Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
nlitement

Circumcision

Recommended Posts

nlitement

My stance:

 

  • Nature does what it needs. No tail needed? Then it detaches by itself in the womb. No foreskin needed? It'd happen before you knew it. Apparently, manual circumcision doesn't fall under the category of "nature".
  • Negative correlation between the likelihood of getting HIV infection and being circumcised exists, but correlation is not causation; it still doesn't void you of getting HIV at all. Ending up in an aviation accident is less likely than ending up in an auto-accident, but does it mean that flying a Cessna without proper maintenance is safer than driving in a 5 EuroNCAP rated car with regular maintenance? Practicing safe sex is the only way to avoid STDs. Therefore, in my opinion, this argument is redundant because this does not give your penis any protection against STDs, it probably has more to do with sociological aspects of sex (partner selection).
  • Hygiene: This does not outweigh the cons and doesn't replace regular washing with soap. The foreskin is there to protect the sensitive glans.
  • Sexual pleasure: The penis becomes less sensitive over time during childhood as it gets rubbed against surfaces (underwear, etc.). I don't know how circumcised people fap, lube is probably required. The foreskin also has many sensitive nerves that are there for a reason.
  • The real reason circumcision is widespread in the US is because of FUD fap-haters back in the 20th and 19th centuries. Take Dr. Kellogg (not related to the cereals) for example:

     

    A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid [phenol] to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.
Remember my AIDS rebuttal? The US is roughly 80% cut, yet 0.7% of the pop. has AIDS. Finland: 10% circumcised, <0.1% AIDS. The UK: 15.8%, 0.2%.

GO, GO, GO!

 

We might also want to add a poll for the sake of surveying this forum's penises. ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I 'fap' quite well, thanks.

 

While it's unfortunate that the snippee doesn't really have a choice in the matter, I think the overall effect is more cosmetic than anything. The AIDs correlations are interesting, but I've never heard of this before. It smells fishy, pardon the pun.

 

EDIT - I've read into the AIDS effect, and it's really interesting. They've actually begun circumsizing men in Africa in an effort to reduce the spread of AIDS. Cool stuff!

 

Another quick tidbit - nature hasn't eliminated the horrors of wisdom teeth.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

Can I see some LEGITIMATE data showing that it's easier to get HIV with or without a forsckin. Honestly, I think there is none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

The foreskin is composed of skin that acts as "target cells" for HIV, or so the thinking goes. But don't bother looking anything up for yourself, let me do the legwork for you:

 

Here's the research:

 

http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/reprint/161/3/867.pdf

 

http://ajcp.metapress.com/link.asp?id=jvhqvdjdykm58eph

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?c...st_uids=7558138

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

I don't think babies should be circumcised. If you want to have a circumcision, go ahead and have one, but it should be your own choice. Not your parents'. Personally, I have all my foreskin intact, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't really see any good reason to get rid of it. Hygienic arguments are bull. It takes all of the extra 10 seconds when taking a shower to make sure that all the surfaces are clean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

I think the problems with circumcision come when the surgery is done late in the game, if you catch my drift. I don't see any reason why parents should not be allowed to choose to circumsize their child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

There are a lot of adult males who are unhappy about having been circumcised. Even some that try to restore the foreskin with various methods or surgeries, and go through a lot of trouble to achieve that. Trouble that could have been saved by not having them circumcised in the first place. Now, if there were some serious medical benefits to having circumcision, then there would be grounds for argument, but there are none. Would you let parents put tatoos on their babies, just because parents felt like it? Probably not. So why circumcision, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

I think the problems with circumcision come when the surgery is done late in the game, if you catch my drift.  I don't see any reason why parents should not be allowed to choose to circumsize their child.

Indeed, especially when you can sue your doctor when you grow up, receive money as legal compensation, and get a non-surgical skin restoration. Can't find the exact person right now, but Gooling "man sues circumcision penis", you may find a man from the US who was circumcised as an infant and won the doctor who operated on him in court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter
I think the problems with circumcision come when the surgery is done late in the game, if you catch my drift.  I don't see any reason why parents should not be allowed to choose to circumsize their child.

Indeed, especially when you can sue your doctor when you grow up, receive money as legal compensation, and get a non-surgical skin restoration. Can't find the exact person right now, but Gooling "man sues circumcision penis", you may find a man from the US who was circumcised as an infant and won the doctor who operated on him in court.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying that, if done early, the drawbacks to circumcision are minimized. You can sue for anything these days, especially in a circus-like legal system like the USA; it doesn't really mean anything.

