Seduction Spa

To snip or not to snip... that is the question

Circumsice or don't?

  • Yes

    Votes: 54 49.1%
  • No

    Votes: 56 50.9%

  • Total voters
    110

lmlm

New member
Jan 28, 2009
75
0
0
FORESKIN IS LIKE AN EYE LID.

The head of the penis isn't meant to be rubbing against things all day long.

The outside of the foreskin is a continuation of the skin on the shaft of the penis, but the inner foreskin is a mucous membrane like the inside of the eyelid.

The idea of removing it, is horrifying to me.

As a woman, I have no preference.

I would never ever get my child cut.
 

lmlm

New member
Jan 28, 2009
75
0
0
There is NO comparison between female mutilation and a circumcision.

I am "cut" ('snipped' usually refers to vasectomy- that to- lol).

Absolutely preferred by ALL women. Absolutely proven to help with lower rates of disease. Helps reduce premature ejaculation.
There is a comparison to FGM and circumcision in men. There are various types of FGM, sometimes the clitoral hood is removed and the clitoris is left. Read a book. Your statement is incorrect.

Preferred by ALL women? Are you kidding? I'm a woman and I DO NOT PREFER A CIRCUMCISED PENIS.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
do you have any stats showing that most women prefered males to mutilate thier genitals?

if circumcision prevents disease why is the U.S.A that still cut thier males have the highest rates of STDs in the developed world?

Should not the purpose of surgery and any medical treatment be to help preserve parts of the human body as long as possible - or is it to amputate normal and vital body parts of non-consenting individuals?

If male circumcision is such a beneficial procedure as we are led to believe then why do not masses of intact males (nearly 85%) rush to avail themselves of this surgery?

Is it a legitimate practice to amputate normal, healthy and vital body parts on non consenting individuals because it may someday prevent a disease or condition? If so - how many body parts of children should parents be permitted to amputate in order to prevent future problems? How far do we extend this lunacy?

*

If victims of circumcision in Canada and the USA were female, would we be discussing the pros and cons of female circumcision?

*

Would any female in Canada or the USA undergo circumcision for any one of the reasons currently used to promote male circumcision even if it could be proven that there may be potential benefits for it? More than a decade ago a few medical doctors in the USA circumcised females claiming benefits of the procedure. There was a public outcry against this and doctors lost their privileges to practice.

Would any female undergo circumcision of any type if it could be demonstrated that it has health benefits?? If such reasons would be unacceptable to females, then why should similar arguments be made to justify male circumcision?

Many females argue that males should be circumcised because a circumcised penis is more attractive to them. Would females, who believe that only they should decide what is in their best interests, alter their bodies if males stated that the removal of the clitoral hood would make sex more attractive for males? If not, then why the chauvinism and bigotry? Obviously what is good for the gander should be good for the goose!
when will bear answer these questions?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Conservative Treatment of Phimosis:
Alternatives to Radical Circumcision

Conservative Treatment of Phimosis:
Alternatives to Radical Circumcision

This page provides information on conservative treatments of foreskin problems such as phimosis and preputial stenosis. In accordance with standard medical ethics, these treatments avoid unnecessarily radical surgery, and preserve normal physiologic function of the patient's body.

Note: Reports suggest that external irritants and other environmental factors may cause the foreskin to tighten. One such irritant that is suspected are the chemicals contained in bubble bath. Intact boys are urged to avoid the use of bubble bath. When tightness of a previously loose foreskin occurs (acquired phimosis), environmental factors and general state of health should be investigated before circumcision or conservative treatment is considered. For example, circulatory problems may cause edema of the prepuce and result in non-retractable foreskin.

What is "phimosis?"
This section was written by pediatrician Robert Van Howe, MD, FAAP.

"Phimosis" is a vague term. In common usage, it usually means any condition in which the foreskin of the penis cannot be retracted.

Most infants are born with a foreskin that does not retract. This is normal!

