# Gobsmacked



## Anja

I apologise in advance to Leanne for this thread as I know you stated you didnt want a debate on the whole circumcision issue but I am truly amazed at the amount of people who have said yes they would have their sons circumcised.....i dont get it????? please can someone explain this to me!!!

Ok....religious reasons i can accept. If it had to be done for a medical reason then fair enough.....but what other reason is there for putting your baby through this. 

This has seriously blown my mind


----------



## AppleBlossom

I wouldn't unless there was a reason. My OH is circumcised but for medical reasons. But each to their own I suppose


----------



## Rhi_Rhi1

I wouldnt !! unless for medical reasons obviously and i can appreciate other peoples believes. but i think my son would hate me! when he grew up!! lol. Ive known a few lads as i was growing up who were circumcised (some for medical reasons) and when there mates found out, well lets just say the mocking wasnt very nice! ... but boys will be boys  x 
plus i think they have the right to make a choice like that for them selfs i mean its is theres


----------



## Happy

This is def something we would not consider unless it was for medical reasons. I don't think it is something we would even bring up. If he wanted to when he was older then thats up to him and its his body. I understand it for religous beliefs but not sure other than that.


----------



## Sparky0207

Same for me, definitely not something that would even cross my mind unless it was for a medical reason.

I know people have different beliefs and cultures and I respect that entirely, but (without causing a big debate) I would be really interested to see comments from people who are having it done purely out of choice

xx


----------



## Uvlollypop

i think its awful taking that choice away from their child, unless its for medical reasons it should be left well alone!

as for the its cleaner point of view, teach your kid how to wash his bits properly 

skin removal isnt needed


----------



## emmajane

I have always totally against it unless for medical reasons, but recently my OH's cousin had to the op and was in serious pain for a long time afterwards, which apparently doesn't happen (or if some pain not at all as much) for babies. I am really undecided as I don't want him to have it but can see OH's point.


----------



## momandpeanut

Uvlollypop said:


> i think its awful taking that choice away from their child, unless its for medical reasons it should be left well alone!
> 
> as for the its cleaner point of view, teach your kid how to wash his bits properly
> 
> skin removal isnt needed

Completely agree !!


----------



## Angelmouse

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was always under the impression that it was more of an American thing to have ones child circumcised?

Having had intimate knowledge of a circumcised man I don't think I would countanance it. He had thrush more times in a month than I've ever had in my life. :twisted:


----------



## Anja

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks this way....it really has shocked me! I have been all around the office since reading this getting opinions too!

I think starting a debate is not a bad thing....debate is a really good way to learn and be educated.....I for one want to learn more about this so I can understand the other side of the argument (not neccessarily agree though), because right now, possibly due to a lack of education on the subject, I really dont comprehend how anyone can do this as a matter for choice!


----------



## brownhairedmom

Angelmouse said:


> Having had intimate knowledge of a circumcised man I don't think I would countanance it. He had thrush more times in a month than I've ever had in my life. :twisted:

That's gross. :rofl:


I will in fact be getting the baby circumcized if it is a boy. I don't want anyone to jump down my throat about it, but I do think its something that is acceptable. I am from NA though, and it is common practice here. 

I just think it is cleaner, you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized, you're also less likely to get urinary tract infections. Its just something I feel necessary for the over-all health of my baby, both now and later in life.


----------



## carmen

O.k ... well obviously don t wanna be the to disagree with everyone, i do it religious reasons. But i know other people have said that it is much more hygenic, so it cleaner for the boy.

Also women have said that men with circumsion have cleaner and less smelling penises, obviously when they men. 

don t everyone attack me though cos thats what i ve been told , for me its normal for men to have circumsion, and i must say they are extremley clean (tmi lol )


----------



## Vickie

This discussion has come up many times on the forum (and has been known to get very heated). And really a lot of it does have to do with regional differences/customs. Let's all try to remember that while stating our points of views ;)


----------



## brownhairedmom

carmen said:


> Also women have said that men with circumsion have cleaner and less smelling penises, obviously when they men.
> 
> don t everyone attack me though cos thats what i ve been told , for me its normal for men to have circumsion, and i must say they are extremley clean (tmi lol )

Cleannn, yes that they are. I would rather be with a circumcised man any day of the week, rather than an uncircumcised man. :sick: (Also TMI)


----------



## Kooky

If a guy washes properly then there would be no difference in cleanliness.


----------



## Uvlollypop

rae05 said:


> .
> 
> you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized,

Im sorry but you are wrong weather you have a foreskin or not and you sleep around without a condom you will get an std! not having a foreskin wont save you

i understand that in some religions and country's its common practice 

BUT if someone washed properly they wont have smelly bits, makes no odds if theres a foreskin or not.

i wouldnt pierce my babys ears because they cant say yay or nay let alone cutting a bit of its penis off! freedom of choice an all that


----------



## polo_princess

rae05 said:


> I just think it is cleaner

I completely agree and my reasons for having my child circumsised. Taking the whole idea into consideration from a male point of veiw of course. Prior to meeting my OH it was something id never considered


----------



## brownhairedmom

Uvlollypop said:


> Im sorry but you are wrong weather you have a foreskin or not and you sleep around without a condom you will get an std! not having a foreskin wont save you


I didn't say it completely eliminated them, I said they are less likely. Obviously if you are having unprotected sex you are at risk for an STD.

*What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?*
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the urine from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of HIV infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.

*What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?*

Circumcision prevents the growth under the foreskin of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the foreskin may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates. 


https://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/page4.htm


I'm out of this debate.


----------



## carmen

I think women who have been with a man sexually, that has foreskin and one that has'n t will definatley be able to tell the difference, i agree with rae05.

A man who hasn t got foreskin, doesn t go to the toilet and get a little bit of urine, behind i know that sounds disgusting but its true , foreskin traps alot.

Thats why my reasons for circumsion are for both religious but also other reasons.


----------



## Uvlollypop

seriously! oh my gosh again if men keep themselfs clean theres no issue, how can you say not having a foreskin offers some protection against stds... 

teach your boys how to clean them selfs no need to chop bits off....


----------



## carmen

Like Vickie said this topic as been brought up alot, and is always heated.

People will always have different opnions on this kind of thing.


----------



## Uvlollypop

the std info is based on if stuff gets trapped under the foreskin... wash!!! wear a condom! 

this is winding me up....


----------



## Pyrrhic

Uvlollypop said:


> the std info is based on if stuff gets trapped under the foreskin... wash!!! wear a condom!

True. I have to say, how many people are walking around with gonorrhea? :S I've never slept with anyone with an STD. Ok, I know that sounds like I don't think it happens, because it obviously does but surely it's not THAT common?


----------



## Uvlollypop

surly having a foreskin makes no odds if you stick it in someone whos got something youll prob get it too


----------



## leeanne

Ok, ladies, that poll was not meant to start any debates and that was my wish. No one is to really be made to feel badly for what they believe in and/or their choices due to culture, country etc.

I am somewhat upset that that poll was taken to a debate, a debate which has been discussed time and time again.


----------



## polo_princess

Uvlollypop said:


> teach your boys how to clean them selfs no need to chop bits off....

Deffo ... anyone that would use circumcision as a lazy way out of keeping their child clean would be mad.

I personally have no real preference over it but i know Carl has and as he's the one with the penis i just go with it lol


----------



## Uvlollypop

i dont want anyone to think that im making anybody to feel bad for what they believe in thats not my intention. as i said each to their own its your choice but i find it so hard to believe that people seriously think choping it off will protect against stds...


----------



## carmen

Its also winding me up, as there is alot on the internet that states the benefits of it. 

But at the end of the day some people are not for it and some people are, but i don t think that people should shout people down for making decisions on what they want to do with their child.

Everyone makes personal decisons and it all comes from people background, what they think is right, religion etc etc.

But i think must people think that " oh its awful to do that to your boy , so painful. But they get it when they really young and its just like injection or get their toothout. Its not cruelty. Thats my last comment on it cos it would just go on and on.


----------



## Arcanegirl

carmen said:


> But at the end of the day some people are not for it and some people are, but i don t think that people should shout people down for making decisions on what they want to do with their child.
> 
> Everyone makes personal decisons and it all comes from people background, what they think is right, religion etc etc.

Agree with this.

I have my own opinions on this but i wouldnt judge anybody for whatever reason they decide to do it. At the end of the day, its not any of my business to try and convince people otherwise or to push facts down peoples throats.


----------



## polo_princess

leeanne said:


> I am somewhat upset that that poll was taken to a debate, a debate which has been discussed time and time again.

I did think that you'd be a little annoyed at reading this thread, after youd asked for it not to be an all out debate

Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and should be left at that for now ...


----------



## StirCrazy

never really got the whole circumcision debate (and especially why some out of principle are so against it). I'm not circumcised, but as a man I can see advantages of it... it's really not as taboo as it used to be. Personal opinions aside, having this done is no more of a trauma for the baby than having it's booster shots (unlike my mate who had it done in his twenties... poor fucker).

take out the whole STD arguement I'm sure if you wanted to do it your son wouldn't hold it against you... as long as you don't chop his whole dick off :muaha:


----------



## leeanne

polo_princess said:


> I did think that you'd be a little annoyed at reading this thread, after youd asked for it not to be an all out debate
> 
> Everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and should be left at that for now ...

I was very appreciative of those who responded to that thread and my wishes of no debates. It truly was wonderful to see those had respected that I only wanted two questions answered.

I wouldn't have posted it if I had thought it would go this far. As a result, I've deleted my thread.


----------



## Anja

I sort of feel I should apologise for starting this off however deep down i dont think I should. As I said earlier, although subjects like this are emotive and can get heated, it does give the opportunity to hear others opinions. How can we make informed decisions, choices or opinions unless we get to hear both sides? I wanted to get a broader outlook on this subject as it made no sense to me.....I dont think that is wrong. As far as it being discussed many times before, I am sure that just about every subject on here has been discussed many times before.....that is the nature of a subject specific forum unfortunately....there is repetition, especially for long standing members.

