Because of the pro-circ hype that has been spread for 140 years since the days of Harvey Kellogg and the other sadistic bastards that masqueraded as doctors. First it was to stop masturbation, then it was for hygiene, then it was VD, then it was cancer, then it was STDs, just one load of B.S. after another. None of these things are controlled by circumcision.
The main reason it is so wide spread in the U.S. is because of the money it makes for the medical industry. Doctors and hospitals like to make lots of money, so they spread stories and make up studies to prove "the benefits".
To the posters that claim that circumcision is not mutilation: IT LEAVES A SCAR DOESN'T IT! Just because you might have a distaste for the natural intact penis your opinion is not justification for mutilation. At least one of you has a fetish for cutting men's penises, you have stated in several of your other answers, "I love that brown scar", scars are the result of mutilation, anyone that loves scars is a sick *****. GET HELP, maybe with enough meds you will get over the fact that you are someone that no male would bed on a bet!
Now the religious reason for mutilation: An 80 year old man, wandering around in the desert sun, heard G*d (imagine that).
2006-12-27 02:07:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by cut50yearsago 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Mutilation - 1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part. 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
if you don't believe that circumcision is mutilation, then you don't know what circumcision is
It is wrong to cut anyone's body part off without their permission and a boy's penis is no exception. It is not cleaner unless your an unhygenic person and don't clean it. The medical problems are rare and if do happen can be dealth with without amputation. So many years of the Ameri's doing this to babies leave them with the lacking of knowledge to care for intact penis's. It will not prevent std's or aids, safe sex practices are what's needed for that. It is errogoneous skin and if you were done as a baby you dont know what your missing and men who were cut as an adult are usualy done for medical reason (more then likely it could have been dealth with other then cutting), and of course they would think it would feel better, i know a lady who had her leg removed in the summer and she feels alot better, it is more noticaable that this is not something we should do to everyone. What about the adult men who have had circumcsion's and say it's one of the biggest mistakes they've ever made. when it's done to babies the head is still connected to the head until 5-teen therofe it is impossible for the head to heal correctly, it must be ripped apart, the head bleeds, nerves are removed and ones left on are damage, of course if it was done as a baby u wouldn't know the difference, that doesn't make it right. There is so many grown men who were done as babies aaginat their will and wish it wasn't done. They say it prevents one of the rarest forms of cancer but in the US cancer rates are on the rise while in countires that don't practise Circ. it is falling. All we need to do is stop the barbaric practise and teach ourselves to care for penis's liek we have vaginas
2006-12-26 09:29:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mat 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Circumcision is not natural by definition. It involves a change in the penis. Some of us have found that it makes for simpler hygiene; total penile sexual feelings; shaft nerves revitalized; and the glans, sensitive but providing easier holding power to help the woman companion to orgasm. It is a cultural/religious practice in accordance with God's covenant and/or with family and national traditions. It does help prevent STDs and especially HIV when the woman is infected and the male is not.
I happen to prefer circumcision. I am glad that my parents had it done for me at birth. All the males in our family are circumcised. It is a family tradition that we all say we like. In no way do we feel that we have been mutilated. It is also clear that one washing a day in the shower is all that is needed.
Others feel otherwise. I respect that and urge that they carry on with good washing of the glans two or three times a day to preserve the health of their penis and to assure that the natural person is hygienic for the sake of other sexual companions.
2006-12-28 05:12:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by teiddarhpsyth 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Being a woman who has never been with an uncircumcised man, i really don't know what the difference is feeling wise, but obviously there is nothing natural about cutting skin off of your penis! Maybe it is all about taking time for proper care of the penis.Show it the attention it deserves!
2006-12-27 00:21:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Circumcision started being used in western countries during the 19th century as a "treatment" for masturbation. Several cereal manufacturing empires such as Kellogg and Sanitarium were founded by strange people who believed better nutrition and mental "hygiene" were a cure for masturbation. Some of them recommended circumcision without anesthetic as a cure for masturbation, even though it just made it more difficult without taking away the urge. As time went on circumcision was embedded in US, Australian, Canadian and some other cultures, with hygiene listed as its main justification. 100 years of pro-circumcision propaganda has left its mark and Americans seem to think of a normal penis as circumcised, indeed even medical textbooks usually fail to show the foreskin. Now no medical authority in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, as the risks are at least as great as the much-disputed possible benefits. The US is the only western country still circumcising the majority of its baby boys and there is still a lot of prejudice against intact penises there. Personally I feel mutilated by my own circumcision. Depriving me of 15 square inches (about 40 square centimeters) of adult erogenous skin area, with its special gliding properties used in masturbation and sex, was, I believe, a violation of my human rights and definitely not natural.