 

K^2, if tattoos on babies made any sense, then sure - why not? Especially if we're dealing with a culture that accepts it. Parents choose where the baby grows up, what the babyt eats, what the baby's name is, to large extent the baby's belief structure and values - and arguably even their genetic or racial makeup, by selecting a partner. These are all life-long decisions. Why not something as arbitrary as foreskin?

 

As frightened as you are by the notion of waking up tomorrow without your hooded asp, I too fear waking up one morning with extra bits of flappy skin. It's how my parents made me, after all, for all their gifts and faults.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Well, yeah, it's not much of a big deal compared to all the things that are predetermined anyways, but that's only more of a reason to make it one less thing that you have no control over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

But isn't it kind of silly to ban something so arbitrary? Especially something with cultural significance?

 

Sorry, I'm assuming you're suggesting it be banned.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LT.Diablo

Circumcision is a touchy subject really, anything to do with genitalia often is, but personally I'm glad I have my foreskin intact, as was mentioned in the first post the sexual pleasure of un-circumcised men is probably much higher because of the desensitization that circumcised men experience.

 

For a while, I wanted a circumcision but I've changed my mind, the hygiene element is really the thing that tipped it, as somebody said a quick and regular wash with soap and water can cure that problem. Really, other than that there are no benefits if one thinks rationally.

 

The subject of circumcising babies is, of course, a touchy one seeing as the infant has no decision in the matter but as Otter said the parent of the child decides many aspects of the child's life and thats really just an extra one that in the long term isn't too huge. Probably, most circumcised adults haven't thought about the fact that they're circumcised seeing as they've lived like that their whole life but then I'm only speaking through what I think is the fact, of course I'm not circumcised but thats how I would imagine it.

 

It's not like sex is even an issue seeing as when erect the foreskin is behind the head anyway. Like I said, personally I embrace my circumcision but each to their own.

 

 

Interesting topic of discussion smile.gif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
But isn't it kind of silly to ban something so arbitrary? Especially something with cultural significance?

 

Sorry, I'm assuming you're suggesting it be banned.

No. I'm really suggesting that parents be properly informed on circumcision, and not be fed piles of sh*t about how it is so much better for the child. It really isn't, and the child should have a choice. That's what they need to be telling the parents. I don't think a lot of them will opt for circumcision if they actually know the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T-Cipp
well i guess it's just the parents' decision (sometimes religion). usually it is done when the child is really young so the child doesn't know what is best for its self. im just thankful mines is fully functional rather than men around with problems. who cares man, it just doesn't matter unless it works properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

I have a hard time saying that the parents should just be able to choose such a thing because of cultural beliefs or traditions. In Africa, the men mutilate their daughter's labia and sew shut their vagina. That's far more drastic than circumcision, but I think it still demonstrates how the parent's cultural or traditional beliefs shouldn't really come into the question. I think in the case of circumcision, I'd come to the same conclusion that it's not really significant enough to put a ban on it.

 

On the other hand, there should be some sort of law to prevent hospitals of circumcising babies automatically. To my knowledge they don't do that much anymore, but I think that if it should be up to the parents, then the hospitals should be penalized if they make that choice for the parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

That's a really unfair comparison, Sag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2

Some forms of FGM aren't that far off from circumcision (Clitoral hood is homologous to foreskin.), and it is usually done for the same reasons. Id est, cultural and religious prejudices about sexuality. So I think that Sagacious has a point.

Edited by K^2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

First of all, homologous doesn't mean the removal of which has the same implications - in fact, far from it - and second of all, it hardly ever ends with simply removing the clitoral hood, it's most often the removal of the clitoris (homologous to the entire penis, by the way) and often the removal of the labia minora. It's a painful process that irreversibly prevents the woman from ever enjoying herself sexually.

 

I wouldn't even compare male circumcision to foot binding, and female circumcision is lightyears beyond foot binding in terms of physiological and psychological damage.

