Another Study: Women Prefer Circumcision

I believe that most everyone here knows my opinions and understand my viewpoint, and while they do not necessarily agree, they do not keep me up all night, forcing me to defend myself and my beliefs out of some weird sense of one-upmanship. I have sworn to answer your every argument because I believe that FR is beneficial and that ending circumcision is a noble cause that needs to be promoted. I do not think my motives will be called into question.

Man alive, go to bed buddy. It's just an internet forum! It will be here in the morning. It's my prerogative to post if I want to, so don't go running around accusing me of sleep depriving you tomorrow. As adults, we're responsible for own actions. And if I'm the one so intent on having a last word, why do you feel compelled to stay up? I plan on posting more in the future on the matter, so these threads aren't a last word by any means. If you're tired go to bed. Don't complain.

I hope that you will tire of this masochistic game. This has become an overlong episode of your high-handed opinions versus my crusade. I would like to bring this to an end, but I cannot let one man down. That is how strongly I believe in this. I won't break. Have your fun.

Uh, crusade . . . holy shit man. Okay crusader, I don't want there to be a big uproar over me taking advantage of your crusading principles and sleep depriving poor Kong, so this will be the last post tonight.

I intend to post more in the future and am interested in publicizing these threads a bit so that more men can offer input. Kooky seemed to get what I am talking about, but you miss the point over and over again. Hopefully a break in posting will put a stop to the personal stuff, which really is useless and uncalled for here.

P.S. - Go nuts with the posting if you like, I could care less. The threads ain't goin' anywhere brother . . . : )

Nope. Just going to bed. This crusader is pooped! KOT!

Actually, I get both of your points. I have read enough and SEEN the pics Kong has posted and I am totally disgusted by some of the hack jobs that were done to some of those babies. Having a child of my own, there is no way I could imagine someone doing something like that to my child. But I do not think that any sexual problems I have had are directly linked to my circ. I have had ED problems, I have also had insecurity problems with my size. I fixed the first by having a very open discussion with my wife and my doctor. I fixed the later by being a paid subscriber here and actually taking DLD (and lots of others') time and result proven advice. In fact, I feel more confident and sexy about my "new" cock than I ever have before and I'm 35 for god's sake! I was so proud of it last I measure that I even took pics of it and sent them to my wife in Iraq!

I think the biggest compliment I can give to Kong concerning circ. in generel is the fact that he has opened a lot of peoples' eyes about what really goes on. When my first wife and I were expecting a child, we had decided that if it was a boy that he would be cut because I am. That was it. If my current wife and I ever decide to have kids, I will show her all I have learned here from Kong to try and change her mind if she wants the baby to be cut.

I have also learned from Swank that just because a person is cut it doesn't automatically mean that all of that person's sexual problems will be helped by FR. While I agree that there are certainly men who would benefeit from it. There are probably just as many men who will never have any type of sexual dysfunction their entire life.

BTW guys, with my wife being gone and me not having my kid this weekend, their is nothing more than I love to do than sit up all night having very interesting and thought-provoking discussions regardless of the topic. One of the big things I miss about my wife. Anyone want to debate why I am agnostic next or why I have voted republican my whole life but voted for Kerry this time???

the kook

There were some politics discussions sloshing around in deep thoughts a while ago, they died down pretty fast though . . . I'm 100% with you on agnosticism. If you're bored enough, I've bickered with people about religion, politics, and FR at length on the forum. Some of them are rather funny. Personally I'd like to hear your views on some of the past debates Kong and I have had about circumcision and FR. I actually started out of the opinion that FR had medical benefits and that uncut men were more apt to suffer health problems from it. Researching around as a result of these discussions has changed my mind on that matter to be sure.

Funny you should mention that Swank. Between post I have been reading a lot of the past discussions. I sum up my opinion of those in the above post. And to add to that, and this is just my opinion and please don't take this wrong Kong, because I know you will read this, but as I said earlier I think Kong need to take it down a notch or 3 and not let his passion get the better of him. There is nothing wrong with being committed to something, it is entirely another thing when you resort to name calling. We are all grown men here and because someone has an opposing view is no reason to call them names. I also think that you Swank, have egged him on by nitpicking some of his post. Now, there is nothing wrong with that and some of the points you brought up during this were really valid.

I think the biggest thing we all need to think about is what impression are we leaving the new folks who cruise by here every so often?

kooky

Are you still here Swank? If so then go to the chat room in the upper left hand corner.

Once again, a very solid analysis. You are correct, I played the game and did make inflamatory comments at times, there's no doubt about it.

People, and especially younger and less informed people, who check out this sight are clearly one of my main interests in all this.

I'm thinking that perhaps a poll, or a more publicly visable thread on the matter is a good tie up for all this. With more people looking on, the temptation to devolve into schoolyard bickering for King and myself will be restricted by others, and a larger amount of opinions can be expressed.

You seem to understand this without trouble, but it is basically just my intention to have the full spectrum of information available to people interested in this. Before the debate threads in this forum, I think somebody just perusing would be very inclined to believe some things that aren't grounded in reality, and perhaps they still are if I haven't made any solid points (I felt past threads were far more topical and focused than this mess).

