elchip
Yes, but did you get to carefully handle one in its unexcited state?

Is there going to be a test on this later?

/nice try

AcadianSidhe: /nice try

Ha! That wasn't my intention. My anteater turtleneck has been removed, thankyouverymuch.

jingks: anymore.

WolfStar76: Key word, that.

as in, when he first got it done it was hypersensitive and then it return to his normal, pre-op sensitivity. but nice try.

The following things are not natural and I do not do them:

Circumcisions
Ear Piercings
Fillings
Root Canals
Tooth Extraction
Showers with Soap
Brushing my Teeth
Trimming my Pubic Hairs
Cooked Food
Trimming my Finger Nails
Shaving

AcadianSidhe

Is there going to be a test on this later?

Yes, at my place tonight around 10. Bring beer and soap.

//see elchip...it could have opened a door for you there...

elchip

My head hurts after reading that...good point though

SixOfDLoC: "It reduces penis cancer!" - In the same way as cutting off your arms and legs would reduce your chance of getting skin cancer. You're reducing the available tissue for tumors to grow on.

All the same, I should probably stop stuffing Copenhagen in my prepuce.

FYI, it is also possible to restore a foreskin.

Though you'll never get the same sensitivity from it again. same nerves won't be there but it'll serve other functions (ribbing- for her pleasure- so he doesn't have to thrust so hard- unless he wants to, more friction for him so more sensation, etc)

Do the people criticizing circumcision also advocate for the choice to keep their umbilical cords attached? Reasonably speaking it is fifty percent yours and fifty percent your mother's, why must it be clipped down to a neat little knot on the abdomen and the rest discarded? Where is my say in the matter?

From the "HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud?" video

3 of 10 reasons why HIV doesn't cause AIDS

1. HIV is harmless after anti-body immunity, which happens automatically if you come in contact with HIV.
2. HIV doesn't kill the T cells that it infects.
3. HIV doesn't infect enough T cells to cause AIDS

Gallo is clearly a lying hack.
He tried to establish that HIV causes CANCER but that didn't work out so he "discovered" that it causes AIDS instead.

The second video "The Other Side of AIDS" is perhaps even better since its about young womans first hand experience.

oh and there are guys in that video that were tested HIV+ since 1984 and 1986 and no meds.. healthy as a horses.

no mention if they're circumcised tho LOL

oh man.. still watching the second video... there is an HIV Testing Specialist that has no idea what the test really means!

So there is no disease that AIDS patients get that HIV negative people don't get.

If a person has cancer, its called AIDS if they tested HIV+ but if they are HIV-, its just cancer.

Remember, AIDS isnt a disease, its a syndrome (that's what the S stands for in AIDS after all).

It's a collection of diseases lumped together.
It used to be 2 or 3 diseases but now it's about 30 diseases to boost the AIDS numbers, fear factor, and profits.

at the end of the second video:
In July 2002, researchers at the 14th World AIDS Conference revelealed that the leading cause of death among HIV positive Americans is liver failure from AIDS drug treatments.

Its true what they say, the cure is worse than the disease (or syndrome in this case)

jst3p

The definition that uses the word "deprive" also says a limb or other essential part. YOUR definition uses one word from definition 2 in conjunction with part of definition 1.

You too fail at logic.

So...you're arguing that it must be an essential part of your body, or that the foreskin isn't essential? It may not be essential to life, but for full sexual sensitivity and full stimulation of your partner it is essential. Would you let someone remove your big toe if they told you it could reduce your chance of skin cancer by 10%? It's not essential to live, but it is very essential for walking properly. If someone came up and chopped your big toe off, would you feel mutilated?

zeppelinrox

I'm sorry I wasn't able to make out your post, the blinding glare off of your tinfoil hat got in my way.

it's not a new viewpoint about HIV not causing AIDS by the way.
Nobel Prize winning scientists that actually look at the science have spoken out about it since the 80s.

watch the videos if you want to have an informed opinion.

So...you're arguing that it must be an essential part of your body, or that the foreskin isn't essential?

Yes.

It may not be essential to life, but for full sexual sensitivity
Prove it.


and full stimulation of your partner it is essential.

Completely false.

Would you let someone remove your big toe if they told you it could reduce your chance of skin cancer by 10%? It's not essential to live, but it is very essential for walking properly. If someone came up and chopped your big toe off, would you feel mutilated?

A toe is not a foreskin.