I am sorry if I am upset anyone by starting this thread but I am not sorry for wanting to get a better understanding of this. It still makes no sense to me but at least now I am aware of peoples motivations.


----------



## Rachiebaby24

All im going to say is my first boyfriend was circumsized and my OH is uncircumsized and none is more/less cleaner than the other. All men (and women) will get scummy if they dont wash enough!

I personally think it is up to the person when they are older which is why I wont have my child's ear pierced either. It might be more painful when they are older but they will undertsand the risk/benefits more.

But each to their own - difference is what makes people great!!


----------



## Uvlollypop

i want to say sorry if i have upset anybody but as was said before everyones aloud their own points of view i was just voicing mine :-D


----------



## Anja

leeanne said:


> I was very appreciative of those who responded to that thread and my wishes of no debates. It truly was wonderful to see those had respected that I only wanted two questions answered.
> 
> I wouldn't have posted it if I had thought it would go this far. As a result, I've deleted my thread.


I started this in a seperate thread as to try and keep to your wishes that your poll wasnt turned into a debate. I 'AM' sorry if I have upset you, but I also feel that within a public forum I am not out of line for expresing my shock at your poll results.


----------



## leeanne

Anja said:


> I started this in a seperate thread as to try and keep to your wishes that your poll wasnt turned into a debate. I 'AM' sorry if I have upset you, but I also feel that within a public forum I am not out of line for expresing my shock at your poll results.


I think the poll results spoke for themselves. Look at the numbers of those that won't be circumcising. It truly looks like the statistics are getting higher than those that will be.

At the same time, it's normally a decision that has to do with beliefs, culture, religion, country, etc. Often by debating this decision, one is also putting down one's beliefs.

This debate is almost like religion. If someone was atheist and one was Catholic, would there be a debate as such discussing why one was better than the other? These type of debates lead to hurt feelings.


----------



## Neecee

I understand if it's done for religious or medical reasons, but apart from that, I really don't see the point of putting a baby through that pain!


----------



## carmen

There is no more pain than a injection or getting their teeth out. Honestly it is done when they are really small and the doctor distracts them like they do when they getting anything done. 

Its a different story if a boy gets it done when they 20. I don 't see the big deal with it.


----------



## doumauk

I just wanted to have my say so people dont think bad of me for saying I will be having my son circumsised. My son will be circumsised purely for religious reasons. It is nothing to do with cleanliness or catching Stds because as responsible parents it is our job to teach them about washing properly and about safe sex when the time comes. As for it being cruel and painful, that would only be if you left it until the child grows up and is fully aware of what is happening to him which is what happened to my husband when he was 7. Therefore my son will be circumsised as soon as he is well enough and a doctor agrees he is well enough which could be at birth or a few months old. I hope this doesnt make me appear any less of a good mother purely for choosing to do it.


----------



## Moraine

I too live in North America, in British Columbia like Leeanne, and I barely even know any men who have NOT been circumcised. 
My husband has been done, so if we have a boy, he will be done also. Back when my parents were little, circumcision was not even a choice for parents, it was done automaticaly at the hospital right after the baby was born. That has changed, but the majority of people here still choose to have it done. The difference now is that we have to pay for it ourselves, rather than it being covered.


----------



## mrscookie

Uvlollypop said:


> the std info is based on if stuff gets trapped under the foreskin... wash!!! wear a condom!
> 
> this is winding me up....

could not agree more babe! Guys would geta smelly cock regardless of skin, it about the washing. My ex was circum, my hubby is not and my hubby is WAAAY cleaner, and more, ahem... pleasant to be near down there than my ex ever was. Cleanliness is alot of crap. Either that or my ex was a dirty minger!:blush:

religion, and personal preference, fair enough. I wont be going down that route unless it was needed though, everyone is entitled to what they believe in, I just dont beleive in it, it does not make me a bad person, nor does it make people who do believe in it a bad person either.


----------



## nikky0907

WellI'm in US and it's a very common thing over here.If I was to have a boy he would get it done.

I agree with Rea,it's cleaner,more hygenic and since everybody has it done over here I wouldn't want him to feel ashamed and different.

So Molly don't kill me please.

I mean,this is a bit of a silly debate since I have no reason to justify my choices over my child to anyone and neither does anybody else.


----------



## mrscookie

I think this thread should close soon, its going to get out of hand....


----------



## ella170

my bf is circumcised and to be honest, it just looks alot better i think and is just so much more clean. he chose to do it when he was in his early teens and said the pain was terrible. i dont think i would do it to my baby though, as i don't have a religion or culture to back it up. if its a boy and he's that desperate to get it done, then i will let him make that choice when he is older- i don't want to take that choice away from him


----------



## ella170

but there must be foreskin for a reason, god didnt just stick it on there for a laugh


----------



## Angelmouse

Just to play devils avocatt (hehe) I'd be interested to know how peoples opinions on this mesh with the 'Pierce a little girls ears?' question. Because personally I find both practices distasteful. I wondered how many 'no circumcisionists' would have their daughters ears pierced and why they feel that's different.

I am genuinely interested, I think a bit of debate is good for a society or else it stagnates. :) Noones having a pop we're just sharing our views. :friends::amartass:


----------



## ella170

Angelmouse said:


> Just to play devils avocatt (hehe) I'd be interested to know how peoples opinions on this mesh with the 'Pierce a little girls ears?' question. Because personally I find both practices distasteful. I wondered how many 'no circumcisionists' would have their daughters ears pierced and why they feel that's different.
> 
> I am genuinely interested, I think a bit of debate is good for a society or else it stagnates. :) Noones having a pop we're just sharing our views. :friends::amartass:

don't mean to start another debate, just thought i'd add that a small hole in the ear can close up, but a boy cant really get his foreskin back when he's older


----------



## stephlw25

StirCrazy said:


> having this done is no more of a trauma for the baby than having it's booster shots />

Im afraid i have to disagree with that. As a nurse ive looked after children who have just been circumcised and know the pain they are in when they wake up. (I'll always remember one little boy... when he woke up he burst into tears and shouted 'mummy my winkle hurts' bless him!)It can also sting like hell when they pee and can be uncomfortable/sore for a few days. Unlike having an injection where its all over with in a few seconds.


----------



## Jayne

To those that are pro circumcision.....would you circumcise your daughter? Why is it so different to circ a male than a female? It's disfiguration whichever way you look at it. 

Unless there are medical or religious reasons, there really isn't an excuse. Just saying "personal preference" is such a cop out. Ugh. DH isn't circumcised and he has never had any problems with STD's, cleanliness, or anything else. 

All of the above is MO of course.


----------



## Uvlollypop

oh dear its turning into a debate again!


----------



## tinkerbelll

Anja said:


> I apologise in advance to Leanne for this thread as I know you stated you didnt want a debate on the whole circumcision issue but I am truly amazed at the amount of people who have said yes they would have their sons circumcised.....i dont get it????? please can someone explain this to me!!!
> 
> Ok....religious reasons i can accept. If it had to be done for a medical reason then fair enough.....but what other reason is there for putting your baby through this.
> 
> This has seriously blown my mind

circumcised/not circumcised
breastfeed/bottle feed
soother/no soother
cot/moses basket
stay at home mum/working mum

people are going to bring up THEIR babies however they feel is best for THEIR child and shouldn't have to explain themselves - sorry but its true!


----------



## nikky0907

Jayne said:


> To those that are pro circumcision.....would you circumcise your daughter? Why is it so different to circ a male than a female? It's disfiguration whichever way you look at it.
> 
> Unless there are medical or religious reasons, there really isn't an excuse. Just saying "personal preference" is such a cop out. Ugh. DH isn't circumcised and he has never had any problems with STD's, cleanliness, or anything else.
> 
> All of the above is MO of course.

I'm sorry,I know it's turning into a debate but I had to reply to this.

Circumsision of girls means that they take a piece of broken glass or a dirty razor and cut out their CLITORIS and generally mutilate their entire vaginal area so that they would never have an orgasm since it is only a privilage for a man.
It's is used in many middle east cultures where a woman is highly degrated.

Male circusision doesn't even fall into the same category as this.
When a man has it done,nothing is different for him except that it's even easier for him,THIS disgusting thing is not called femal circumsision,it's called mutilation and a big percentage of women die during the procedure.

Please don't even compare the two.


----------



## kookie

nikky0907 said:


> I have no reason to justify my choices over my child to anyone and neither does anybody else.

 agree totaly well said.


----------



## carmen

Jayne said:


> To those that are pro circumcision.....would you circumcise your daughter? Why is it so different to circ a male than a female? It's disfiguration whichever way you look at it.
> 
> Unless there are medical or religious reasons, there really isn't an excuse. Just saying "personal preference" is such a cop out. Ugh. DH isn't circumcised and he has never had any problems with STD's, cleanliness, or anything else.
> 
> All of the above is MO of course.

No comparison , like Nicky said.

disfiguration is just the total wrong word, as it doesnt make someone penis look disfigured. :dohh:


----------



## Angelmouse

ella170 said:


> don't mean to start another debate, just thought i'd add that a small hole in the ear can close up, but a boy cant really get his foreskin back when he's older

Absolutely and if you read what I've written you will see that I would countenance neither. What I'm interested in is that some parents would agree to inflict pain on thier child for no very good reason and I wonder why this would be? :)

Also ear piercing holes never really close up without leaving a mark, as for a boy not getting his foreskin back, that is exactly why I would never remove that choice from my son. :shrug: Again y'know, it's not said derogitarily ( if that's even a word :lol: ) and I'm not expecting to convince people not to do it. I'm simply trying to understand why a person would make this choice.