Similarly, I think if they were to ask about them, they wouldn't be directed towards impartial information or told it's possible FR won't help, or that circumcision isn't necessarily causing their troubles. And of course, as I am most chagrined by, I even think they might falsely start to believe that circumcision is causing their troubles, and hence FR is their only option.

It's not a world altering standpoint, nor do I consider it my duty to protect anybody from poor information, it's just a pet peeve of mine to see things like that. In the past I felt like the debate cleared a lot up, but after a short while things are always back to normal, so I guess there is no real solution unless I want to dedicate myself to this full time, which ain't gonna happen!

I have to say though, I am a little disappointed at how low the debate devolved, of which I certainly was a prime contributor. I felt there was a personal element from the beginning when I foolishly used my own experiences with a circumcised unit as a point of proof for my views and was immediately called into question. At that point I had no intention of really getting into things this elaborately. Irregardless, the personal elements and character bickering don't belong here. Only the facts should matter, but when, if ever, to consider personal accounts as good evidence is an interesting question. The logical conclusion is that people ought to see them for what they are - what one particular man's experience is. Unfortunately I don't think it always happens like that.

I like to hear both sides of an argument so thanks to both swank and kong for all the information.

Much obliged bluenun, thanks for the input.

Kong u must have really skimmed through that article... beacuse u are completely wrong with the 15% of women that had BOTH uncirc and circ, 100% wanted uncut....

heres an important part you are missing

However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).

that means that 75% exclusively wanted circumsized... and basically 100% were not soley exclusive but clearly indicated on the test results that they liked Cut better.

okay, first of all, swank's contention that he only wants to show both sides of this issue is pretty much moot...basically because of the sticky I wrote at the top of this forum in which I relate my official stance on the benefits of FR and how I also admit that those benefits are more pronounced depending on the damage caused by the circ.

The problem with swank and I, and always has been, is that he continues to portray me as a zealot and has always misrepresented my official view of the benefits of FR.
When I try to explain how I have always presented FR (as a possible aid for men who had damaging circs) he says EVERY TIME "Oh, well, why didn't you say so. I wouldn't have nitpicked you for 12 hours if you had said that."

Which moves his motives for harassing me into the category of personal pissing contest.

Second, I admittedly skimmed the survey and did not catch that little stat. Sorry. Regardless, swank's survey is still kind of shady, considering that most of the women had not experienced sex with both cut and uncut men, the main gist of the questions concerned "ideal" penis (which might cause women to go with the socially acceptable response) and finally because its target demographic were woman who had just given birth and chose to circ because of social norms. I am sure they are going to chose uncut on the forms after having their boys "snipped".

Finally, all swank's fancy-talk aside, I believe that my common sense approach is far more convincing. You can't cut a part of the body without damaging it. That's only logical.

Kong, a good part of our extended arguments was in fact me defending my own statements from your questioning, which I do so gladly. I welcome discussion from either perspective. It takes two to tango, and I wasn't a one man argument machine, you contributed as well. This constant self-pity and victimhood identity that you express is only distracting from talking about circumcsion and FR, which is what I am determined to get back to.

An attack on your methedology, reasoning, evidence, ect., is not a personal attack on you. There are academics that spend years doggedly trying to unseat each other's beliefs in critical papers and lecture, and yet they remain the best of friends or least cordial associates outside of the debate. Take it a cue from that. We can talk debate these topics without things being a pissing contest. If two grown men can't defend and contrast their views on an internet forum without somebody's feelings being hurt or confidence underminded, then I just suggest you rethink your personal stake in the internet.

Just a note - I think I attributed authorship to The Art of War to Lao Tsu, when in fact I think his name is Sun Tzu. I'm not sure who Las Tsu is, though I have a grating suspicion it's the name of a video game character. Keep that in mind before anybody decides I'm a snob . . .

First time reading this, I like the way you present your side of the argument swank, yet the basic ideaology is there; When you cut off a part of the body you are going to be at a disadvantage to someone who has had nothing cut off. Remove a finger, leg, foot, foreskin etc it's all the same. A function is lost as is thousands of un replaceable nerves. No amount of Medical studies will dispute this.

Finally, all swank's fancy-talk aside, I believe that my common sense approach is far more convincing. You can't cut a part of the body without damaging it. That's only logical.

Click to expand...

Wisdom teeth, head hair, nails, facial/body hair, breast reduction, laser eye surgery, sunburnt skin that peels, appendix....

Plenty of things that are removed from the body.. for various reasons, which leave the person just fine...

the ONLY REASON why women might prefer circumcision in America is because it is more common in the USA. It is and was the thing to do, yeah like I'm going to get part of my sons natural dick cut off, yo fuck that. your born with foreskin for a reason, so let your sons KEEP it!

sephin said:

Wisdom teeth, head hair, nails, facial/body hair, breast reduction, laser eye surgery, sunburnt skin that peels, appendix....

Plenty of things that are removed from the body.. for various reasons, which leave the person just fine...

Click to expand...

I think circumcision is more comparable to removing eyelids or lips. I can't see it comparable to dried skin flakes falling off. That's not a very convincing argument.

kong1971 said:

I think circumcision is more comparable to removing eyelids or lips. I can't see it comparable to dried skin flakes falling off. That's not a very convincing argument.

Click to expand...

More comparable IMO is ear lobes. WTF WHY???