Hahaha… ok, dude.
I think you should change your name to "cite vision.
We don’t. In fact, we couldn’t worry less about your dong, but it seems as if you do.
You’re an adult, you can do whatever you want to your body. You say that you have no negative effects from being cut, which is a strange claim since you don’t have reference data, but good for you anyhow.
What people do object to, is the cutting of bits of healthy infants’ genitals without their consent. A prepuce is a prepuce, and it’s the same organ regardless of whether it’s found in a vulva or at the tip of a penis. If cutting off a girl’s prepuce without her consent is a deadly sin, and you can’t see the inconsistency of promoting the same procedure on boys, we can’t help you.
Again: It’s not about your dong. Don’t worry about your dong, it’s probably OK. Anyway, we don’t care abut it. What we care about is genital modification of children without their informed consent, regardless of the child’s sex.
So, a doctor who makes money by performing circumcisions has a positive attitude to circumcisions? Wow. I’m amazed. No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.
I’ll give you one example of impairment. I’d never heard about masturbation sleeves until I started to surf the 'net. I had a hard time understanding the point of them and why they seemed so popular, until I realized that cut men’s penises don’t come with their own built-in masturbation sleeve. An uncut penis does.
If masturbation is so affected by circumcision that several persons feel the need for mechanical devices to masturbate properly, I wouldn’t say that the effect is “essentially nil”.
But again, it doesn’t matter to the discussion what an adult male thinks about his own penis. That’s his - and perhaps his partner’s - business, and nobody else’s. Because people should have autonomy over their own genitals. What matters is that people who seem to think that any cutting in little girls’ genitals should qualify for drawing and quartering, but it’s quite OK and actually a good thing to cut in little boys’ genitals. We don’t care if you cut your own dick, but we do care about innocent boys having their penis cut without any say in the matter.
Knock it off. If you feel you must, the BBQ Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Eh? what point have I missed?
Regardless of whether your position in general is pro or anti my statement stands on its own as a reinforcement of adult choice. I don’t know how you’ve chosen to interpret my post but you are clearly in error as a simple re-reading by anyone will show.
Then why the debate?
Does pleasure correlate with time to ejaculation? I can only say that it seems to be the more pleasure I feel the closer I am to ejaculating.
Yet this particular study can only find a minor link in this area. Does Circumcision Have a Relationship With Ejaculation Time?
My question is there an actual loss of pleasure, or just someone’s idea that there is because circumcision=bad?
Because it doesn’t seem as if You. Know. Better. Now.
You tell me. While we’re at the anecdotal level, sometimes I can go on for a long time while I’m pretty close to heaven, other times I just come fast, and the orgasm isn’t much more than a sneeze. Or anything inbetween those two extremes, depending on mood, type and duration of foreplay, intoxication, or physical condition. So from a purely personal experience I’d say “not very well”.
What has been scientifically proven is that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis (cite), and as we all know cut men don’t have that part of the penis anymore.
Again, if you’re happy with your cut penis, or if you believe that a (i.e. your) penis should be cut, knock yourself out. I don’t care, it’s your body. But it’s deeply immoral to impose genital modification on others without their informed consent. Be they men, women, boys or girls.
ETA: Another cite (warning: PDF)
Obviously, few men would be able to tell directly, since few have been circumcized as adults (although one poster compared his sensitivity to that of his uncircumcized partner in this thread). But seriously, how could keratinization not result in a loss of sensitivity? Would you wonder whether or not calloused hands are less sensitive, for instance?
Is this what you expected to cite? Because, unless I’m misreading it, it doesn’t support what you’re saying.
[QUOTE=link from your cite]
Conclusions
Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for penile sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the foreskin during neonatal circumcision. Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the adult penis. Future research should consider the direct link between penile sensitivity and the perception of pleasure/sensation. Results are relevant to policy makers, parents of male children and the general public.
[/QUOTE]
What does ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ have to do with what I was asking? Someone posted that sensitivity is lost due to circumcision. I’m asking about that.
I posted a cite that length of time having sex is pretty much the same between both groups. My assumption being that ‘sensitivity’ is either not relevant to time to orgasm, or that there is no loss of ‘sensitivity’.
2square4u, do you have a cite on the popularity of masturbation sleeves?