----------



## Jayne

nikky0907 said:


> Please don't even compare the two.

Like I said, what I originally posted was my opinion and in my opinion, they're exactly the same. Cutting off a girls clitoris is just as barbaric as taking away a boys foreskin. It doesn't matter HOW it's performed, that's not the point. 



Carmen said:

> disfiguration is just the total wrong word, as it doesnt make someone penis look disfigured

Again, that's a matter of opinion. I DO think that circ'd men look disfigured without an erection, but that's just me. 

There are a few video's on youtube showing babies being circ'd. I'm not going to post them here but if you watch any of them and don't get upset, then you're a harder person than me. 

Finally, did you know that not ONE medical association in the world recommends circumcision? Interesting.........

Anyway, that's my say on the matter. It's all down to personal choice I guess.


----------



## doumauk

tinkerbelll said:


> circumcised/not circumcised
> breastfeed/bottle feed
> soother/no soother
> cot/moses basket
> stay at home mum/working mum
> 
> people are going to bring up THEIR babies however they feel is best for THEIR child and shouldn't have to explain themselves - sorry but its true!

Very well said, I couldnt agree more. I dont think people circumcise their sons just to inflict pain. I mean come on whos going to do that.


----------



## nikky0907

Jayne said:


> Like I said, what I originally posted was my opinion and in my opinion, they're exactly the same. Cutting off a girls clitoris is just as barbaric as taking away a boys foreskin. It doesn't matter HOW it's performed, that's not the point.

:shock:

I don't mean to start an argument really but I think thousands of women who had this MUTILATION of their vaignal area,who had it done without anaesthetics,on a filthy rock while they screamed and their mother held them down,fainted from shock several times bled so much,couldn't sleep,walk or do anything for months and a HUGE number of them dies from pain and bleeding would agree with you.
It's NOT circumcision,it's MUTILATION.

And it makes me sick to my stomac just to think about it.

A circumsized male does not go through any of that,and it does not reduce his sexual pleasure.He pretty much lives his life like a man who isn't circumsized.


----------



## Jayne

nikky0907 said:


> :shock:
> 
> I don't mean to start an argument really but I think thousands of women who had this MUTILATION of their vaignal area,who had it done without anaesthetics,on a filthy rock while they screamed and their mother held them down,fainted from shock several times bled so much,couldn't sleep,walk or do anything for months and a HUGE number of them dies from pain and bleeding would agree with you.
> It's NOT circumcision,it's MUTILATION.
> 
> And it makes me sick to my stomac just to think about it.
> 
> A circumsized male does not go through any of that,and it does not reduce his sexual pleasure.He pretty much lives his life like a man who isn't circumsized.

But that's just your opinion. If you ask all the mothers of the girls that have it done, it's female circumcision. Different cultures, different opinions. 

The way you feel about female circumcision is the same way I feel about male and female circumcision. And actually, being circumcised DOES reduce male sexual pleasure. 

A brief factsheet on circumcision: 

https://www.ncfm.org/circumcisionfactsheet.htm


----------



## brownhairedmom

Okay I'm not supposed to be posting for a personal reason and because I already said I was pulling out of this conversation...but I just want to point out, that the fact sheet above isn't even from a medical website, its from a biased men's interest group. Of course it is going to make it sound that way.


----------



## nikky0907

Jayne said:


> But that's just your opinion. If you ask all the mothers of the girls that have it done, it's female circumcision. Different cultures, different opinions.
> 
> The way you feel about female circumcision is the same way I feel about male and female circumcision. And actually, being circumcised DOES reduce male sexual pleasure.
> 
> A brief factsheet on circumcision:
> 
> https://www.ncfm.org/circumcisionfactsheet.htm

What I just read on this link you provided and what I know about male circumcision,it's nothing compared to female mutilation.
Some facts:



> The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.
> 
> And about the name Female circumcision:
> 
> 
> 
> Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), refers to "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons
> 
> Thats how it's called.
> 
> I can't even imagine comparing male and female ''circumcision''.
> 
> Making carpets is a part of someone's culture,causing grevious and barbaric bodily harm shouldn't be a part of anyone's culture.Click to expand...


----------



## Jayne

rae05 said:


> Okay I'm not supposed to be posting for a personal reason and because I already said I was pulling out of this conversation...but I just want to point out, that the fact sheet above isn't even from a medical website, its from a biased men's interest group. Of course it is going to make it sound that way.

It doesn't matter where it's from, the correct medical references are all there. And how can it be biased? Surely the male opinion is the only one that matters here? 

Amy, in response to your post, this is a quote from that same website notjustskin.org.



> *3. Isn't female circumcision worse than male circumcision?*
> 
> Female circumcision is typically viewed as more horrific than male circumcision because it is usually done under unhygienic conditions rather than in a hospital, and because one form of female circumcision, infibulation, is particularly severe. *However, both male and female circumcisions are classed as genital mutilation by the International Coalition for Genital Integrity. Both forms of circumcision remove functional, normal tissue, cause extreme pain, permanently disfigure the genitals, and permanently damage the sexual response. When done to infants or children, both male and female circumcisions violate human rights since they are performed without the individual's consent. *
> 
> The World Health Organization recognizes three types of female circumcision. Type I removes the clitoral hood and/or the clitoral tip. Type II removes the clitoral hood, clitoris, and part of all of the labia. Type III, also known as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision, involves removal of all external female genitalia and suturing of the vaginal opening.
> 
> Male circumcision can be compared to type I or II female circumcision. Although the glans is not harmed at the time of circumcision, the loss of protective structures causes it to dry out and lose sensitivity over time. It is also important to note that many of the nerves and pleasure receptors present in the clitoris are, in the male, present in the foreskin, so removal of these nerves constitutes a loss that can be most adequately compared to a partial clitoridectomy.

Anyway I'm bowing out of this thread now. It's obvious that we don't agree so there's no point going round and round in circles.


----------



## brownhairedmom

Jayne said:


> It doesn't matter where it's from, the correct medical references are all there. And how can it be biased? Surely the male opinion is the only one that matters here?

It does matter where it comes from. I just mean there is a way to debate fairly. I'm studying such debatable issues in school every single day(politics, religion, sociology), and the one thing we DO, when we debate is show evidence from places that are reptuable. It is just fair to show information from sites that don't have a particular viewpoint, just state the facts. Its just as bad to take facts from a radical feminist webiste.

If unbiased facts aren't shown, then it just turns into an irrational arguement that cannot be won rather than a debate.

Last words I'm saying.


----------



## pocahontas35

Wow, I actually wondered if people in other countries did this as a common procedure. I guess they don't. My first 2 sons were circumsized, and my next one will be as well. I have chosen to do this b/c my husband is and I want them to be like daddy and not wonder why they are different. Many babies in the US have it done. My OH said it was weird to see guys not circ. and they were often teased. I don't agree that it is the same as mutilating a girl. It is nothing like it. It does take a few days to heal, and I do believe it is painful to the baby, but they don't remember it, and it only hurts initially. I would never hurt my baby for no reason, and I love my kids very much. I do what I think is best for them. Having said all that, I think we have all been very good at debating this subject. I belong to another forum as well, and when things are debated, people get really heated. Thanks for being thoughtful of others feelings ladies.


----------



## Emmea12uk

Ok, so i am probably going to lower the tone here a little....

I see all of your points of view, i really do and i have no real feelings on the subject, apart from i am more of the "leave things as intended" point of view to anything in life, but my OH is circumcised and I have some real concerns about how much it does effect his sexual pleasure. He is the only man i have met to have had it done and it seems to make a massive difference to sex - for him and minor inconveiniance to me...

does anyone else have any personal experience of it affecting sexual pleasure? I don't mean read an article, but had experience of it. 

The way i see it is (very much so tmi) the foreskin pulls back and stretches a very sensitive area of the penis (the inverted v bit). Some men even put implants in this point to enhance stimulation. without the foreskin, this stimulation is much less cocentrated on this spot...so must make it less nice? no? correct me if i am wrong guys!! I dont have a penis - just going on the odd pub conversation i have had with guys.

Totally not considering any other reasons for getting a circumcision - i am just isolating one issue completely. I have no religeous grounds, it isnt common practice in my country or area, but does happen for medical reasons. It is one of those things that everyone feels differently about.


----------



## ella170

male and female circumcisation are COMPLETLY different, as with females it takes away the ability to reach orgasm. i don't think any decent female deserves to have sexual pleasure taken away from them


----------



## brownhairedmom

Okay I can't keep myself out. I'm a sucker for a debate.

I was discussing this with my MALE friends, because there was such a discussion on here about it, and as most of us are women, I wanted to get a man's point of view. Some of them have had it done, some of them have not. All the ones that have it done say its a "must do" if I have a boy. One of them who isn't, actually said he was considering getting it done(he's 22). Two of them were fine the way they were. So from a male point of view, the majority of my friends that I discussed this with pretty much told me if I didn't get it done if I have a boy, then I'm insane. Coming from males, might I stress(again).

My personal preference(sexually), as I have stated before is actually being with someone who is infact circumcised. This isn't only because I think it is cleaner, but it does in fact feel better (and yes, I know what both are like). And the people I have been with who have been, enjoy sex just as much as the next un-circumcised person. They can still get an erection, they can still have an orgasm, and they most certianly can last just as long as a man who isn't. I don't think the sexual pleasure is decreased. 

I'm still for doing it.


----------



## wilbrabeany

I agree, i would only do it if there was a medical need!


----------



## Uvlollypop

i really think this should get locked before more feelings are hurt


----------



## polo_princess

I agree its going around in circles ... everyone has their own opinions and reasons for their beliefs and thats that


----------



## Wobbles

I guess it comes down to different opinions of whats best, religous (sp) reasons, something that is the norm for a family or not and so on!