"True" phimosis—better termed "preputial stenosis," because "phimosis" has so many different definitions it now is devoid of any useful meaning—occurs in less than 2% of intact males. The incidence of preputial stenosis in circumcised men is actually similar.

Of these 2%, 85–95% will respond to topical steroids. Of those who fail this, at least 75% will respond to stretching under local anesthesia, either manually or with a balloon. The arithmetic is simple: At the very most 7 boys in 10,000 may need surgery for preputial stenosis. No wonder the Canadian Paediatric Society calls circumcision an "obsolete" procedure!

There are several alternatives to radical circumcision which preserve the function of the prepuce and result in less morbidity (pain, bleeding, complications). The best article to check out is the 1994 piece by Cuckow et al. After all, why would you want to lose all of those Meissner corpuscles, the same nerve complexes which provide fine touch to the fingertips?
redline
The ``Phony Phimosis Diagnosis''

The prepuce of boys may be tight until after puberty.1,7,8 This is an entirely normal condition and it is not phimosis. According to the experience in cultures where circumcision is uncommon, this tightness rarely requires treatment. Spontaneous loosening usually occurs with increasing maturity.1,7,8 One may expect 50 percent of ten-year-old boys; 90 percent of 16-year-old boys; and 98-99 percent of 18 year-old males to have full retractable foreskin. Treatment is seldom necessary. If treatment should be necessary, it should not be done until after puberty and the male can weigh the therapeutic options and give informed consent.8

It is important to note that the immature foreskin of a child must not be forced back for "cleaning" or for any other reason, because this will cause damage to the developing tissues. The child should be instructed that his foreskin will eventually retract. The first person to retract the foreskin should be the child himself.

Rickwood and colleagues provide a specific medical definition of phimosis: True phimosis is tight non-retractable foreskin caused by Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO) and is distingished by a whitish ring of hardened sclerotic skin at the tip of the prepuce.2,10 Histologic examination by a pathologist is necessary to confirm the diagnosis.2 If BXO is not present, then true phimosis is not present.2,10

A number of reports in the medical literature of the United Kingdom indicate that medical doctors are not trained to distinguish between normal developmental tight prepuce in boys and pathological phimosis.3,4,5,6,11 This results in cases of misdiagnosis of normal developmental preputial tightness as pathological phimosis in the UK.3,4,5,6,11

CIRP has received numerous reports to indicate that normal preputial narrowness in boys in the United States is frequently being misdiagnosed as pathological phimosis. CIRP believes that the situation in the United States is certainly not better, and probably much worse, than the situation in the United Kingdom. Parents of intact boys are also frequently improperly instructed to force the immature foreskin back for cleaning, contrary to the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

As a consequence of misdiagnosis and confusion of normal developmental narrowessness and non-retractablity with pathological phimosis, many unnecessary circumcisions are performed. Shankar and Rickwood found that the number of circumcisions being performed in the United Kingdom is 8 times greater than the number required.10 The number of unnecessary circumcisions performed in the United States is unknown.

Circumcision is now recommended only in confirmed cases of phimosis caused by balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO), however newer treatments may eliminate the need for circumcision. BXO is recognized by a hardened area of whitish skin near the tip of the foreskin which prevents retraction.2,9,10,11 Shankar and Rickwood found a low incidence of only 0.4 of 1000 boys per year, and only 6 in 1000 by age 15.10 See Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans for more information. Other cases of non-retractile foreskin respond to conservative, non-destructive, non-traumatic, less costly treatment.

http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/
 
Oct 28, 2009
203
3
18
Like your Nick Name, I presume you only allow cut snip men to bang you, I think you also must be enjoying the cut dick while giving BBBJ's and must be having a good taste of men's lollypop head
I am not into the BBBJ thank you very much :). I dont discriminate I just stated that it is PREFERRED.
 

alpha-male

New member
Aug 29, 2009
34
0
0
Canada-man has an obsessive interest in other men's penises - he is on a mission to save foreskins.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Canada-man has an obsessive interest in other men's penises - he is on a mission to save foreskins.

