for an operation its like any other operation. The topic is the needless removing of a flap of skin for no reason other than religious or cosmetic on a infant unable to make up their own mind.
Observer wrote:
Many support abortion but circumcision is a problem? There is something very wrong here. . .
Completely unrelated. A wayward foreskin doesnt shit the bed for the next 3 years. Also I dont think medical circumcision is the topic here. If the need arises for an operation its like any other operation. The topic is the needless removing of a flap of skin for no reason other than religious or cosmetic on a infant unable to make up their own mind.
[quote user=Observer] "on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life [/quote]
True. But if the child born is unwanted, unloved, and cant be afforded it will have a shit life and wish it was dead for the next 20 years anyway. Abortion just takes the wishing out of the equation and ends its life more humanely.
That said I'm not for abortion I'm just pointing out the argument for it.
Also Welcome.
Edit: You know as far as abortion goes I think humans have gone overboard. If you look at any species of animal (including humans) there is always a percentage of stillbirths, a % of deaths shortly after birth, a % of deaths during childhood/juvenile stages until finally healthy adults are all that remains to breed. This process weeds out the weak genes so that members the strongest members of a species reproduce and pass on their genes to their kids.
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation. Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
Observer wrote:
"on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
True. But if the child born is unwanted, unloved, and cant be afforded it will have a shit life and wish it was dead for the next 20 years anyway. Abortion just takes the wishing out of the equation and ends its life more humanely.
That said I'm not for abortion I'm just pointing out the argument for it.
Also Welcome.
Edit: You know as far as abortion goes I think humans have gone overboard. If you look at any species of animal (including humans) there is always a percentage of stillbirths, a % of deaths shortly after birth, a % of deaths during childhood/juvenile stages until finally healthy adults are all that remains to breed. This process weeds out the weak genes so that members the strongest members of a species reproduce and pass on their genes to their kids.
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation. Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
[quote user=Observer] the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life [/quote]
Is this an unborn baby ?
Cause I know fetus, but I've never seen an unborn baby, must be some conjoined twins deal, when one baby is born and another is just hanging off it, scaring the fuck out of doctors.
That must be an "unborn baby".
Observer wrote:
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
Is this an unborn baby ?
Cause I know fetus, but I've never seen an unborn baby, must be some conjoined twins deal, when one baby is born and another is just hanging off it, scaring the fuck out of doctors.
[quote user=Beelzebub]For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation. [/quote]
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
[quote user=Beelzebub]Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway. [/quote]
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
Beelzebub wrote:
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation.
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
Beelzebub wrote:
Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
[quote user=Observer] "on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life [/quote]
Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid (likely without the funds/support/emotional resources/life skills to give them a really happy childhood) until (s)he's at an appropriate consent-giving age and then saying: "so hey, by the way, you were totes unwanted and we would've aborted the shit out of you, but we wanted to give you a choice in the matter... thoughts?"
But at least skydaddy or Jesus or Romney would approve of that method, right?
Observer wrote:
"on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid (likely without the funds/support/emotional resources/life skills to give them a really happy childhood) until (s)he's at an appropriate consent-giving age and then saying: "so hey, by the way, you were totes unwanted and we would've aborted the shit out of you, but we wanted to give you a choice in the matter... thoughts?"
But at least skydaddy or Jesus or Romney would approve of that method, right?
[quote user=Observer] "on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life [/quote]
Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester.
[quote user=insomniac]I think i'd circumcise my kid if I had one. Higher risk of HIV and other STDs as well as infection if uncircumcised. [/quote]
That argument has any weight only if you were living in the sub Saharan Africa. And you can still contract AIDS if uncircumcised. Higher risk probably means like 5% odds difference (I pulled that 5% figure out of my ass).
Observer wrote:
"on an infant unable to make up their own mind."
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester.
insomniac wrote:
I think i'd circumcise my kid if I had one. Higher risk of HIV and other STDs as well as infection if uncircumcised.