Geoff
PS When an infant penis forms the foreskin is fused to the glans like a finger to a fingernail. There is no cavity and nowhere for germs or dirt to collect until after the foreskin naturally separates, usually between the ages of 2 and 7 years old.
2006-12-25 23:24:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by GeoffB 6
·
5⤊
4⤋
I know of no one who considers it "natural". It's considered a common medical procedure that can be beneficial....including ease of cleanliness.
And the cleanliness factor is more applied to newborn males. Yes you,as an adult, can spend all day making sure your stuff is clean as a whistle, but a newborn soils himself daily and requires a bit more vigilance in keeping clean. A circumcised penis makes this easier.
I don't understand why you are so upset about all of this? You're uncut and things are going good for you? Then whats the problem?
I completely agree someone (myself incuded) questioning if it's nessisary or not, but you seem to be taking one step further and seemed PISSED about it all.
Did someone make fun of you and your little turtleneck?
2006-12-25 23:25:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
Well mate if you are happy with your foreskin - then just stay the way you are. I am sure no one will force you to get it removed. so why the big deal??????????
Why are you calling it mutilation coz it is nothing like female circumcision. Are you really circumcized & have a hang up about it?????
Be happy with what you've got mate. I wish people stop preaching to other people & parents on what they should or shouldn't do ie: circumcision.
I am proudly circumcized & bloody glad I was - at age 28 - so mate I've spent more of my like with a foreskin than not so I know what I am talking about.
I reluctantly got circumcized at age 28 due to medical reasons & my girlfriend at the time was also very reluctant I get circumcized as all her family had foreskins as did my family. So before I was circumcized I might've well agreed with you.
but the benefits are
No smegma
no smells - I used to get a smell only 1/2 an hour after washing underneath my foreskin with soaps, shampoos etc etc.
I used to not enjoy my headjobs/handjobs coz my head was VERY sensitive due to moisture & the foreskin over the head now it's not as sensitive I love having both done to me.
I can now pee straight.
My then girlfriend thought it felt bigger as did I mainly coz there was less skin movement making it feel bigger.
My girlfriend enjoyed giving me head & hand jobs way more.
My orgasms are more intense AFTER being circumcized.
No foreskin in the zipper of my jeans - ouch!!!!
My then girlfriend admitted it "looks better" & "feels better"
do I feel mutilated - the answer is NO
To all of you who are circed and feel mutilated - GET A LIFE
IF YOU HAVE A FORESKIN & ARE HAPPY WITH IT THEN DON'T PREACH TO OTHERS ANTI- CIRC IDEAS & ENJOY YOUR FORESKIN!!!!
& IF YOU HAVE A FORESKIN & WANT IT OFF THEN I HIGHLY RECOMMEND DOING IT!!!!!
OH YEAH THE PAIN AIN'T THAT BAD!!!!!
JUST ENJOY YOUR DICK WITH OR WITHOUT SKIN - LIFES TOO SHORT....
2006-12-25 23:35:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by Chris L 2
·
5⤊
6⤋
circumcision is natural in that it didnot start just 2day.It started during the time of Abraham.God told Abraham 2 circumcise any male child which is about two weeks,it was one of the convenant that God had with Abraham.As for girls,im not in support of that,it causes a lot of pains durind the circumcision and even during birth.Any circumcised male child is able to enjoy sexual intercourse more than an uncircumcised male.
Im a Nigerian,one of the largest country in Africa.There was this region that practice female circumcision,they hardly get married cos during intercourse they experience a whole lot of pains.As a result the report got to the federal ministry of health.They came down to that region and abolished that practice.
2006-12-25 22:51:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by caring_loveronstage 1
·
3⤊
6⤋
There are many studies which show that circumcised men have less chance of contracting sexually transmitted diseases than that of uncircumcised.
Also, the amount of bacteria which collects in ur penis hood during washes is greater than that of circumcised, so generally circumcised penises are much cleaner and stay fresher for longer after washing!!!!!
2006-12-25 23:07:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by CoolBoy 2
·
3⤊
5⤋
Circumcision is NOT mutilation.
What you mean by natural is ambiguous. What is definitely true is the fact that a circumcised penis is naturally clean.
Your post is biased and misleading. You are not asking anything. Your true goal with this post is the manipulation of the public. This is a sick and barbaric exercise of manipulation.
2006-12-26 05:12:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Scuba 3
·
4⤊
5⤋