this from a man who registered last year and his only posts are about jusitifying his cut status
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I, for one, will be very interested in reading this paper and in seeing the potential changes in the recommendations of the Canadian Pediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

http://www.parentcentral.ca/parent/...-reignited-over-benefits-of-male-circumcision

there is nothing new in that article it is the same old recycling the same bogus flawd study done on poverty stricken africans who would do anything to earn a living



http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html


this is similar to the constant recycled bogus alcohol benefit studies where they use healthy people who drink and ill people who don't drink due to thier illness



explain why circumcising U.S.A has the highest rates of STDs in the developed world?

why are 72% of aids cases in Malaysia are muslims where the males are circumcised for religious reasons?

http://www.bintulu.org/news/2010/06/10/72-hivaids-sufferers-in-malaysia-are-muslims-aids-council.php
 
Apr 10, 2008
119
0
16
I'm not cut, neither is my son. The sex,sensitivity is over the moon for myself, never ever had issues with a SP or MA while visiting. The teaching method, of proper hygiene is paramount. Myself I always been very clean and see no reason for the snip regardless of the above thread about diseases. It all a lot of BS in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

cliff99

New member
Jun 8, 2010
78
0
0
T-Dot
Funny, my wife is pregnant with our second child (first was a girl) and we've had the discussion in depth. Her background (muslim) means she always was taught that uncut meant dirty and she had real issues when we started dating (as I am uncut) but got over them. However, she still felt like her son should be circumsized for health/hygiene. We had many discussions about it and she finally came around to think it wasn't necessary...until the Toronto Star decided to have a front page story on how the American and Canadian Paedeatric societies are rethinking their position on the procedure. Now its back up for discussion.

As an uncut guy, I have had a few minor issues (you need to make sure the ladies are well lubed or it can be a bit painful if there's a lot of chafing - LOL) but overall am very happy with my junk and have had compliments from a lot of women in the past. I think that the reaction of many of the cut guys on here generally follows "I'm cut and happy with my dick, so my son should be cut too" type of thinking.

I get it, but if you step back and actually look at the laughable 'Medical' reasons given in the past that established circumcision as routine in North America, and the fact that the 80%+ of the world's men who are uncut and don't show higher rates of diseases you have to admit that the overwhelming reason for continuing to circumsize is because guys in our generation were usually cut and just want to perpetuate the procedure because that's what was 'normal' for us. I've got two cut friends who chose not to circumsize their sons and I think that's pretty forward-thinking of them. I think that unless there is a medical issue that requires circumcision, there are no really compelling reasons to do it.
 
Last edited:

blackram

Banned
Jul 31, 2008
706
1
0
Since I remember having a foreskin, I can definitely say that my sensation is a lot less than it was. In fact, I could say that my head has almost no sensation anymore, all of the pleasure now comes only from the shaft or the balls. It's as simple as that.
 

barriejay

Active member
Aug 11, 2009
566
58
28
I don't see any good reason for circumcision, but the nonsense from Rockslinger and Canada-Man is just too over-the-top.

Canada-Man, you clearly have no concept of the nature - or intent - of female genital mutilation. FGM is about control and denial of pleasure. The young girls are mutilated so they cannot and do not enjoy sexual pleasure. It is a horrific procedure that stems from the concept of a girl's sexuality/virginity belonging to her father, who then passes her on in a pure state to the new boss, errr, husband. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to portray the two as comparable.
 

givemebrain

New member
Sep 14, 2007
787
0
0
between a rock and a hard place
Fire helmet or anteater? The eternal question.

I'm circumsized, it was done when I was but a few days old, and according to many of the previous posts, I'm a victim of child-abuse and genital mutilation! I'm very glad to have gone through such "abuse" and "mutilation." I can't remember the pain and now I don't have to be concerned about cleaning under my turtleneck. I'm expecting my second child soon, and I plan to get him cut if it's a boy.