That argument has any weight only if you were living in the sub Saharan Africa. And you can still contract AIDS if uncircumcised. Higher risk probably means like 5% odds difference (I pulled that 5% figure out of my ass).
[quote user=LithuanianLabourer] [quote user=Beelzebub]For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation.[/quote]
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
[quote user=Beelzebub]Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.[/quote]
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea. [/quote]
Thats just because he lost the war. The victor always writes the history books.
'Races' probably shouldnt be removed from the genepool. However - I have often seen a retarded parents with retarded kids and retarded grandkids all supported by wellfare and good for nothing. Although I must admit a good argument against it would be: 'smart people need idiots to do their work for them' but unfortunately in our civil society the idiots dont do work. They just get state sponsored free money.
LithuanianLabourer wrote:
Beelzebub wrote:
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation.
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
Beelzebub wrote:
Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
Thats just because he lost the war. The victor always writes the history books.
'Races' probably shouldnt be removed from the genepool. However - I have often seen a retarded parents with retarded kids and retarded grandkids all supported by wellfare and good for nothing. Although I must admit a good argument against it would be: 'smart people need idiots to do their work for them' but unfortunately in our civil society the idiots dont do work. They just get state sponsored free money.
"Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester."
I agree. There is a point where it is nothing but a few cells.
"Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid "
giving the child up for adoption? If you give birth to the child but can't afford it doesn't mean you're obligated to keep it, I'm sure there are adults wanting to be parents out there than can take care of him/her.
"Also Welcome."
Thank you Beelzebub. I've actually been around for years.
"Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester."
I agree. There is a point where it is nothing but a few cells.
"Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid "
giving the child up for adoption? If you give birth to the child but can't afford it doesn't mean you're obligated to keep it, I'm sure there are adults wanting to be parents out there than can take care of him/her.
"Also Welcome."
Thank you Beelzebub. I've actually been around for years.
meh, some people don't want kids, but even then you can get one. i aint never heard of someone who didn't want a dog and all the responsibility that goes with it being unlucky enough to have a dog forced upon them, even then you could just drop it off at a dogs home or w/e. whats wrong with aborting a kid? what's the difference between these:
"oh fuck im pregnant, i want an abortion" or "yeah i want kids one day, but not today"
in both situations a kid aint born. nowt wrong with that.
so there, discussing not having kids is as bad as abortion, it makes jesus cry
meh, some people don't want kids, but even then you can get one. i aint never heard of someone who didn't want a dog and all the responsibility that goes with it being unlucky enough to have a dog forced upon them, even then you could just drop it off at a dogs home or w/e. whats wrong with aborting a kid? what's the difference between these:
"oh fuck im pregnant, i want an abortion" or "yeah i want kids one day, but not today"
in both situations a kid aint born. nowt wrong with that.
so there, discussing not having kids is as bad as abortion, it makes jesus cry
33
| 215 views | www.bbc.co.uk
EDIT:
Fuck the jews.
EDIT:
Fuck the jews.
[/quote]
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
[/quote]
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
Proponents of circumcision often say that it has been "scientifically" proven that nonmutilated penises are dirtier and more prone to infection and genital diseases. Scientifically, no correlation whatsoever has been found.
Not to mention that less than 2% of Nordic males are circumcised, yet are still far healthier XD
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
[/quote]
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
yeah i've never had one issue my whole life, and i'm uncut.
Plus, in the article it speaks of pro-circumcision support. Are they going to say this is a good thing for adult males or teenage boys? It's been proven circumcision after toddler years can leave a man... well... inoperable.
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
[/quote]
I forget where I learned it, could've been school for all I know, but they said that some less experienced doctors cut too much of something off, and leave some people with irrepairable nerve damage. This was back in the 90's when those j00s were probably still using sharpened bones from all the people they starved in Europe.