Bonehead
So...you're arguing that it must be an essential part of your body, or that the foreskin isn't essential? It may not be essential to life, but for full sexual sensitivity and full stimulation of your partner it is essential. Would you let someone remove your big toe if they told you it could reduce your chance of skin cancer by 10%? It's not essential to live, but it is very essential for walking properly. If someone came up and chopped your big toe off, would you feel mutilated?

I still want to know why I was given no choice about keeping fifty percent of the umbliical cord instead of having it clipped into a belly button. Sure it may look less appealing but it is MY umbilical cord (at least fifty percent of it is anyway). Taking it from me mutilates me!!!

jst3p: The story of Onan in Genesis.

Debatable at best...


ahh...revenge of the fark biblical scholar. Read the wiki page and then present your arguments.

AcadianSidhe

Wikipedia may say that an umbilical cord "naturally" detaches itself from a placenta after a few days, but I find this to be mutilation. Surely the phenomenon occurs because we are in some way allowing it to happen. Where is my say in the matter? That cord is a part of my physical form dammit!

say, if you're an American diagnosed with AIDS, come up to Canada and there's a good chance you will be cured once you cross the border.

this is because the U.S. has some lame ass determination (low T cell count which has wide fluctions anyway)

Owangotang
Wikipedia may say that an umbilical cord "naturally" detaches itself from a placenta after a few days, but I find this to be mutilation. Surely the phenomenon occurs because we are in some way allowing it to happen. Where is my say in the matter? That cord is a part of my physical form dammit!

you want to say the same about your teeth?

If it falls off naturally, it's not mutilation. Mutilation would be reattaching it surgically. But whatever floats your boat, if that's what you want.

jst3p

Fark it. If you're going to argue that cutting off a piece of your dick doesn't mean you lose some sexual stimulation, then it's no use talking to you. The thread is full of explainations as to why it is essential. No, you won't die without it. No, you won't lose all stimulation, and chances are you'll retain 99% of your stimulation. No, not everyone thinks it's mutilation. No, not everyone thinks they've been mutilated. Not everyone wanted their foreskin removed though, so they might consider themselves mutilated.

Now bite me and fark off, troll...

correction: fluctuations.. not "fluctions" meh

it's not a new viewpoint about HIV not causing AIDS by the way.

A whole new breed of crazy in this whacked-out thread!

/Cut. So what?

Owangotang

I still want to know why I was given no choice about keeping fifty percent of the umbliical cord instead of having it clipped into a belly button.

The umbilical cord dries out and falls off on its own. Not all of it, as there are some outies out there. But no one cuts off an outie to make it look clean...

muslim_pakistani_guy: Dude ... genesis .... we follow the quran

Yeah, I've heard of it. You people do get a bit touchy with your mumbo-jumbo.

Really....because every time I go into one of these threads, there is the bullshiat assertion that we are all people of Abraham and that your religion allegedly believes in the book of Genesis.

Do you believe in Judah? He was Judah's second son.

Bonehead

Hey, I wasn't arguing that anyone should or shouldn't be cut. Just that it isn't mutilation.

Which it isn't unless you use your custom definition.

have a nice day communist!

/you DON'T want to know what "have a nice day" means by MY definition.

zeppelinrox
How come AZT therapy extends lifespan then?
How come people were dying from AIDS before the evil scientists gave it to them with their treatments?

Tatsuma,

Where did you read that 90% of egyptian women are circumcised? And do you mean they are missing clitorises or that their clitoral hoods have been reduced (which actually is said to enhance sexual pleasure not reduce it).

/not supporting it
//just wanting to know the facts

ozziegt

Don't know who determined that statistic, but I've heard and read that particular number numerous times. Wiki "Female Genital Mutilation" and see where they get the % from.

Bonehead: Now bite me and fark off, troll...

HAHAH!

Trolls are all uncircumcised!

jst3p

Bonehead

Hey, I wasn't arguing that anyone should or shouldn't be cut. Just that it isn't mutilation.

Which it isn't unless you use your custom definition.

have a nice day communist!

/you DON'T want to know what "have a nice day" means by MY definition.

So...we're arguing over the interpretation of the definition? shiat man...if you think you've lost, just say it or leave. Don't try to change the argument. That just makes you look foolish.

And I still think you're a troll.

and btw, free, mandatory circumcisions for all, male and female!

/hooray?

jst3p

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

How is cutting off the foreskin not disfiguring or making the penis imperfect? At the very least, it's an injury. It would farking hurt if not for anesthetics, and takes time to heal just like any injury. You might have an understanding of logic, but your grasp on the English language is questionable.