 

We may as well start the comparisons to abortion, if we're going to talk about FGC in relation to male circumcision. This is why I'm saying it's an unfair - and outlandish - comparison. Circumcised men have no physical impairment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
homologous to the entire penis, by the way

Head of the penis. Not the whole thing. You'd need to carve out labia majora and a huge chunk of vagina to get everything that is homologous to penis. But it is all beside the point. The comparison is not on consequences but on ridiculous reasons for it. When you argue against FGM, you would use the fact that it is a dumb tradition based on an idiotic religious belief. When you start talking about circumcision, which, granted, is nowhere near as traumatic, and for many not traumatic at all, you somehow avoid the issue of it being entirely pointless. When something has a potential to be even mildly traumatic, the fact that it is absolutely useless and dumb should be concerning you, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Actually, no, the entire penis. Believe that.

 

Look, Sag argued that religious beliefs shouldn't influence a decision that a parent makes about their child, because the same thing leads to FGC. The fact that it's a form of circumcision almost makes that sound plausible, right?

 

It's not. That's like saying (example) we shouldn't cross the street, because we'll get hit by a car. (example over)

 

Male circumcision, as I've already said, is as arbitrary as the name you give your child. Should parents be prevented from naming their children based on their religious or cultural background? That's a different argument. wink.gif

 

To sum it up; to argue that cultural practices should be discarded because some cultural practices lead to the mutilation of children is silly.

 

---------------------

 

Finally, you said I'm skirting the issue of intention - why allow something potentially dangerous, when it's entirely pointless?

 

It's not pointless. I thought we just went over this!

 

- While it may take you slightly longer to clean your penis, aye, you're neglecting the fact that your penis produces smegma. Mine does not. Chicks dig that.

 

- In a situation where you could not afford the opportunity to properly clean yourself, you are more prone to infection. Chicks don't dig that.

 

- A circumcised penis provides greater friction during sex. Chicks dig that.

 

- A circumcised man is less sexually responsive - while still as sensitive (proven by science!) staving off the embarrassment of premature ejaculation. Chicks really dig that.

 

- A study concluded that 76% of women prefer the look of a circumcised penis.Source

 

But all of that is loosey-goosey pseudo science. When it comes down to it, circumcision is not pointless because it's a cultural practice. A rather benign one, at that. It has less in common with female genital cutting than I do with Hitler.

 

Edit:

 

Additionally, the fact that circumcision can be used to slow the spread of AIDs lends more credence to the practice.

Edited by Otter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

The header of the Wikipedia page you linked to mentions in the lead that:

 

"The sexual effects of circumcision are not well understood and researchers' findings are often contested."

 

 

And I can't understand how circumcision can slow the spread of AIDS? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

 

Also, the research you talked about surveyed women in the US, the midwest, specifically.

 

 

Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons within the previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised the targeted sample. Candidates for the study were chosen during a 6-month period based upon their willingness to participate in an earlier study that dealt with who and what influenced their decisions to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The sample had been randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom questionnaires were mailed for this study.

 

And about 70% Americans are cut compared to 10% Europeans. Preference is biased due to different cultures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Perhaps you missed the bit where I said -

 

But all of that is loosey-goosey pseudo science. When it comes down to it, circumcision is not pointless because it's a cultural practice. A rather benign one, at that. It has less in common with female genital cutting than I do with Hitler.

 

 

As for the AIDS research, look at the articles I posted on the previous page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LT.Diablo

 

---------------------

 

Finally, you said I'm skirting the issue of intention - why allow something potentially dangerous, when it's entirely pointless?

 

It's not pointless. I thought we just went over this!

 

- While it may take you slightly longer to clean your penis, aye, you're neglecting the fact that your penis produces smegma. Mine does not. Chicks dig that.

 

- In a situation where you could not afford the opportunity to properly clean yourself, you are more prone to infection. Chicks don't dig that.

 

- A circumcised penis provides greater friction during sex. Chicks dig that.

 

- A circumcised man is less sexually responsive - while still as sensitive (proven by science!) staving off the embarrassment of premature ejaculation. Chicks really dig that.

 

- A study concluded that 76% of women prefer the look of a circumcised penis.Source

 

 

LT.Diablo pulls out scissors

 

bored.gif.

 

To make this post less spammy, it's all basically down to whatever your personal partner prefers and really it depends on whether somebody is happy with themselves. Of course, banning it is silly as some religions practice it and some people just won't take no for an answer.

 

This post is probably nonsensical mainly because I'm sleepy sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

Finally, you said I'm skirting the issue of intention - why allow something potentially dangerous, when it's entirely pointless?

 

It's not pointless. I thought we just went over this!

 

- While it may take you slightly longer to clean your penis, aye, you're neglecting the fact that your penis produces smegma. Mine does not. Chicks dig that.