From what I've read, they claim it is beneficial regardless of age; even though they obviously focus on infants. I haven't read any journals, but I did read an article that discussed an apparent increase in erectile dysfunction in adult males (probably 30ish to 40ish) who were circumcised.
Not to mention that the foreskin IS an important part of sexual function and pleasure, and overall health. If your dick is a limp fish, then naturally you won't notice any difference; but it is far from useless.
I forget where I learned it, could've been school for all I know, but they said that some less experienced doctors cut too much of something off, and leave some people with irrepairable nerve damage. This was back in the 90's when those j00s were probably still using sharpened bones from all the people they starved in Europe.
The glans and the foreskin are one of the most nerve-dense tissues outside the brain, make a wrong cut and you will naturally end up with irreparable damage.
Fucking jews.
The glans and the foreskin are one of the most nerve-dense tissues outside the brain, make a wrong cut and you will naturally end up with irreparable damage.
Fucking jews.
i don't care about cleanliness cause i already keep Bruiser nice and clean as is. i would do the same if i was uncut. so neither side makes any difference for me
second, the girls i have been with wanted a cut man ("been with" means long enough for the conversation to come up) or didn't care. and as with the above, am sure that someone else's sampling of the correlating side would show the opposite.
I have read that people that are cut, have a easier time of lasting longer when they want to. i am sure there are just as many uncut that can last as long or longer. again it is a flip of an opinion.
i dont think there is enough scientific proof either way to show a benefit/harm ratio that is near definitive, only interesting reading.
religion may be a poison and a toxic, but we still can extract useful things from both. ie. beer
i think getting cut is one of those useful things
female cutting is a product of backwards thinking.
if a woman these days could improve their child's sexual pleasure later in life by having the skin cut to expose her clit more, i would be in support of it, instead of the operation being with the intent that it diminish sexual pleasure
i don't care about cleanliness cause i already keep Bruiser nice and clean as is. i would do the same if i was uncut. so neither side makes any difference for me
second, the girls i have been with wanted a cut man ("been with" means long enough for the conversation to come up) or didn't care. and as with the above, am sure that someone else's sampling of the correlating side would show the opposite.
I have read that people that are cut, have a easier time of lasting longer when they want to. i am sure there are just as many uncut that can last as long or longer. again it is a flip of an opinion.
i dont think there is enough scientific proof either way to show a benefit/harm ratio that is near definitive, only interesting reading.
religion may be a poison and a toxic, but we still can extract useful things from both. ie. beer
i think getting cut is one of those useful things
female cutting is a product of backwards thinking.
if a woman these days could improve their child's sexual pleasure later in life by having the skin cut to expose her clit more, i would be in support of it, instead of the operation being with the intent that it diminish sexual pleasure
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers.
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers.
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers.
[/quote]
yes, and as adults, we make children. also as adults, we make decisions for our kids until they can make their own. I don't think any parent has a perfect tract record on deciding what is best for their child. we just do what we think is right for them. and for me the right decision was to have my boy cut. it wasnt based on religion, there wasnt even much thought put into it right at the decision time, don't regret it, and i have no doubt that if i have another boy some day that i will have him cut.
It is based on nothing more than my own experiences.
just like any other adults decision on whats best for their child.
Children are not, especially not defenceless infants.
Genital mutilation is a product of backwards thinking; be it jews or niggers.
yes, and as adults, we make children. also as adults, we make decisions for our kids until they can make their own. I don't think any parent has a perfect tract record on deciding what is best for their child. we just do what we think is right for them. and for me the right decision was to have my boy cut. it wasnt based on religion, there wasnt even much thought put into it right at the decision time, don't regret it, and i have no doubt that if i have another boy some day that i will have him cut.
It is based on nothing more than my own experiences.
just like any other adults decision on whats best for their child.
Also, it wasn't until I was about 20 that I heard of smegma for the first time, and I near vomitted at the concept.
Also, it wasn't until I was about 20 that I heard of smegma for the first time, and I near vomitted at the concept.