As long as your debate is nice then the threads ok where it is! Nice meaning no swearing 'at' each other, name calling, personal attacks ....you know all the things that would be childish among a group of adults ;) 

But remember just because you disagree on one subject doesn't mean you have to take it with you to other topics - leave it behind and continue supporting each other.

x


----------



## nikky0907

I'm not saying anything about somebody's choice on wether their son will be circumsized or not.

It's a matter of culture and preference.I live in US and it's a common procedure.I have to say that I have never been with somebody who isn't circumsized,I like it this way and thats it.
If I were to have a boy,he would get it done.
End of story,I don't need to justify that to anyone and nobody has to explain to me why they want their son not circumsized.

BUT,the thing that got me debating is making MUTILATION of girls sound like something similar to male circumcision.IT'S NOT!

It's a terrible,terrible thing that causes death and extreme pain,leaves girls scarred for life,takes away their pleasure in sex,not only their pleasure but it brings them extreme pain during sex.Why? So she could be humble to her husband and always remember that she is the lowest human being and deserves this pain.That she is a slut and deserves to be in pain.

It's not even comparable to male circumcision.

I mean,look at a circumsized man and a mutilad woman.Which one of them will suffer more in life?


----------



## mugzy

I want to comment on the std thing. I don't know if it offers protection against other stds, but 2 studies in Africa have shown that it offers significant protection against HIV (I think the offical stats were 60% less chance of contracting the virus when sleeping with an HIV positive woman). It's not a matter of cleanliness, it's the a matter of the head of the penis being slightly tougher since it hasn't been protected by the foreskin. There is now a huge drive to get all HIV negative adult males in Africa circumcized. If I can offer my child any future protection against a disease like HIV/AIDS I will do it. It's not an alternative to condoms, but it's a good backup plan. We can talk to our kids about safe sex all we want, but it's highly unlikely that they will wait until they're in a committed relationship before they start doing it. And condoms can break. That is one reason why if I have a boy, he will be circumsized.

I'm also offended at the comparison between female circumcision and male circumcision. And the implication that those of us who would choose to do this are mutilating our children. I have never met a guy who's been snipped who felt he had been harmed in any way.


----------



## genkigemini

nikky0907 said:


> I'm not saying anything about somebody's choice on wether their son will be circumsized or not.
> 
> It's a matter of culture and preference.I live in US and it's a common procedure.I have to say that I have never been with somebody who isn't circumsized,I like it this way and thats it.
> If I were to have a boy,he would get it done.
> End of story,I don't need to justify that to anyone and nobody has to explain to me why they want their son not circumsized.
> 
> BUT,the thing that got me debating is making MUTILATION of girls sound like something similar to male circumcision.IT'S NOT!
> 
> It's a terrible,terrible thing that causes death and extreme pain,leaves girls scarred for life,takes away their pleasure in sex,not only their pleasure but it brings them extreme pain during sex.Why? So she could be humble to her husband and always remember that she is the lowest human being and deserves this pain.That she is a slut and deserves to be in pain.
> 
> It's not even comparable to male circumcision.
> 
> I mean,look at a circumcised man and a mutilad woman.Which one of them will suffer more in life?

I agree with every single thing you said, 100%.

Being American, my husband and I are used to boys being circumcised as it is a common occurrence here and we both agreed any boy of ours would have it done as a baby. Just preference, I guess. 

Because I saw people getting heated, I skipped most of this thread but I wanted to put in my 2 cents.

Oh yes... I also wanted to add that I know lots of you were surprised by the number of people who said yes to circumcision but DH and I were shocked at the number of people who said no. I definitely think this is just a major cultural difference of opinion.


----------



## Uvlollypop

hiv is passes on via the exchange of bodily fluids it had nothing to do with the end of the penis being tougher due to foreskin removal!


----------



## Uvlollypop

mugzy said:


> It's not an alternative to condoms, but it's a good backup plan.

ive never heard anything more ridiculous


----------



## Happy

Can I ask why it is the norm in the US? I have never really thought about this before and dont think it is comman practice here in the UK.


----------



## Uvlollypop

i know jewish people do it and theres a big jew community in the us?


----------



## Happy

Uvlollypop said:


> ive never heard anything more ridiculous

I have to agree, surely we should be teaching our children about safe sex??


----------



## MrTashaAndBum

rae05 said:


> I just think it is cleaner, you're less likely to get STD's if you are circumcized, you're also less likely to get urinary tract infections. Its just something I feel necessary for the over-all health of my baby, both now and later in life.

That is the biggest load of rubbish I have ever read. I have a forskin and have rarely caught any infections or stds, much less than any woman I know. Go figure.



carmen said:


> A man who hasn t got foreskin, doesn t go to the toilet and get a little bit of urine, behind i know that sounds disgusting but its true , foreskin traps alot.

Shake, pull back and wipe ladies - followed by a flush and wash! It's rocket science I know but a 2 year old boy can pick it up (lil bro in law), so I'm sure most of the USA (with its high c/cism rate) could learn it too... although it is the go-faster nation so they might need non-friction paper... hmmm - a whole new market for a product right there!



doumauk said:


> I just wanted to have my say so people dont think bad of me for saying I will be having my son circumsised. My son will be circumsised purely for religious reasons. It is nothing to do with cleanliness or catching Stds because as responsible parents it is our job to teach them about washing properly and about safe sex when the time comes. As for it being cruel and painful, that would only be if you left it until the child grows up and is fully aware of what is happening to him which is what happened to my husband when he was 7. Therefore my son will be circumsised as soon as he is well enough and a doctor agrees he is well enough which could be at birth or a few months old. I hope this doesnt make me appear any less of a good mother purely for choosing to do it.


Thats probably the most sensible answer I've read in this thread (apart from mine obviously but I don't think I can count mine, can I? No, TnB said no so... pfft). Well done, Doumauk. 

Anyway, I'd write more but I need a pee... pull, wipe, flush and wash... could we make it a song, ladies?? (An accomanying YouTube video not needed!)


----------



## Uvlollypop

another point if u.s health insurance companies wont pay out for circumcision because its seen as cosmetic, the hiv debate holds no weight seeing as it would save them money in the long run medicating people that that arnt cut when they catch hiv? if thats such a great back up plan in the war against hiv??


----------



## genkigemini

I am honestly not sure why it is so common in the US. To be quite honest, I didn't even know a lot of guys weren't until I was an adult. That is just how it is and I was rasied Christian, not Jewish.

While I do not think it is cruel, I understand why parents would not do it. 

One thing... I really don't see why this topic got all intense. Did I miss the boat? Is this topic really that sensitive? 

I am assuming that most of us have made our decisions based on our upbringing, right? If it doesn't really hurt anything either way as far as health goes, does it really merit getting all mad? (I am just curious and definitely not trying to start anything. I just had no idea this was such a sensitive subject.)


----------



## nikky0907

Uvlollypop said:


> i know jewish people do it and theres a big jew community in the us?

It isn't because of that.I am for example an episcopalian.
Male circumcision in US has nothing to do with religion in most cases.
I honestly can't tell you why it's extremly common here but it is.And nobody is suffering,everyone is fine,sex lives are not endangered.


----------



## Wobbles

Well we all figured out some do some don't some agree some don't some do it because of x reason some do it because of another x reason then some do it because its the norm for religion & culture etc etc etc

Who now wants a lolly pop :lolly:?? 
_(No licking UVlolly on the screen please I meant a sugar one) lol_


----------



## genkigemini

:rofl:


----------



## polo_princess

I am NOT licking UV!!

(wipes the screen)

:rofl::rofl:


----------



## mugzy

Uvlollypop said:


> ive never heard anything more ridiculous

It may seem ridiculous to you, but it's a view shared by the world health organisation.

From the WHO site:


> Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held from 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.

 you can read the full recommendations here: https://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html

As for your question about US health companies... who knows why they do anything. It could be that they know that people in the US will have their sons circumcised whether it's covered by health insurance or not. I'm not too familiar with health insurance laws in the US, but I know that many private health insurance companies worldwide do not cover anything HIV related, that could have something to do with it. It could also have something to do with this from the National Institute of health:


> The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse.

 You can read the full article here: https://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/newsreleases/2006/AMC12_06.htm


----------



## Uvlollypop

mmmm lolly pop!!! no polo you sharnt be licking me!


----------



## Mummy2Many

For whatever reasons, it is something that is much more common in the States/Canada than it is over here. Cultural differences, I guess. I think it's unnecessary, and I never even considered or discussed it when I was expecting either of my boys.


----------



## PeanutBean

mugzy said:


> It may seem ridiculous to you, but it's a view shared by the world health organisation.
> 
> From the WHO site:
> you can read the full recommendations here: https://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news68/en/index.html

OK, I have decided to bite my tongue and keep out of this debate, as I can't be bothered with the stress, however as a scientist I just have to say something in response to this.

I've just looked through this article and picked out this following point

*...that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association.*

It may be that there is a reason given elsewhere in the scientific literature and to be frank I can't be bothered to look it up but I have to stress to you all the meaning of the relationship as described. It says there is a link, a correlation (the causal relationship) between high circumcision rates and low HIV rates in heterosexuals, however what it doesn't say is why! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link. i.e. men that are circumcised are more likely to be less sexually active, or more likely to use condoms, or generally have less partners so the chance of contraction is less, or some other similar reason. So that is not to say that circumcision might not be useful in the battle against HIV but it is probably culturally (i.e. behaviourally) specific.

It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.

Sorry to scientifically rant but it gets my goat!