 

- In a situation where you could not afford the opportunity to properly clean yourself, you are more prone to infection. Chicks don't dig that.

 

- A circumcised penis provides greater friction during sex. Chicks dig that.

 

- A circumcised man is less sexually responsive - while still as sensitive (proven by science!) staving off the embarrassment of premature ejaculation. Chicks really dig that.

 

- A study concluded that 76% of women prefer the look of a circumcised penis.Source

 

But all of that is loosey-goosey pseudo science. When it comes down to it, circumcision is not pointless because it's a cultural practice. A rather benign one, at that. It has less in common with female genital cutting than I do with Hitler.

 

Edit:

 

Additionally, the fact that circumcision can be used to slow the spread of AIDs lends more credence to the practice.

I could just as easily say the following as true...

 

--Only those who barely bathe get smegma

 

--The drag from a foreskin causes more friction than a circumcized

 

--Infection of a circumcised penis more likely due to tiny microabrasions

 

Finally, to some it all up...

 

Who the f*ck cares what chicks dig? I'd rather have a penis that's not missing a primary function. I still don't really think it's a big deal, but all of that bullsh*t about smegma and infections is just that: Bullsh*t. I mean, unless you stave away from washing your foreskin for four months at a time, it's not going to happen.

 

The only true drawback I could see to being uncircumcised penis is phimosis, or the hardening of the foreskin. Though, from what I've heard this usually doesn't occur in people who regularly draw back their foreskin to wash, or masturbate, or engage in sex, or whatever.

 

I remember watching some weird Sex Show late at night, with an old woman... It was actually kind of repulsive. Anyway, she was going on about how circumcision could've been a way to prevent phimosis in Victorian times in masturbation and even washing the genitals was taboo. Doesn't sound too plausible to me, but I thought I'd throw it out there...

 

 

To me the idea of wanting to try to restore your foreskin later in life is far less daunting than wanting to undergo surgery to remove a piece of it later, though. In the sense, I think men who do have foreskins probably feel a little more trapped if they're unhappy with them later in life, because no man wants to look at the idea of undergoing surgery on his penis. On the other hand, those who are circumcised can use the argument that their foreskin can never be truly restore, whereas on the other hand, an uncircumcised man can ( relatively ) easily have a circumcision later in life.

 

In the end, though, I think for a man to have lived for a very long time with his genitals the way they were, to suddenly look at restoring his foreskin or circumcision it could only truly be justified by religious or cultural beliefs. The idea of a 30 or 40 year old man claiming that he's been mutilated by having been circumscribed, and attempting to restore it, is more like grasping for straws . The bottom line is that in that situation a) the foreskin cannot ever be truly restored, and the "damage" done to the glands can't be undone b) The man is just going on preconceived notions of what having a foreskin would be like, as he has never really experienced it.

 

There's an exception to that, though. In that episode of Penn and Teller for an example, one man had a circumcision late in life for religious purposes, and then later became an anti-circumcision advocate. In any case, if I could find it on YouTube, I'm not sure that posting circumcision videos would be acceptable under GTAF's TOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

On the other hand, those who are circumcised can use the argument that their foreskin can never be truly restore, whereas on the other hand, an uncircumcised man can ( relatively ) easily have a circumcision later in life.

Touché!

 

But actually, you can easily restore your foreskin without major surgery. It involves hanging weights on your penile skin and is based on the dermatological principle that stretching skin tissue stimulates skin cell growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
On the other hand, those who are circumcised can use the argument that their foreskin can never be truly restore, whereas on the other hand, an uncircumcised man can ( relatively ) easily have a circumcision later in life.

Touché!

 

But actually, you can easily restore your foreskin without major surgery. It involves hanging weights on your penile skin and is based on the dermatological principle that stretching skin tissue stimulates skin cell growth.

That is indeed true, but the truth of the matter is that through life, the glands and head of the penis rubbing on the head of underpants causes minor skin damage; like a conditioning. The damage that is done from this is permanent, and the original skin condition of the glands can never be restored.

 

Weights on the penis take a long time to produce enough skin to make a foreskin, and there's no telling ( from anyone I know who has tried it or has read about it ) how long it would take for the skin cells on the glands and head of the penis to heal back to their original condition, if it's possible at all.

 

Most of what I know is based on what my friend has told me, though. He's been restoring his foreskin for the past six years. From his account, it just only barely covers the head and glands now , and that they have still not gained any sensitivity.