EDIT:
Fuck the jews.
[/quote]
EDIT:
Fuck the jews.
[/quote]
I'm with tuoni and beelz on that one.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qytw2eCi7-0[/video]
I'm with tuoni and beelz on that one.
[/quote]
not at all, we are human, and we do have a barbaric nature. there are lots of things that we do that are still barbaric. the only difference is how much it is accepted by society.
Spending more on war than we do our own sick, impoverished, hungry...i think that is barbaric and much worse than circumcision. and widely accepted by society.
Digital has the most important to say about the subject.
we who are one way and want to stay that way, are of course probably only doing it that way because that's the way we are. the people who have gone from one side to the other, are the ones that we should listen to. imagine being so distraught about this,,,that you actually have surgery to replace the cut skin. that baffles me
or being cut as an adult, and wanting bad enough to have it done, that takes more balls than the skin that is being clipped
not at all, we are human, and we do have a barbaric nature. there are lots of things that we do that are still barbaric. the only difference is how much it is accepted by society.
Spending more on war than we do our own sick, impoverished, hungry...i think that is barbaric and much worse than circumcision. and widely accepted by society.
Digital has the most important to say about the subject.
we who are one way and want to stay that way, are of course probably only doing it that way because that's the way we are. the people who have gone from one side to the other, are the ones that we should listen to. imagine being so distraught about this,,,that you actually have surgery to replace the cut skin. that baffles me
or being cut as an adult, and wanting bad enough to have it done, that takes more balls than the skin that is being clipped
[/quote]
Completely unrelated. A wayward foreskin doesnt shit the bed for the next 3 years. Also I dont think medical circumcision is the topic here. If the need arises for an operation its like any other operation. The topic is the needless removing of a flap of skin for no reason other than religious or cosmetic on a infant unable to make up their own mind.
Completely unrelated. A wayward foreskin doesnt shit the bed for the next 3 years. Also I dont think medical circumcision is the topic here. If the need arises for an operation its like any other operation. The topic is the needless removing of a flap of skin for no reason other than religious or cosmetic on a infant unable to make up their own mind.
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
[/quote]
True. But if the child born is unwanted, unloved, and cant be afforded it will have a shit life and wish it was dead for the next 20 years anyway. Abortion just takes the wishing out of the equation and ends its life more humanely.
That said I'm not for abortion I'm just pointing out the argument for it.
Also Welcome.
Edit: You know as far as abortion goes I think humans have gone overboard. If you look at any species of animal (including humans) there is always a percentage of stillbirths, a % of deaths shortly after birth, a % of deaths during childhood/juvenile stages until finally healthy adults are all that remains to breed. This process weeds out the weak genes so that members the strongest members of a species reproduce and pass on their genes to their kids.
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation. Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
True. But if the child born is unwanted, unloved, and cant be afforded it will have a shit life and wish it was dead for the next 20 years anyway. Abortion just takes the wishing out of the equation and ends its life more humanely.
That said I'm not for abortion I'm just pointing out the argument for it.
Also Welcome.
Edit: You know as far as abortion goes I think humans have gone overboard. If you look at any species of animal (including humans) there is always a percentage of stillbirths, a % of deaths shortly after birth, a % of deaths during childhood/juvenile stages until finally healthy adults are all that remains to breed. This process weeds out the weak genes so that members the strongest members of a species reproduce and pass on their genes to their kids.
For any species (including humans) you can say x% survive to adulthood. It's just us fucking retarded humans that have brought religion and morals into the whole equation. Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.
[/quote]
Is this an unborn baby ?
Cause I know fetus, but I've never seen an unborn baby, must be some conjoined twins deal, when one baby is born and another is just hanging off it, scaring the fuck out of doctors.
That must be an "unborn baby".
Is this an unborn baby ?
Cause I know fetus, but I've never seen an unborn baby, must be some conjoined twins deal, when one baby is born and another is just hanging off it, scaring the fuck out of doctors.