----------



## Uvlollypop

PeanutBean said:


> OK, I have decided to bite my tongue and keep out of this debate, as I can't be bothered with the stress, however as a scientist I just have to say something in response to this.
> 
> I've just looked through this article and picked out this following point
> 
> *...that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. This evidence supports the findings of numerous observational studies that have also suggested that the geographical correlation long described between lower HIV prevalence and high rates of male circumcision in some countries in Africa, and more recently elsewhere, is, at least in part, a causal association.*
> 
> It may be that there is a reason given elsewhere in the scientific literature and to be frank I can't be bothered to look it up but I have to stress to you all the meaning of the relationship as described. It says there is a link, a correlation (the causal relationship) between high circumcision rates and low HIV rates in heterosexuals, however what it doesn't say is why! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link. i.e. men that are circumcised are more likely to be less sexually active, or more likely to use condoms, or generally have less partners so the chance of contraction is less, or some other similar reason. So that is not to say that circumcision might not be useful in the battle against HIV but it is probably culturally (i.e. behaviourally) specific.
> 
> It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.
> 
> Sorry to scientifically rant but it gets my goat!

that god for some sence


----------



## mugzy

PeanutBean said:


> It drives me mad the way correlations are used as evidence for things when the basis of the relationship is entirely misunderstood and frequently can work in the opposite direction or be to do with some entirely unmentioned/unstudied factor that happens to link the two.

I completely agree, but what they are saying it that the 3 randomised controlled study's now back up what they have suspected for years but never had any proof of.



> Numerous observational studies indicate that circumcised men have lower levels of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. Throughout the world, HIV prevalence is generally lower in populations that traditionally practice male circumcision than in populations where most men are not circumcisedi.
> Until the three randomized controlled trials in South Africaii, Kenyaiii and Ugandaiv were completed, it was unclear to what extent this was the result of a biological effect of male circumcision, or the result of cultural or social factors that can accompany high rates of male circumcision.




PeanutBean said:


> *however what it doesn't say is why*! A correlation can mean anything! Given that (as UV so wisely said) HIV is passed through bodily fluids, this is most probably a behavioural link.

HIV is indeed passed through bodily fluids, but it cannot penetrate skin - it needs an entry point. By removing the foreskin you remove a number of ways that HIV infection can occur.



> There are several biological explanations why male circumcision may reduce the risk of HIV infection for men:
>  By removing foreskin, circumcision reduces the ability of HIV to penetrate the skin of the penis due to keratinization or toughening of the inner aspect of the remaining foreskinvii.
>  The inner part of the foreskin contains many special immunological cells, such as Langherhans cells, that are prime targets for HIVviii,ix. Some of these are removed with the foreskin, while the remaining cells become less accessible to the HIV virus due to the keratinization described above.
>  Ulcers, which are characteristic of some sexually transmitted infections and which can facilitate HIV transmission, often occur on the foreskin. By removing the foreskin, the likelihood of acquiring these infections is reduced.
>  The foreskin may suffer abrasions or inflammation during sex that could facilitate the passage of HIV.
> 
> Male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection, but it only provides partial protection. Circumcised men are not immune to the virus. Male circumcision must not be promoted alone, but alongside other methods to reduce the risk of HIV  including avoidance of unsafe sexual practices,
> reduction in the number of sexual partners, and correct and consistent condom use.

I would never tell anyone that they should circumcise their child - it's up to each individual to decide what's best for their child. But there have been a number of posts in this thread that imply that we are in some way mutilating our children and say there is no reason other than religion to do this, that no health organisations recommend it and that there is no evidence that circumcision can prevent stds. All of that is false.


----------



## Shri

I have not yet met a man who regrets that he was 'done' as an infant. And I have asked lots, because of my own troubled thoughts about the whole thing. But I've met a lot of men who remain "as they were when born" who get very angry about the subject. Which from a purely observational view I find quite interesting.


----------



## Chellebelle

My OH wants our son to be circumcised (if we have a boy) although I am not sure. I know he feels strongly about it because it has run in his family for generations... but I have read in many places that it is traumatic for a baby (although everyone that I know who had it as baby does not remember it) so I am still undecided. One site that I have seen this has the following statement:

_Is circumcision painful?
Yes. Circumcision is extremely painful -- and traumatic -- for a baby. Just being strapped down is frightening for a baby. The often repeated statement that babies can't feel pain is not true. Babies are as sensitive to pain as anyone else. Most babies scream frantically when their foreskins are cut off. Some defecate. Some lapse into a coma. The reason some babies don't cry when they are circumcised is that they can't cry because they are in a state of shock. Most babies are circumcised without an anesthesic. Anesthetics injected into the penis don't always work. Being stuck with a needle in the penis is itself painful for a baby, just as it would be for anyone else. Babies are rarely given pain medication right after they are circumcised or during the week to ten days it takes the wound to heal. Pain medication is not always effective and is never 100% effective. _

I do understand why people will have their sons circumcised and I might still get my son circumcised (I need to talk to my OH's dad to get his views and see what his sons were like following the procedure) but I am still unsure.


----------



## lfc_sarah

I just say each to their own...

Your child, your decision


----------



## Scrumptious

I'm gobsmacked at the reaction to this debate!

If you choose to circumcise your son, fine.

If you choose not to circumcise your son, fine.

Whatever you and your OH decide is the best for your baby then that's the bottom line, it's not really grounds for a debate.


----------



## Uvlollypop

i have no issue with it, its defo not for me, i have an issue with the claims that it protects you from stds


----------



## keelykat

I don't agree with it, only for medical reasons. There is no need. As for HIV etc-surely everyone should have safe sex anyway? its only one of many many things you can pick up through sex etc. And for cleaning-thats not a good enough reason. 

Edited-as seems to have offended. I do feel that baby's can feel pain early on though. 

keely.


----------



## xXDonnaXx

I didn't know you had a choice whether too have your son circumcised?!? (Huh!) I thought it was only if you needed it done. My younger brother had it done when he was about 5, I think it was because he kept urinating blood? or something. I personally wouldn't get my son circumcised, but if there was problems & needed too then I would. I do think it's alot neater lol.


----------



## brownhairedmom

keelykat said:


> I do believe that babys feel pain as well-if not, is child abuse ok? to hit your baby etc?
> 
> keely.


Okay seriously, that is taking it a bit far. I am NOT abusing my child. You cannot even compare the two. That is way out of line. Its not even in the same friggen realm. I'm sorry, but you completely stepped over the line right there. To say that just because we choose to get our child circumcised, we're either abusing our children, or are okay with child abuse?

Its one thing not to agree with it, not believe what is said about HIV, but to pretty much down right say we agree with child abuse, that is going WAY too far.


----------



## Chellebelle

rae05 said:


> Okay seriously, that is taking it a bit far. I am NOT abusing my child. You cannot even compare the two. That is way out of line. Its not even in the same friggen realm. I'm sorry, but you completely stepped over the line right there. To say that just because we choose to get our child circumcised, we're either abusing our children, or are okay with child abuse?
> 
> Its one thing not to agree with it, not believe what is said about HIV, but to pretty much down right say we agree with child abuse, that is going WAY too far.

You beat me to it Rae. Some parents strictly believe in circumcision for their own beliefs and reasons... just as some people believe in giving their child jabs, allowing their baby to have blood tests - that is painful but it certainly isn't abuse. If my OH is adament that he believes it is best for the baby, I will do it - he has had it done and doesn't remember a thing and he obviously has his own reasons to think it is best for our baby and he wouldn't put our baby at risk if he had any doubts. It is wrong to compare it to child abuse. Everyone has their own beliefs / reasons - each to their own.


----------



## nikky0907

I couldn't agree more with you Rae!

It's out of line to say we abuse our children by getting them circimsized!

I am not gonna explain my self as to why would I get it done if I was to have a boy,I'm not asking anyone to explain why they don't want to either.

It's a matter of culture and preference.

But to say that we are child abusers?! To say that the parents of entire male population of US and Canada and all the people that have their sons circumsized are child abusers?!

Thats way out of line and very untrue and incorrect.Just like the comments about female mutilation.The two are not comparable in the slightest.Saying that they are is to me a bit insulting if I may say.
We love our children very very much,nothing less than people who don't choose circumcision and inflicting them pain is the last thing on our minds.

Being compared to child abusers right now literally made me sick.


----------



## Vickie

keelykat said:


> I don't agree with it, only for medical reasons. There is no need. As for HIV etc-surely everyone should have safe sex anyway? its only one of many many things you can pick up through sex etc. And for cleaning-thats not a good enough reason.
> 
> *I do believe that babys feel pain as well-if not, is child abuse ok? to hit your baby etc? *
> 
> keely.

This is a highly controversial subject and while everyone is entitled to their own opinions, the above statement is out of line. Circumcision, whether you agree with it or not, is practiced in some cultures/religions/societies and is very common in certain areas. I don't think it's fair to tell people who do decide to have the circumcision done that they are practicing some form of child abuse. If you are going to debate the subject than use facts and figures, not insults.


----------



## Angelmouse

If men weren't supposed to have a foreskin then Mother Nature would not have provided them with one. 

Simple as.

I have not read any very good reason for a parent taking this action other than social acceptance and I can't believe, in all honesty, that people are still doing this, purely in order to 'fit in'. :nope:


----------



## nikky0907

Angelmouse said:


> If men weren't supposed to have a foreskin then Mother Nature would not have provided them with one.
> 
> Simple as.
> 
> I have not read any very good reason for a parent taking this action other than social acceptance and I can't believe, in all honesty, that people are still doing this, purely in order to 'fit in'. :nope:

It also provided you with an apendix.Do you need that?

As for the other comment.I can't really reply since I said I'm not justifying my opinion on this subject.


----------



## Sparky0207

Has no one noticed how UK/USA divided this thread is?
I think we'd all agree that circumcision is a much more common practice in the states, just as there as some more common things over here that people from the US may not agree with.
Its different cultures in different places. Personally I wouldnt have my child circumcised, I have no religious beliefs about it, its not common practice where I live, I have never been with a man who has had it done and have very little knowledge on why it is done. If I ever have a son and there is a reason, either medical or his choice when he is old enough, then I certainly wouldnt have a problem with it being done, but like I said, its just not something thats crossed my mind.