 

 

This is all pretty irrelevant if we're just discussing it on cultural bounds, but I thought I should point out that there are parts of the circumcision that are permanent, and irreversible.

 

 

I've also read a number of pages talking about the different types of circumcision that attempt to avoid some of these irreversible aspects, such as removing the frenulum, but then later cause complications with binding later in life.

 

 

I've emphasized that I don't think it's a terribly big deal, but I would also say that I'm glad it didn't happen to me. After saying that, though, I'd have to say that I hope more parents hold the reasoning that it will probably be easier for a man to undergo a circumcision later in life than it would be to actually restore his foreskin, despite the initial unsavory idea.

 

Bottom line is that the foreskin is a natural part of the body, and it does serve a purpose. Removing it for cultural beliefs, or because it "might" do something is kind of silly. In today's modern day in age, things like smegma or infection should not come into question, and those are really the only logical, medical reasons for doing it, outside of preventing phimosis, which would be negated by proper hygiene or other activities that are usually practiced daily by most ( not necessarily the other activities, lol, sorry ). I don't know if there are any hard numbers on how long it takes for smegma to form, but I have no shame in admiting that I've gone without a shower for a good week or two, maybe three even, and never have seen that stuff before, and have never encountered infection either. I have one friend that actually went sort of "hippie", and actually freaked out one night calling me, asking me what it was, thinking he had an STD; to add a little sick humor to the topic.

 

Anyway, I think I've had my fill of talking about mutilating penii and smegma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otter

Jesus, you even quoted it, Sag.

 

 

But all of that is loosey-goosey pseudo science.

 

Fact is, there is no uncontested documented lost or gained sensitivity due to circumcision. The only talking point that really holds any water in this discussion is the one that seems hardest to believe - the AIDS research.

 

Anyhow, in the interest of general enlightenment, you do produce smega - it's healthy if it's invisible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nlitement

 

Anyhow, in the interest of general enlightenment, you do produce smega - it's healthy if it's invisible.

Thanks, Sergeant. tounge.gif

 

If smegma were a problem during sex, then it means that you have a bad habit of not washing yourself before the action.

 

So, can we agree that circumcising babies is wrong because they might be unsatisfied with their penis later in adulthood and face trouble - not as wise as simply letting your kid decide when he grows up what to do with his penis? Much easier to circumcise than to restore!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy
Jesus, you even quoted it, Sag.

 

 

But all of that is loosey-goosey pseudo science.

 

Fact is, there is no uncontested documented lost or gained sensitivity due to circumcision. The only talking point that really holds any water in this discussion is the one that seems hardest to believe - the AIDS research.

 

Anyhow, in the interest of general enlightenment, you do produce smega - it's healthy if it's invisible.

Well, forgive me for playing the devil's advocate, but this is a debate forum. I did still go on to say that I think the only real point to it outside of cultural reasoning, is medical reasoning, which is pretty void I think.

 

 

I realize you're not really acting as a proponent of it, but speaking from the point of an anti-circumcison proponent ( which I'm not, just acting ), I'd ask is it really just that little of a deal? Is wanting the right to be able to choose that later in life a better reason to not circumcise than choosing to do so because of various medical issues ( that are largely benign to most who practice proper hygiene and safe sex ).

 

I can't say that I have a particularly strong opinion on it one way or the other. I'm uncircumcised, never had any problems with it, and I suppose if I wanted to convert to Judaism or some other religion, I could still have a circumcision. I

 

Suppose the real question, is whether any form of genital modification should be done in a scenario like this, where making the choice for that person has large ramifications than each choice actually holds. One way or the other the choices have little difference in outcome, but later in life men go through various surgeries, or weight-stretching routines to try to achieve something that probably can't actually be restored by those methods. What holds more significance; the cultural or religious beliefs of a person, or the right for a person to be able to choose later in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

The foreskin is composed of skin that acts as "target cells" for HIV, or so the thinking goes. But don't bother looking anything up for yourself, let me do the legwork for you:

 

Nice research.

 

It's not that I'm too lazy to look myself, I just feel that when someone brings up an argument, position or what ever, that they should be able to provide some background if needed. I was not trying to buck the status quo, so I didn't see any need to do my own research, I simply wanted someone to show me that there was research done on the topic.

 

I am a little lazy though, so I guess I owe you one. If you want some research for a topic where mechanical analysis is needed, I find something.

Edited by Leftcoast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.