It's funny to, because I swear, reading this thread- I don't think some people know the difference. Then again, I live in the U.S. so I won't preach how the rest of the world goes about it. Not exactly my prime subject, ya kno. All I can is that practically every major form of religion that has to do with the God of Moses proposes that circumcision is necessary. That's gotta be at least half the world population. I mean: Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.
I just find it amazing that there are coincidently sooo many people on the forum that claim sooo many of people they know aren't circumcised..
So you read the thread and justify the entirety of it by a single quote from the Bible, and from the new testament at that-
I agree in that case that circumcision is normal...if your foreskin kept growing and trailed down to your knees. Alas, it doesn't, therefore there's no real need for it. So you're fucking absurd, sir.
EDIT: I'm pulling out of this debate, like I said I would do earlier. I'm not arrogant, but I see no more room for argument and am not going to spend my time disproving every claim that is made on here. Bye thread
I did read the entire thing...well done btw @ keeping in the spirit of a debate rather than trying to pwn someone (at which you also failed).
first it's not "extra" foreskin, it's the natural amount of foreksin, second are you intact or not, you claim you know, were you intact and then cut, or were you cut and then restored? how do you know? from the only study I found where they compared in a fair way comparing parts that exist only on the intact penis they did find quite a difference (some studies only compared the parts both have, assuming the glans is the only sensitive part, since it is the only sensitive part on a cut male.
And from my firsthand personal experience I can say it very much really does matter, sex and masturbation are WAY better after having a restored foreskin, I don't think it's a stretch to assume the natural foreskin is just as good or better especially since it hs the most sensitive nerves (sorrell's study: google it)
It's far more then a cosmetic decision, it changes the function of a penis, masturbation/sex without a forskin feels so much worse then intact
Sadly few americans do, and even fewer know how the foreskin works or any benefitis it adds to sex, they just think "well, I don't have it, so it must be worthless" instead of seriously considered that there were quite literally short changed
and many reasons to keep it, like sexual pleasure and comfort
*Most of the world
What about him? why put him through that trauma especially when most men left intact will never get circumcised themselves, so knowing if you left him intact there is a 99% chance he will choose to leave himself intact you will go ahead and make the choice you know he wouldn't so that he can never have the human right to decide to be intact? that doesn't make any sense
100's of studies.... come on, there have only been a few, please post links to them (and not links to multiple articles referring to the same study) and then compare how in depth their study was, did they test just 3 points or 18 points? seriously I would like to see a study as detailed as the sorrell's study that proved otherwiseOh wow, so you look at one study on the internet and proclaim that it's right? Well, look at all the 100's of studies and compare and contrast like anyone should do when looking up info on the web. You take one man's word for anything? You won't get far on this debate with that//
And the 'extra' foreskin thing.. technical word play at it's worst. But I will say it's unneeded. The only reason there is extra foreskin is because many 1000's of years ago, when man ran around naked, it shielded the sensitive parts from debri. Now that we wear clothes, it makes no difference.
In fact, It's pretty much common sense that masturbation is only more pleasurable with extra foreskin bc you get more slide. And if you need that, there's a problem with your sex drive, not your penis.
And just bc America is different from the rest of the world doesn't mean that you're better, so that extremely bias statement only proves that your argument is bias. I'm saying that it doesn't matter, and you're trying to diss half the world with an uneducated aim at circumcision.
You know nothing more about other parts of the world than an average American_
Geez, I'm embarrassed to even post this_
I mean damn, how sensitive does a penis have to be?
And besides, circumcision keeps you're penis from looking like a snail
EXACTLY. How many girls go teasing each other because some develop early, or some develop late? Would you give your premature child breast implants, just because it will prevent her from getting teased later on in life if she's gonna be flat chested?
With so few scientists making up the member base of FFF we tend not to debate things like biology (or even psychology) properly, ergo we tend not to post a lot of studies. That said, if individuals such as yourself refer to studies as much as you have, and wish to discredit other studies...well, we would ask that you post your own. If you don't want to go to the effort of linking to studies and analysing the finer points of them, then I'd recommend you stop clutching at them. If you want to weild that weapon then you have to be willing to pull the trigger.
Insufferable ignorance at its worst.
This reminds me of a lesson in my genetics lecture this morning.
I think what everyone else, including myself, is trying to say is that neither's more necessary than the other, so why bother going to the extent of forcing it upon your child? You're not right, I'm not right; I don't want to be snipped, you're clearly okay with it. Bit of personal advice, stop trying to get a rise out of people; it's a debate, you can't dismiss other opinions just because you don't agree with or accept them.