However, I totally understand and accept that in some places it is common practice, people do have religious beliefs about it and it is what is 'expected' to be done. 

Maybe one day the whole world will agree on whether it should be done or not, but god, wouldnt the world be a boring place then.


----------



## StirCrazy

Angelmouse said:


> If men weren't supposed to have a foreskin then Mother Nature would not have provided them with one.
> 
> Simple as.

Why do men have nipples?

6 other useless parts of the body:-
Sinuses
Adenoids
Tonsils
Coccyx
Wisdom teeth
Appendix

What did Mother Nature give us these for?


----------



## mrscookie

i'm from the uk, and anti circum if its not for health purposes, but i have seen alot of people from the uk in this thread who are pro circum, and it's fine. Everyone has their own reasons for doing it, and my views are set in stone. I do agree with Angelmouse, mother nature intended males to have a foreskin, and I dont wish to take that away. As for my appendix, i still have that too, it may do nothing but why mess with it, there is no reason to.


----------



## anita665

I don't understand why people get it done. I know about the religious and medical but I don't know why people choose to do it. Something I've always wondered about.... (I don't mean I don't understand as in I think it's bad - I mean I really don't know what the reasons are why you'd get it done :blush: or are there no real reasons and it's just personal preference?).


----------



## anita665

StirCrazy said:


> Why do men have nipples?
> 
> 6 other useless parts of the body:-
> Sinuses
> Adenoids
> Tonsils
> Coccyx
> Wisdom teeth
> Appendix
> 
> What did Mother Nature give us these for?

Overly generous I guess??


----------



## StirCrazy

melbo said:


> i'm from the uk, and anti circum if its not for health purposes, but i have seen alot of people from the uk in this thread who are pro circum, and it's fine. Everyone has their own reasons for doing it, and my views are set in stone. I do agree with Angelmouse, mother nature intended males to have a foreskin, and I dont wish to take that away. As for my appendix, i still have that too, it may do nothing but why mess with it, there is no reason to.

But appendix' are not cosmetic. Yet, boobs, butts, lips & lypo are accepable nowadays?

{edit} admitedly you wouldn't do that to a baby, but my point is cosmetic... would have a prominent mole removed?


----------



## keelykat

was only my opinion-sorry to offend. hurting a baby in any way to me is wrong.


----------



## carries

My OH is and I actually prefer it (think it looks nicer...i know i know) but he has said soooo many times that he believes it decreases stimulation during sex and so I suppose it does have an effect. I honestly hadnt even considered it as an option and think its safe to say I wouldnt circumcise.


----------



## tinkerbelll

Angelmouse said:


> I have not read any very good reason for a parent taking this action other than social acceptance and I can't believe, in all honesty, that people are still doing this, purely in order to 'fit in'. :nope:

people shouldnt need to justify the choices they make for thier OWN children and im pretty sure people do have their own 'reasons' and dont just do it to 'fit' in.
Id also like to add all 3 of my sons have been done, they were giving pain relief and were awake during the whole thing and never cried once!


----------



## mrscookie

Meh, i dont even know anymore lol....

If i have a son, he will not be circum unless there is a problem. If he decides when he is older that he wants it done I will back him 100%.I want him to have a say in the matter when he is older instead of not giving him the option. 
My ex was less sensitive down there sex wise too, so yeah that is true for me too carrie.


----------



## StirCrazy

Don't get me wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate. I'm not circumcised and I wouldn't circumcise my son, but to categorically tell others it is wrong, is in itself wrong (IMO)... by no means (by a mile) does it constitute any form of child cruelty (just a lifestyle choice).


----------



## Spartacus

I didn't want to reply to this thread....

I am dissapointed to be honest in this thread as I think it has not intended to start as a debate but feels more of an attack or judgement against people that decide to have their boys circumsised. 

Basically if you don't agree with it don't have it done - simple! Everyone has their own views on this subject and if you wish to be more informed ask the question not start another debate about whether it is right or wrong and make people feel bad for their decisions.

At the end of the day threads like this I feel stir up bad feeling like smoking when pregnant-I don't agree with it but I won't judge people or shout people down because of it the same as I will have my boy (if pea is a boy that is!) circumsised I don't expect people to judge or criticise me. 

Whether it is for religious reasons or personal reasons frankly people shouldn't feel they have to explain themselves.

lets have a bit of love in the room eh?!


----------



## mrscookie

I havent said its wrong to do it. I havent said its right not to do it, i have just said that I wont be doing it, and the reason why. As i said on another post, if you want to do it, its fine. Thats the end of my oppinion right there :)


----------



## Uvlollypop

Group Hug Everybody


----------



## mrscookie

*hugs everyone*


----------



## Uvlollypop

next person thats mean about someone elses opinion im gunna poke in the eye


----------



## StirCrazy

:lol:


----------



## mrscookie

I believe in the tooth fairy... anyone wanna judge me?
LOL
*waits for UV to poke someone for dissing my opinion*
:p


----------



## Uvlollypop

opps not stab melbo!!

*protects melbos tooth fairy fetish*

Next comon im warning ya i got nails


----------



## doumauk

CHILD CRUELTY???? oh my god, is that honestly what you think circumcision is. I find that really offensive not just to myself but to all the ladies who have made a choice to have their sons circumcised. If we thought that doing this would have a lasting effect on our childs physical or mental health and cause more pain than they are able to cope with we wouldnt do it! My husband was circumcised when he was 7 and can still remember to this day, the pain was there no denying it but not as half as bad as some people on here make it out to be. He thinks it best to get our son done when hes young so he wont remember it and thats what we will do. People have a right to do what they like without being accused of child abuse whether your a jew, muslim or just doing it for personal reasons. This is getting way out of hand. I did not want to have to post this but I couldnt help myself


----------



## Uvlollypop

doumauk said:


> CHILD CRUELTY???? oh my god, is that honestly what you think circumcision is. I find that really offensive not just to myself but to all the ladies who have made a choice to have their sons circumcised. If we thought that doing this would have a lasting effect on our childs physical or mental health and cause more pain than they are able to cope with we wouldnt do it! My husband was circumcised when he was 7 and can still remember to this day, the pain was there no denying it but not as half as bad as some people on here make it out to be. He thinks it best to get our son done when hes young so he wont remember it and thats what we will do. People have a right to do what they like without being accused of child abuse whether your a jew, muslim or just doing it for personal reasons. This is getting way out of hand. I did not want to have to post this but I couldnt help myself

OPPS a poke in the eye for you


----------



## mrscookie

Loololol!


----------



## Uvlollypop

as far as im aware we are all adults here (well ment to be) i really think its time to rise above anything you have read that you don't like,

make tea not war.


each to their own said the mad women as she kissed her cow...mooooooo


----------



## doumauk

lol that hurt!
I wasnt being nasty just getting my point across. Thats my problem I cant hold my tounge too well
:hug: to all too! :loopy:


----------



## Uvlollypop

i think its all got to a stage where we are all starting to look a bit silly thats all, who cares what other people think anyway! noones making it law one way or another so lets all be friends 


awwwww the love


----------



## mrscookie

arrrrhhhhh!!!!! GOD BLESS US, EVERYONE!


----------



## Suz

And they all lived happy ever after ;)

Love your Eye Poking Tactics UV.....


----------



## Angelmouse

At the risk of earning a poke in the eyeball I'd just like to reply here:



StirCrazy said:


> Why do men have nipples?
> 
> 6 other useless parts of the body:-
> Sinuses
> Adenoids
> Tonsils
> Coccyx
> Wisdom teeth
> Appendix
> 
> What did Mother Nature give us these for?

Weeeel, it sure as sh*t wasn't to chop them off! :lol:

Just because we have technology doesn't mean we know all there is to know about everything. Even now there are studies going on that suggest that the Appendix is used in the production of replacement cells or something and the coccyx is supposedly the remnants of the tail we all once sported. That suggests to me that if a part of the body is not needed then by natural selection and evolution that part will gradually disappear of it's own accord over time.

Dons protective goggles. :coolio: I shall say no more. :-#


----------



## CamoQueen

Wow, people have gotten worked up over a little bit of foreskin! Cheers for the hugs comments, though -- more of those are needed in this thread!

OK, now for my two cents. Honestly, it's sooo common in the states to have your baby circumsized that it never occured to me not to do it, were I to have a boy. DH is circumsized, and of all my male partners (not as "Oh my God, what a ho!" many as that statement makes it sound), none of them were uncircumsized. Again, it's just the norm. So yeah, if it's a boy, I'm going to have the baby circumsized. 

As far as I know, most people here get it done for aesthetic or social reasons rather than religious ones. I'm not saying one look is more appealing than the other... all I know is, I like the look of penises -- sheered or hooded! :happydance: 

(P.S. In case of a boy, I was planning to ask the doctors to remove the baby's superfluous nipples while they were doing the foreskin, for a generally more streamlined look. Would that be covered by my insurance?:dohh:)


----------



## Uvlollypop

Angelmouse said:


> At the risk of earning a poke in the eyeball I'd just like to reply here:
> 
> 
> 
> Weeeel, it sure as sh*t wasn't to chop them off! :lol:
> 
> Just because we have technology doesn't mean we know all there is to know about everything. Even now there are studies going on that suggest that the Appendix is used in the production of replacement cells or something and the coccyx is supposedly the remnants of the tail we all once sported. That suggests to me that if a part of the body is not needed then by natural selection and evolution that part will gradually disappear of it's own accord over time.
> 
> Dons protective goggles. :coolio: I shall say no more. :-#

POKE IN DA EYE FOR YOU


----------



## Uvlollypop

lol!


----------



## Uvlollypop

lets all hold hands and sing 'happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy'


----------



## Emmea12uk

Uvlollypop said:


> hiv is passes on via the exchange of bodily fluids it had nothing to do with the end of the penis being tougher due to foreskin removal!