That must be an "unborn baby".
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
[quote user=Beelzebub]Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway. [/quote]
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
[/quote]
Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid (likely without the funds/support/emotional resources/life skills to give them a really happy childhood) until (s)he's at an appropriate consent-giving age and then saying: "so hey, by the way, you were totes unwanted and we would've aborted the shit out of you, but we wanted to give you a choice in the matter... thoughts?"
But at least skydaddy or Jesus or Romney would approve of that method, right?
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid (likely without the funds/support/emotional resources/life skills to give them a really happy childhood) until (s)he's at an appropriate consent-giving age and then saying: "so hey, by the way, you were totes unwanted and we would've aborted the shit out of you, but we wanted to give you a choice in the matter... thoughts?"
But at least skydaddy or Jesus or Romney would approve of that method, right?
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
[/quote]
Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester.
[quote user=insomniac]I think i'd circumcise my kid if I had one. Higher risk of HIV and other STDs as well as infection if uncircumcised. [/quote]
That argument has any weight only if you were living in the sub Saharan Africa. And you can still contract AIDS if uncircumcised. Higher risk probably means like 5% odds difference (I pulled that 5% figure out of my ass).
the same would apply to abortion. It's the parents decision to end an unborn babies life
Yeah... It's not a baby prior to second trimester.
That argument has any weight only if you were living in the sub Saharan Africa. And you can still contract AIDS if uncircumcised. Higher risk probably means like 5% odds difference (I pulled that 5% figure out of my ass).
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
[quote user=Beelzebub]Also I for one think far too many humans that should have been culled from the gene pool are allowed to reproduce anyway.[/quote]
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
[/quote]
Thats just because he lost the war. The victor always writes the history books.
'Races' probably shouldnt be removed from the genepool. However - I have often seen a retarded parents with retarded kids and retarded grandkids all supported by wellfare and good for nothing. Although I must admit a good argument against it would be: 'smart people need idiots to do their work for them' but unfortunately in our civil society the idiots dont do work. They just get state sponsored free money.
We don't need to be strong and healthy, we have medicine and science. Weaklings in power armor is the future.
If you disallow some specimens to reproduce, it's EUGENICS and SELECTIVE BREEDING, you are not restoring evolution, you are fucking it up some more on top then.
^ This guy was all about taking some people out of gene pool. It is generally agreed upon that it wasn't a good idea.
Thats just because he lost the war. The victor always writes the history books.
'Races' probably shouldnt be removed from the genepool. However - I have often seen a retarded parents with retarded kids and retarded grandkids all supported by wellfare and good for nothing. Although I must admit a good argument against it would be: 'smart people need idiots to do their work for them' but unfortunately in our civil society the idiots dont do work. They just get state sponsored free money.
I agree. There is a point where it is nothing but a few cells.
"Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid "
giving the child up for adoption? If you give birth to the child but can't afford it doesn't mean you're obligated to keep it, I'm sure there are adults wanting to be parents out there than can take care of him/her.
"Also Welcome."
Thank you Beelzebub. I've actually been around for years.
I agree. There is a point where it is nothing but a few cells.
"Well, I can think of nothing more suicide-inducing than raising a kid "
giving the child up for adoption? If you give birth to the child but can't afford it doesn't mean you're obligated to keep it, I'm sure there are adults wanting to be parents out there than can take care of him/her.
"Also Welcome."
Thank you Beelzebub. I've actually been around for years.
"oh fuck im pregnant, i want an abortion"
or
"yeah i want kids one day, but not today"
in both situations a kid aint born. nowt wrong with that.
so there, discussing not having kids is as bad as abortion, it makes jesus cry
"oh fuck im pregnant, i want an abortion"
or
"yeah i want kids one day, but not today"
in both situations a kid aint born. nowt wrong with that.
so there, discussing not having kids is as bad as abortion, it makes jesus cry