The purpose of a masturbation sleeve is to pretend that you’re fucking another person rather than jerking it in your living room and doing it cheaper and with more subtlety than putting a Real Doll in your closet. I’ve never heard of anyone implying that they have anything to do with circumcision and it appears that you just jumped to this conclusion yourself. Trust me, unless you’re trying for some pseudo-partner experience, most dudes just stroke it and it works just fine. I chuckle when I hear the anti-masturbation ‘origins’ of circumcision – as someone who was once a circumcised 14 year old, it doesn’t work 
Show me evidence of medical benefits, additional benefits as a neonatal procedure and that it can be done without negatively affecting the function of her genitals or complication and I’ll change my stance on “cutting little girls’ genitals”. Seems fair, right?
Are people walking around with shit-stained trousers and moustaches cakes with snot? What’s so difficult about basic hygeine?
Regarding the OP, morally they’re both as bad as each other. Torturing children is bizarre to me. Practically Sunna or type 1a FGM is functionally the same as male circumcision. The other types are worse, assuming the male circumcision isn’t botched, as it sometimes is, which can cause infection, loss of the penis or death.
The medical benefits of circumcision aren’t real, and the claimed benefits are also claimed as benefit of female circumcision. FGM correlates with lower HIV infection rates, for example.
In the west female circumcision, as with male circumcision, was briefly popular some decades ago as a preventive measure against the scourge of masturbation.
In terms of resistance to HPV and cancer, penile cancer is normally caused by HPV, so those are the same thing. And there’s a vaccine for that now, just use that. Although the lowest rates are in Scandinavia, where there is very little circumcision, so circumcision is hardly vital.
As for European cultural bias, I would rather be part of a culture which is biassed against slicing into babies genitals, risking their death, without any anaesthetic, for benefits somewhere between non-existent and negligible.
Stallings & Karugendo (the cited study) admits to no “plausible” biological connection and believes that the result was likely anthropological although they think further study is warranted among other populations.
Hmmm… OK. Let’s go with this for a minute. Let’s say you are correct, and there is a clear, unequivocal medical consensus regarding the benefits of male circumcision.
Why is it that the health agencies of the various EU nations don’t encourage - nay, mandate - male circumcision? Why are half a billion Europeans accepting this state of affairs?
I feel like I’m jumping into a snake pit, but here goes.
(“Weeeee!”)
That’s pretty much my view. Can’t we just all agree to stop cutting bits off babies? (Umbilical cords aside.)
That said, I do think it’s wrong to bring male circumcision into a discussion of female genital mutilation.
As others have pointed out, while the benefits are dubious, the negatives of male circumcision seem fairly small.
On the other hand, FGM has zero benefits and is potentially devastating. I don’t want to see type 1a female circumcision or whatever justified as being equal to male circumcision, and that’s the risk you create when you start mixing male circumcision into the discussion. (Almost) no one is removing male infant’s glans penises.
First, let’s stamp out FGM. Then we can maybe deal with the issue of male infant circumcision.
OK. This presents a very interesting case I’d never considered. But the doctor is just dead wrong in his reasoning. There’s a world of difference between an adult asking for voluntary corrective surgery and an unnecessary and potentially harmful procedure being performed on an infant, incapable of consent.
I can sum up my response with one word: Soap.
(Well, “soap and water”, but that would be three words, which would mean I’d lose the argument.)
All of you, stand in awe of this Saint who walks among us.
I cannot, My Lord, for I fear I am still on my hands and knees thanking you for your keen insight regarding the inferiority of the uncircumcised. I have seen the Light and it has but One Eye!
Ask them, I guess. I don’t have to make up reasons for them and I’m not interested in mandating anything. If you want to say the existing research is wrong, that’s on you to prove rather than “This guy wasn’t circumcised so you’re wrong!” or “You must be brainwashed because of America!”
What’s interesting is that this stance by the US organizations (and organizations such as the WHO) is a fairly new one. For all the theories of cultural pressure, they have consistently remained neutral on the topic until the 2000’s. But, rather than assume the most likely – new information has shifted their stance from neutral to neutral-positive – you rely on an assumption that some wave of (new?) cultural pressure has forced their hand.