What about foreskin tears?


----------



## Emmea12uk

ok, i am far too slow to join in this debate - it is over now:(


----------



## Uvlollypop

Emmea12uk said:


> ok, i am far too slow to join in this debate - it is over now:(

and ipoke in the eye for you too :dohh:


----------



## Angelmouse

OOOooh The happy happy joy joy song I love that!!!!!

You be Ren and I'll be Stimpy. :dance:


----------



## Uvlollypop

Angelmouse said:


> OOOooh The happy happy joy joy song I love that!!!!!
> 
> You be Ren and I'll be Stimpy. :dance:

its a date!


----------



## Angelmouse

:lol: I thought you were gonna say, "YooouUUU EEIIIddiiiott!" :lol:


----------



## Uvlollypop

lol


----------



## Emmea12uk

:rofl:


----------



## PeanutBean

StirCrazy said:


> Why do men have nipples?
> 
> 6 other useless parts of the body:-
> Sinuses
> Adenoids
> Tonsils
> Coccyx
> Wisdom teeth
> Appendix
> 
> What did Mother Nature give us these for?

I don't care that the debate is over now, poke me in the eye if you dare! And devils advocate or not I have to step i one again with the science - it's in my blood!

Nipples - Men have nipples because all embryos/foetuses essentially develop as females until the male genes kick in and start producing male hormones.
Sinuses - just because we don't understand why doesn't mean no function is there: *These include the functions of warming/humidification of air, assisting in regulation of intranasal pressure and serum gas pressures (and subsequently minute ventilation), contributing to immune defense, increasing mucosal surface area, lightening the skull, giving resonance to the voice, absorbing shock, and contributing to facial growth.*
Adenoids - involved in antibody production (that's the immune system)
Tonsils - ditto.
Coccyx - yes a part of the spine that used to be a tail before evolution found us no longer swinging in trees. *The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The remnant of a vestigial tail in humans, in many other species the coccygeal vertebrae support a full tail and accommodate its nerves.*
Wisdom teeth - I use mine to eat, don't you?
Appendix - has a function in the immune system

I think I've said enough. Do not question the function of the body parts!


----------



## leeanne

PeanutBean said:


> I don't care that the debate is over now, poke me in the eye if you dare! And devils advocate or not I have to step i one again with the science - it's in my blood!
> 
> Nipples - Men have nipples because all embryos/foetuses essentially develop as females until the male genes kick in and start producing male hormones.
> Sinuses - just because we don't understand why doesn't mean no function is there: *These include the functions of warming/humidification of air, assisting in regulation of intranasal pressure and serum gas pressures (and subsequently minute ventilation), contributing to immune defense, increasing mucosal surface area, lightening the skull, giving resonance to the voice, absorbing shock, and contributing to facial growth.*
> Adenoids - involved in antibody production (that's the immune system)
> Tonsils - ditto.
> Coccyx - yes a part of the spine that used to be a tail before evolution found us no longer swinging in trees. *The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The remnant of a vestigial tail in humans, in many other species the coccygeal vertebrae support a full tail and accommodate its nerves.*
> Wisdom teeth - I use mine to eat, don't you?
> Appendix - has a function in the immune system
> 
> I think I've said enough. Do not question the function of the body parts!

What is absolutely amazing is that a human can function without some of these body parts. I have no tonsils nor wisdom teeth. I am very healthy and I eat perfectly fine with the teeth I have.

My OH doesn't have an appendix, wisdom teeth, tonsils or foreskin....and he's perfectly fine.


----------



## StirCrazy

PeanutBean said:


> I don't care that the debate is over now, poke me in the eye if you dare! And devils advocate or not I have to step i one again with the science - it's in my blood!
> 
> Nipples - Men have nipples because all embryos/foetuses essentially develop as females until the male genes kick in and start producing male hormones.
> Sinuses - just because we don't understand why doesn't mean no function is there: *These include the functions of warming/humidification of air, assisting in regulation of intranasal pressure and serum gas pressures (and subsequently minute ventilation), contributing to immune defense, increasing mucosal surface area, lightening the skull, giving resonance to the voice, absorbing shock, and contributing to facial growth.*
> Adenoids - involved in antibody production (that's the immune system)
> Tonsils - ditto.
> Coccyx - yes a part of the spine that used to be a tail before evolution found us no longer swinging in trees. *The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The remnant of a vestigial tail in humans, in many other species the coccygeal vertebrae support a full tail and accommodate its nerves.*
> Wisdom teeth - I use mine to eat, don't you?
> Appendix - has a function in the immune system
> 
> I think I've said enough. Do not question the function of the body parts!

I don't have Tonsils, Adenoids, Wisdom teeth or an Appendix... my nipples aren't much use... yep there pretty useless and obviously aren't needed... along with my foreskin (which I do have but wouldn't bother me if I didn't). I can question parts of _*my*_ (or my sons, if I had one) body all I like thank you very much!
'Science' or not, that is no reason to be belligerent towards others views.


----------



## Wobbles

> my nipples aren't much use... yep there pretty useless

They are useful!!!!!

I flick em when you annoy me! :smug:


----------



## Vickie

Wobbles said:


> They are useful!!!!!
> 
> I flick em when you annoy me! :smug:

:rofl::rofl:


----------



## miel

Wobbles said:


> They are useful!!!!!
> 
> I flick em when you annoy me! :smug:

:rofl::rofl::rofl: i will have to try that on my husband !!! good advice !


----------



## leeanne

:rofl::rofl:


----------



## Uvlollypop

i was gunna say nips are good for pinching when annoyed!! lol


----------



## Suz

Wobbles said:


> They are useful!!!!!
> 
> I flick em when you annoy me! :smug:

 
:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## PeanutBean

StirCrazy said:


> I don't have Tonsils, Adenoids, Wisdom teeth or an Appendix... my nipples aren't much use... yep there pretty useless and obviously aren't needed... along with my foreskin (which I do have but wouldn't bother me if I didn't). I can question parts of _*my*_ (or my sons, if I had one) body all I like thank you very much!
> 'Science' or not, that is no reason to be belligerent towards others views.

OK so whose views have I been belligerent to? You'll notice that neither of my posts in this debate have mentioned either my own opinions on circumcision nor said anything about anybody else's.

You said these parts were useless so I explained why they are there and/or what their functions are. By all means question things but you ought to be prepared to hear answers - that's what questions are for, finding out.


----------



## StirCrazy

PeanutBean said:


> OK so whose views have I been belligerent to? You'll notice that neither of my posts in this debate have mentioned either my own opinions on circumcision nor said anything about anybody else's.
> 
> You said these parts were useless so I explained why they are there and/or what their functions are. By all means question things but you ought to be prepared to hear answers - that's what questions are for, finding out.


You posted:


> I don't care that the debate is over... Do not question the function of the body parts!

*bel·lig·er·ent (b&#601;-l&#301;j'&#601;r-&#601;nt) pronunciation
adj.

1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.

n.

One that is hostile or aggressive*


oh look I can copy and paste too... So yes that was a 'hostile' post.

I didn't ask what all those body parts were for; I asked what were male nipples for...? and I was right, those body have no real use.

Not only that but you completely ignored my reason for posting in the first place. It was to address this comment:


Angelmouse said:


> If men weren't supposed to have a foreskin then Mother Nature would not have provided them with one.

feel free to quote wikipedia at me anytime you like, it doesn't make what I said wrong or you smart!


----------



## PeanutBean

StirCrazy said:


> You posted:
> 
> 
> *bel·lig·er·ent (b&#601;-l&#301;j'&#601;r-&#601;nt) pronunciation
> adj.
> 
> 1. Inclined or eager to fight; hostile or aggressive.
> 2. Of, pertaining to, or engaged in warfare.
> 
> n.
> 
> One that is hostile or aggressive*
> 
> 
> oh look I can copy and paste too... So yes that was a 'hostile' post.
> 
> I didn't ask what all those body parts were for; I asked what were male nipples for...? and I was right, those body have no real use.
> 
> Not only that but you completely ignored my reason for posting in the first place. It was to address this comment:
> 
> 
> feel free to quote wikipedia at me anytime you like, it doesn't make what I said wrong or you smart!

Yes thank you, I know what belligerent means. But I was neither hostile nor aggressive. Two posts in a debate of 16 pages is hardly eager or inclined to fight. When I said jovially "do not question the function of the body parts" it was meant to be lighthearted for the very reason that I wasn't getting personal (as you now are with me in what I would say is in an unacceptable manner with your "oh look I can copy and paste too..."), but merely providing some information to the people looking at this forum in relation to the things you had posted. If, without a sprinkling of lols and rofls, my post came across as offensive then I apologise.

I didn't ignore your reason for posting, I just didn't refer to it as I wasn't responding to your reason but to what you said.

In your original post you asked "Why do men have nipples?" so I explained why men have them. No they don't have an overt function in men (other than giving pleasure) but if men didn't have them then neither would women because that is how the baby develops. They are hardly a body part comparable with the foreskin anyway, it's not like women have a foreskin with some great function like with nipples.

You then listed "six other useless parts of the body" so I found out their uses (if I didn't already know them) and shared the information with the list. I'm afraid you _were_ wrong when you stated that these parts were useless, but I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just trying to keep the debate informed as all real debates should be. Perhaps you object to that. I notice that others who responded to my post did not feel the need to attack me for providing some interesting information.

I have followed this debate with interest and seen the passion that people feel one way or another about this issue. I didn't want to say anything about my own opinion on this issue as I neither wanted to offend anyone nor did I feel that a forum where I don't know anyone personally would be an appropriate place to question people for their beliefs. The only two posts I have made have been in response to comments made of a scientific ilk (of which I do know something above mere opinion) in an effort to help the debate by keeping it informed. That these first two posts came from people for (or possibly in your case not against) circumcision is irrelevant. If someone against had quoted something medical/scientific that was incorrect or tenuous I would still have felt compelled to redress the balance - bad science is bad science whatever opinion it is used to back up. It could certainly be argued that this is a cultural issue and not a scientific one, but in such a case science should not then be used to back up opinions.