I mean, reducing the risk of female to male HIV infection by 60% for a few seconds of pain seems like a no brainer to me:
"WHO (World Health Organization) and UNAIDS (the United Nation's AIDS/HIV program) released data that circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV infection by approximately 60%. The AAP (American Association of Pediatrics) says that circumcized men are less likely to have penile cancer and urinary tract infections"

As for those comparing male circumcision to female circumcision, you're way off base. I feel very confident in positing that the majority of men circumsized at birth are either happy or indifferent towards it. I wonder if the same percentage of females that had their labia sewn together and their clitorises removed would feel happy or indifferent towards it?
 

givemebrain

New member
Sep 14, 2007
787
0
0
between a rock and a hard place
I get it, but if you step back and actually look at the laughable 'Medical' reasons given in the past that established circumcision as routine in North America, and the fact that the 80%+ of the world's men who are uncut and don't show higher rates of diseases...
Dude, you just dismissed proper, professional, and stringently regulated scientific studies conducted by the WHO, UNAIDS, and APA with a simplistic and arbitrary generalization. You sound very much like an Evangelical Christian dismissing the theory of evolution. Should we expect the Rapture soon? Where did you learn this "fact that the 80%+ of the world's men who are uncut and don't show higher rates of diseases"?
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Dude, you just dismissed proper, professional, and stringently regulated scientific studies conducted by the WHO, UNAIDS, and APA with a simplistic and arbitrary generalization. You sound very much like an Evangelical Christian dismissing the theory of evolution. Should we expect the Rapture soon? Where did you learn this "fact that the 80%+ of the world's men who are uncut and don't show higher rates of diseases"?





http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement08.html

Chapter Eight: The Distribution of Male Genital Integrity

Wallerstein (1985) estimates the overall worldwide incidence of male genital integrity at about 80 percent.1 The incidence of genital integrity varies enormously from nation to nation.1

Non English-Speaking Nations

The incidence of genital integrity is very low in Israel, where most boys are circumcised on the eighth day of life.

The incidence of genital integrity also is very low in Turkey2 and other Muslim nations, where boys are usually circumcised between ages four and twelve.

Europe has had a very high incidence of genital integrity,1 however, the increasing immigration of Muslim minorities is lowering the incidence of genital integrity in Europe. Sweden, like other Scandinavian nations, does not usually practice male circumcision. Even among Jews, the incidence of circumcision is relatively low. Hofvander (2002) reports only about 40 percent of Swedish Jews practice ritual circumcision,3 leaving 60 percent with intact genitals.

Latin America does not practice non-therapeutic genital cutting of boys, so the incidence of genital integrity in Latin America is very high.

Russia and China, except for Muslim areas, do not practice male circumcision, so the incidence of genital integrity is very high.1

In South Asia, Muslims practice circumcision, but Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, and others do not, so those groups have a very high incidence of genital integrity.

The Philippine Islands have a very low incidence of genital integrity because circumcision (called tuli) is a social practice.4

South Korea, because of American influence, also has a very low incidence of genital integrity.5 Kim et al. (1999) report a genital integrity rate of only 16 percent among males aged 16-29.5

English-Speaking Nations

The English-speaking nations, alone in the world, have practiced male neonatal circumcision for putative prophylactic purposes for more than one hundred years.1

The British National Health Service stopped providing non-therapeutic circumcision in 1950, so the incidence of genital integrity has greatly increased in the United Kingdom. The 2000 British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal 2000) placed the incidence of genital integrity among 16 to 19-year-old males at 88.3 percent.6 Men of ethnic minorities (except black Caribbeans) were significantly more likely to be circumcised than those described as "white".6 Jews in Britain had the lowest incidence of genital integrity at 1.3 percent, but Sikhs, Buddists, and Hindus had an incidence of genital integrity of 98.2 percent.6