I do not have time to read 687 comments. I do however, have time to say that..
My husband is in need of circumcision.
The foreskin has NO feeling in it. Sex is friction. If your foreskin is too long or grew so that it can not be pulled back over the head there is a problem. One we face together.
THERE IS NO BENEFICIAL PART to foreskin.
NONE.
It is cleaner to be cut. It's also more attractive and taste better.
:)

Just don't eat the onion rings at Mount Sinai Hospital.

/Just sayin'...

zeppelinrox

The few scientists who have spoken out against the idea that HIV causes AIDS have generally been exposed as people who don't know what the hell they're talking about when it comes to infectious disease issues.

HIV badly suppresses the immune system. Therefore, people who have AIDS have the symptoms of a badly suppressed immune system. So yes, they get the same diseases that people who have badly suppressed immune systems for other reasons get. That's hardly news.

HIV mutates quickly. HIV subtypes are now being found. Subtypes that show up positive on the test may not be as virulent as other subtypes. The treatments are toxic, true. But they keep HIV+ people alive a hell of a lot longer than they would be otherwise. You don't ever want to see someone die of AIDS. It's a grisly, awful, painful death. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the liver failure ten years down the line than with an AIDS death within a couple of years from diagnosis.

Sweaty Jerry,

The only stat on wikipedia is that 90% of all FGM in the Sudan is type III. If people are getting the stat from there they are spreading a lot of misinformation. I find it impossible to believe that 90% of Egyptian women are missing their clitorises and anyone who propagates that is either not thinking straight or has a hidden agenda...

Bonehead
The umbilical cord dries out and falls off on its own. Not all of it, as there are some outies out there. But no one cuts off an outie to make it look clean...

Bah that is just because it is allowed to dry out and fall away. I could also refuse to brush or floss my teeth ever and they too will "naturally" fall out of my head.

I don't think you understand, I feel violated and mutilated at having lost my (fifty percent) of my umbilical cord! I don't care if it is cleaner, visually preferible, or just plain less freaky to have a belly button! It's my choice!

Also, watching a couple of inflammatory videos by the tinfoil hat crowd does not make you an expert on HIV. Just saying that, in anticipation of the "watch the video and you'll realize why you're wrong" comment. Go to medical school, do a fellowship in infectious disease, see what happens to HIV+ patients who develop AIDS, and then come talk to me about your little videos.

Owangotang

If you want to consider yourself mutilated, be my guest. I frankly don't care. I was just answering your question...

jst3p: Prove it.

I can, I didn't get circumcised until I was 19. I had sex with and without a foreskin.

If you are attempting to argue that the foreskin serves no sexual purpose, or that there is no loss of sensitivity or feeling, you are dead wrong. There is a significant loss of sensitivity to touch that just goes away. It doesn't really matter if you've never had it, but arguing that the foreskin serves no purpose is fallacious at best.

It's exactly comparable to cutting the hood off the clitoris. Ask any woman if she finds that part of her body superfluous or unnecessary.

I really don't care about the cut or uncut issue, but am I the only one that thinks that forcing an infant to undergo circumcision is just wrong?

Clean or not, it's generally not a problem until a child is old enough to be able to reason and is capable of understanding the responsibilities for doing so. It's not like someone can become de-circumcised.

Yes, there may be problems associated with not getting circumcised. None of them seem to be so terribly critical that it can't be done later in life.

It seems to me that there are plenty of reasons for both sides, but since the operation is one way, it seems smarter to leave your son uncircumcised unless he feels differently.

Cup_O_Jo: The foreskin has NO feeling in it.
THERE IS NO BENEFICIAL PART to foreskin.
NONE.

Jesus Christ, why don't you get your husband cut and then just farking ask him whether or not it has any feeling? How can you possibly make such a patently false statement? Are you lying about having a husband?

How is cutting off the foreskin not disfiguring or making the penis imperfect?

Because it isn't "disfigured" or "made imperfect" any more than a nose job disfigures or makes imperfect.

At the very least, it's an injury. It would farking hurt if not for anesthetics, and takes time to heal just like any injury.

As I said before, any surgery can then be considered an injury. So any surgery that "removes" something could then be considered a "mutilation". Is this your position?

Appendectomy
Tonsillectomy
Breast Reduction
Nose Job

Are these mutilations?

You might have an understanding of logic, but your grasp on the English language is questionable.

Only if surgery is equal to injury.

I can, I didn't get circumcised until I was 19. I had sex with and without a foreskin.

If you are attempting to argue that the foreskin serves no sexual purpose, or that there is no loss of sensitivity or feeling, you are dead wrong.

I never said any such thing. But I don't have any evidence to prove that I would be more or less satisfied with or without it. Satisfaction is about more than sensitivity.