----------



## Uvlollypop

Many eye pokes </Hides in cupboard/>


----------



## StirCrazy

:saywhat:

I didn't say they had no function... I said 'useless', as in having no useful purpose (the antonym of useful being useless).

Without copy and pasting "redress the balance" and point out which of those body parts are useful? You can remove everyone of those part simaltaniously and the human body wouldn't even notice.

...and you still ignored my point... the point was the 'mother nature' argument doesn't hold water (as proved in this thread https://www.babyandbump.com/general-chatter/36253-baby-born-penis-his-back.html)

You can't claim "bad science" when you misquote the orginal argument.




PeanutBean said:


> Yes thank you, I know what belligerent means. But I was neither hostile nor aggressive. Two posts in a debate of 16 pages is hardly eager or inclined to fight. When I said jovially "do not question the function of the body parts" it was meant to be lighthearted for the very reason that I wasn't getting personal (as you now are with me in what I would say is in an unacceptable manner with your "oh look I can copy and paste too..."), but merely providing some information to the people looking at this forum in relation to the things you had posted. If, without a sprinkling of lols and rofls, my post came across as offensive then I apologise.
> 
> I didn't ignore your reason for posting, I just didn't refer to it as I wasn't responding to your reason but to what you said.
> 
> In your original post you asked "Why do men have nipples?" so I explained why men have them. No they don't have an overt function in men (other than giving pleasure) but if men didn't have them then neither would women because that is how the baby develops. They are hardly a body part comparable with the foreskin anyway, it's not like women have a foreskin with some great function like with nipples.
> 
> You then listed "six other useless parts of the body" so I found out their uses (if I didn't already know them) and shared the information with the list. I'm afraid you _were_ wrong when you stated that these parts were useless, but I wasn't trying to be smart, I was just trying to keep the debate informed as all real debates should be. Perhaps you object to that. I notice that others who responded to my post did not feel the need to attack me for providing some interesting information.
> 
> I have followed this debate with interest and seen the passion that people feel one way or another about this issue. I didn't want to say anything about my own opinion on this issue as I neither wanted to offend anyone nor did I feel that a forum where I don't know anyone personally would be an appropriate place to question people for their beliefs. The only two posts I have made have been in response to comments made of a scientific ilk (of which I do know something above mere opinion) in an effort to help the debate by keeping it informed. That these first two posts came from people for (or possibly in your case not against) circumcision is irrelevant. If someone against had quoted something medical/scientific that was incorrect or tenuous I would still have felt compelled to redress the balance - bad science is bad science whatever opinion it is used to back up. It could certainly be argued that this is a cultural issue and not a scientific one, but in such a case science should not then be used to back up opinions.


----------



## PeanutBean

Uvlollypop said:


> Many eye pokes </Hides in cupboard/>

lol

You don't need to hide from me!


----------



## Uvlollypop

i was hiding from everyone before the riot breaks out


----------



## PeanutBean

I've never known a more pointless discussion than this has become - I'm sorry everyone else if you're actually bothering reading this.



> I didn't say they had no function... I said 'useless', as in having no useful purpose (the antonym of useful being useless).
> 
> 
> How can you try and draw a distinction between a function and a use? That doesn't even make sense. Just because your body can manage without something doesn't mean it had no use before it was gone. What about having a kidney removed? It wasn't doing nothing before it was taken out.
> 
> 
> 
> Without copy and pasting "redress the balance" and point out which of those body parts are useful? You can remove everyone of those part simaltaniously and the human body wouldn't even notice.
> 
> 
> I already listed what the uses are of those different bits, most of them immunological uses. I'm not going to repeat it again and bore everyone even more. Copy and paste has nothing to do with it. Would you be less offended if I'd written all the responses in my own words? Or would you rather I went to Web of Knowledge and quoted you a bunch of scientific papers about the uses of these organs/parts?
> 
> 
> 
> You can't claim "bad science" when you misquote the orginal argument.
> 
> 
> I didn't misquote anything. I used your words and responded to them. In my last post I went back to your email and put word for word your descriptions in quotations. This distinction you find between a function and a use does not mean I misquoted anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...and you still ignored my point... the point was the 'mother nature' argument doesn't hold water (as proved in this thread https://www.babyandbump.com/general-chatter/36253-baby-born-penis-his-back.html)
> 
> I already said I wasn't referring to your point about mother nature! I'm not interested in having an argument about circumcision with you or anyone else which is why I am ignoring it! But I've got to say using a one-off genetic anomaly like in this link as proof against the idea that 'mother nature' only gives things that are required is really scratching the bottom of the barrel. You have to draw a distinction between extremely rare genetic mutations and the normal parts that the average body develops with.
> 
> This discussion no longer seems to have any relevance to this thread so I see no point in continuing it in this thread any further. Sorry everyone else!Click to expand...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Click to expand...Click to expand...


----------



## xXx Vamp xXx

Hello all, well, what an interesting thread hey? I first read this a few days ago and I'm quite astonished by some of the views posted, but in turn I respect that we are all different and the way we chose to raise our child is our own business, (being that it is of course of no danger to the child). I really don't think PeanutBean meant anything malicious with her comments about the body parts though, some of the body parts do indeed have a purpose, although the body can survive quite well without them. Haha my mothers friend Leon, was telling me when his little 'uns were young, his wife passed him his little girl when she was hungry... who proceed to take a rather good shot at feeding off his nipple, and in his words "it bleedin hurt" haha. So you know, along with all the S&M people out there, I'm sure some use could be found for male nipples :p 

The comments comparing circumcision to child abuse are just ridiculous, and should be treated as such. My current Fella is circumcised, but then again he's Canadian. He was the first Circumcised man I'd ever been with, and to be honest it didn't make one bit of difference to me. I'd never considered getting my child circumcised before reading this thread. But even after doing so, I think I would only get it done really for medical reasons. The babies father has mentioned nothing about wanting this done, and it's not a very big thing here in the UK, as has been pointed out previously. My religious views don't affect this either, so really in my mind I would do if for medical reasons only. But you know, I completely respect other peoples rights to do what they feel is right for their child. And yup, hugs to everyone too :p


----------



## Wobbles

> I really don't think PeanutBean meant anything malicious with her comments

Don't think anyone thought she did :confused: Healthy debate because of different opinions I guess.



> The comments comparing circumcision to child abuse are just ridiculous, and should be treated as such

Completely agree I refused to reply on that simply because I was appauled & hate people using the words 'child abuse' lightly.

-----

Generally I have no opinion on this decision made by Mums its not what I would do but thats 'me'. I am a bit pift about how one person with an opinion can twist & addon to anothers slyly though in _attempt_ to belittle. One thing that really drives me mad (the twist of words).

:)


----------



## xXx Vamp xXx

Aah but see, us humans have the ability to turn anything we read into the way we read it rather that the way it was wrote..and then use it to try and "prove" our point... if that makes any sense haha! On second thoughts, I don't think I ever make sense, bring on the smarties.

(The chocolates, not the brains!)


----------



## StirCrazy

PeanutBean said:


> How can you try and draw a distinction between a function and a use

When you take it out of context there is little difference; but that is my point.
You can't use function (or triva) to prove a principle.
Out of context all you managed to do was cite information that wasn't even asked about. In context I was attempting to prove that the arguement was flawed.


I'll simplify my point with an example:

You can take out of a car the air filter, muffler, spolier, spare wheel, radio (any number of things) but the engine would still function... I could go into great detail about the function of each one of those objects (not that anyone asked)... _but that doesn't really matter because all we were talking about was peoples views on cutting a centimeter off the exhausts tailpipe for cosmetic purposes.
_

Am I being dumb or are you completely missing what this thread _was_ about?




PeanutBean said:


> I've never known a more pointless discussion than this has become...
> 
> ...This discussion no longer seems to have any relevance to this thread so I see no point in continuing it in this thread any further.

someone took it off topic by trying to prove something that was never in question.


----------



## Angelmouse

Hmm. I just found a bunch of toys on the floor over here. 

Anyone know who they belong to?


----------



## Jayne

I got a leaflet through my letterbox today offering me newborn circumcision by an NHS doctor in my area for £80. How random!


----------



## Uvlollypop

Angelmouse said:


> Hmm. I just found a bunch of toys on the floor over here.
> 
> Anyone know who they belong to?

:rofl:


----------



## Wobbles

Angelmouse said:


> Hmm. I just found a bunch of toys on the floor over here.
> 
> Anyone know who they belong to?

:huh:


----------



## brownhairedmom

I am so lost...


----------



## Wobbles

Me too really ...lets go play in another corner haha


----------



## leeanne

Can I join you cause I am very lost too. LOL


----------



## Wobbles

Down the toons road take your first left then sharp turn to the right third _unit_ from the bottom! :rofl:

Odd mood I am!


----------



## leeanne

:rofl:


----------



## mrscookie

soooo everyone..... how yer feelin?
lol
oooo UV i loooove Ren and stimpy tooo, sorry i replied so late lol!
I love it when stimpy farts and classes him as his son, stinky hahaha.... hilarious!


----------



## Uvlollypop

you are weird mood wobbles miss

yoda talk we shall


----------



## Angelmouse

HHmm. A son Stimpy has. Call him Stinky He does! 

Very Funny it was hhmmm?! Yes!


----------



## Uvlollypop

pmsl


----------



## polo_princess

your all bloody mad!!


----------



## Uvlollypop

ahhhthankyou!


----------



## Angelmouse

Ah! Underestimate the power of the Hormones she does.

Blinded by normality she is. Hmm.

:lol:


----------