Canada has practiced circumcision, but the practice is in decline all across the country. Patel (1965) reported the incidence of circumcision at one hospital in one city to be 48 percent in 1961-2, which would produce an incidence of genital integrity of 52 percent.7 This four-decade-old figure has been improperly used by the American Academy of Pediatrics to represent the incidence of circumcision in all Canada.8 In any event, it is inaccurate and outmoded. The Canadian-based Association for Genital Integrity reports that the incidence of genital integrity among boys born in 2003 varied from a high of 100 percent in Newfoundland to a low 70.5 percent on Prince Edward Island.9 It estimates the overall incidence of genital integrity among Canadian boys, born in 2003, to be 86.1 percent in 2003, with a trend toward increased genital integrity.9

Australia has a high incidence of genital integrity among newborn boys because the official policy of the Australian College of Paediatrics, since 1971, has been to discourage circumcision of newborn boys.10 Wallerstein (1985) reported the incidence of genital integrity in Australia at about 51 percent in 1973-4 and about 61 percent in 1979-80.1 In 2000, only about 52 percent of all Australian males were genitally intact because of the previous high incidence of circumcision.11 Darby (2000) reported that the incidence of genital integrity among newborn boys in 1995-6 was 89.4 percent. The incidence of genital integrity among newborn Australian boys has held steady at about 87.2 percent in recent years but varies sharply from state to state, with a low of 82 percent in Queenland and a high of 98 percent in Tasmania.12

New Zealand formerly had a low incidence of genital integrity, but in about 1970, the rate of circumcision started to decline sharply, so the incidence of genital integrity has been increasing. New Zealand has increased the incidence of genital integrity among newborn Caucasian boys to more than 99.5 percent,13,14 The Polynesian Pacific Island (mostly Samoan and Tongan) people have a low incidence of genital integrity, approaching zero percent.14 The indigenous Maori people respect and maintain genital integrity.13,14

The United States has the lowest incidence of genital integrity among English-speaking nations,1 but the trend is toward increased genital integrity. A study carried out in five Pittsburgh hospitals in the early 1960s found that 97 percent of the infants were circumcised, leaving only 3 percent with intact genitals.15 Laumann et al. (1997) reported results from the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), which surveyed males born from 1932 through 1971.16 The NHSLS found that the incidence of circumcision peaked at 85 percent in 1965, which would produce a genital integrity incidence of 15 percent. Of males born in the U.S., 23 percent had intact genitals. Among males born outside the U.S., 67 percent had intact genitals.14 The National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS) reports that, in 2006, the overall incidence of genital integrity in the United States among newborn boys was 44 percent.17 The NHDS also reports the incidence of genital integrity by four census regions. There was substantial regional variation with the incidence of genital integrity ranging from a low of 22 percent in the North Central Region to a high of 66 percent in the Western Region.17 There has been a year-to-year trend toward increased genital integrity among newborn boys in all four U.S. census regions.17

Nearly one hundred percent of boys in Islamic nations are circumcised. The circumcision, however, usually occurs at from five to twelve years of age.18 The United States and Israel are the only two nations that circumcise a majority of boys in the newborn period. The United States is the only nation that circumcises a majority of boys in the newborn period for non-religious reasons.
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Summary of evidence that the foreskin and
lysozyme may protect against HIV infection
By George Hill

This file contains a summary of the evidence that the foreskin and the sub-preputial wetness under the foreskin (prepuce) may protect against human immunodeficiency virus.

Lysozyme is an enzyme with anti-bacterial action that is found in body fluids. (An enzyme is a protein or conjugated protein produced by a living organism and functions as a biochemical catalyst.1) Lysozyme breaks down cell walls and kills bacteria.

Prakash and others reported in 1983 that sub-preputial wetness contains lysozyme2 and Lee-Huang finds lysozyme in human urine.3 Lee-Huang et al. report that lysozyme is also an effective agent for killing HIV in vitro.3

Laumann et al. report that about 77 percent of adult American males are circumcised. 4 Thus, these circumcised males have no sub-preputial wetness and no lysozyme protection. Laumann finds that circumcised men are slightly more likely to have both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime.4

World Health Organization data show that the incidence of HIV infection in the United States is four or more times greater than any other advanced industrial nation.5 Other advanced nations either do not circumcise males or have a very low incidence of circumcision compared to the United States.6

Chao reports that a circumcised husband is a risk factor for HIV infection amongst pregnant women in Rwanda.7 Grosskurth et al. find a higher incidence of HIV infection in circumcised men in Tanzania.8

The high incidence of HIV in the United States and its correlation with the high rate of circumcision has been noted by Storms9 and Nicoll. 10 Furthermore, Tanne reports a general epidemic of STD, including chlamydia and HIV, in the United States.11

Moreover, Fleiss and others report that the increased friction and more vigorous and prolonged thrusting required to achieve orgasm with a circumcised penis may be more likely to cause "breaks, tears, microfissures, abrasions, and lacerations through which HIV in semen can enter the receiving partner's bloodstream."12

More research is needed to verify the protective effect of lysozyme and the foreskin in vivo.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/HIV.htm


Bernama
June 9, 2010
72 Per Cent Of Aids/HIV Sufferers In Malaysia Are Muslims - AIDS Council

KUALA TERENGGANU, June 9 (Bernama) -- More than 70 per cent of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims, Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan said on Wednesday.

[ 60.4% of the population of Malaysia is Muslim, the remainder Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and Chinese religions. Virtually all Muslim men are circumcised, virtually none of the others are.]


Therefore, he said, the celebration for this year's World AIDS Day would emphasise efforts to enhance the participation of and awareness on AIDS among Muslims.

He said what was more worrying a report by the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS)on AIDS which stated that nine Malaysians were infected with the disease everyday.

Also of concern was the spread of the disease among women, from 9.5 per cent in 2000 to 20 per cent last year, he said when speaking at a function to commemorate World AIDS Day here Tuesday night.

He said that in 2000 the main cause of women being infected with HIV/AIDS was drug addiction, but lately, it had been attributed to heterosexual sex (30 per cent).

This happened because of lack of concern and cooperation from the society to protect women from the disease, he added.

http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news37.html#malaysia-hiv
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,545
2,887
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
I don't see any good reason for circumcision, but the nonsense from Rockslinger and Canada-Man is just too over-the-top.

Canada-Man, you clearly have no concept of the nature - or intent - of female genital mutilation. FGM is about control and denial of pleasure. The young girls are mutilated so they cannot and do not enjoy sexual pleasure. It is a horrific procedure that stems from the concept of a girl's sexuality/virginity belonging to her father, who then passes her on in a pure state to the new boss, errr, husband. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to portray the two as comparable.

barrie you are a hypocrite if you support cutting of one gender and not the other both are done for the SAME reasons and FYI both male and female genityals are from the same embryonic tissue during fetal development so who is the one that is ignorant about "nature"? and places that mutilate female gentials ALSO mutilate male genitals




Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa.

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

Moses Maimonides

Moses Maimonides, the famed medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher, recoginized the real reason circumcision is performed and wrote about it in his book, THE GUIDE TO THE PERPLEXED, translated by Shlomo Pines. (University of Chicago, 1963)
Part III, Chapter 49, Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
Page 611:

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals, which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments, I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply? Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision. What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.


http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm

Common Denominators between
Male & Female "Circumcision"

FGC MGC
Cutting? YES YES
Of the genitals? YES YES
Of babies? YES YES
Of children? YES YES
Without consent? YES YES
At parents' behest? YES YES
Removing erogenous tissue? YES YES
Supposedly beneficial? YES YES
Justified by aesthetics? YES YES
Justified by supposed health benefits? YES YES
Justified by religion? YES YES
Justified by sexual effects? YES YES
Justified by custom? YES YES
Justified by conformity? YES YES
Effects minimised by its supporters? YES YES
Performed by its adult victims? YES YES
Extremely painful? YES YES
Can cause harm? YES YES
Very severe damage? USUALLY SOMETIMES
Can cause death? YES YES
Legal in Western countries? NO YES
 
Last edited:
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts