NationStates Jolt Archive

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

It's wrong and solves nothing. It creates problems… namely less "sensation", apparently.

you really should have made this a poll.now that you mention it,are a lot of guys here circumscised?i didn think it was that common an occurence with non-jews.i'm not,and i don't see the point(unless you're jewish then there's a whole traditon thing goin on)surely the whole point of a foreskin is to protect the penis?

I'm from a pagan country and therefore I'm not circumcised. I'm not an expert about medical statistics and infections and whatnot but I hear circumcised men last longer during sex.

Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

Not if they live in the developed world. Just a barbaric religious practice in my opinion.

The poll is up.

This is going to sound stupid but… what exactly does circumcision remove? Which part is the foreskin? I haven't knowingly seen a circumcised penis, so I can't… erm… compare. :eek: I don't think I'm circumcised.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised

Actually, no, not globally. In the US, probably.

Actually, no, not globally. In the US, probably.

Is that a fact? I'm wondering how you can be so certain. :p

I think chopping someone's hat off is sick

on another point:
circumcised people last longer because they don't have as much feeling

This is going to sound stupid but… what exactly does circumcision remove? Which part is the foreskin? I haven't knowingly seen a circumcised penis, so I can't… erm… compare. :eek: I don't think I'm circumcised.

all of the foreskin,back to where it connects to the penis i think.can't help you with finding out if you are or not,posting pictures showing the difference would get me mod-he-bitch-man-slapped

This is going to sound stupid but… what exactly does circumcision remove? Which part is the foreskin? I haven't knowingly seen a circumcised penis, so I can't… erm… compare. :eek: I don't think I'm circumcised.

The foreskin is the retractable double-layered fold of skin that covers the bulbous end of the penis, the "glans". For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

Circumcision removes the foreskin and leaves the glans bare.

all of the foreskin,back to where it connects to the penis i think.can't help you with finding out if you are or not,posting pictures showing the difference would get me mod-he-bitch-man-slapped I'm pretty damn sure I'm not, then. Ouch… sounds painful… surely it'd be really sensitive all the time?

*goes into a paroxysm of wincing and instinctively crosses legs*

Is that a fact? I'm wondering how you can be so certain. :p

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/

Non-English speaking nations usually do not practice non-religious non-therapeutic circumcision of children so the rates for those nations approach zero.

Having lived in several non-English speaking countries, I can anecdotally attest to this - circumcision outside of a religious setting is a relatively rare occurrence.

I had to argue with the doctor on each of my boys.
The first one they almost did it without my permission. I noticed the note to have it done, I threatened a law suit if they did it.

It is VERY common in the US.

I figure I wouldn't want what some countries do to women, why would my sons want that done to them?
I also figured if they felt "out of place" in the locker rooms & such as they grew up, they could make the decision.
Both are extremely grateful I made the decision I did.

The oldest got 1 yeast infection that was very easy to clear up. He was 2, he's now 17.
As long as safe sex is used, then the rate of STD's will be as low as other men who use safe sex.

Starry

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/

Non-English speaking nations usually do not practice non-religious non-therapeutic circumcision of children so the rates for those nations approach zero.

Lucky them. I would have preferred deciding myself, but unfortunately circumcision was chosen for me shortly after birth.

I'm pretty damn sure I'm not, then. Ouch… sounds painful… surely it'd be really sensitive all the time?

*goes into a paroxysm of wincing and instinctively crosses legs*

Oh, it's not nearly that bad... I don't even remember it; I was a baby. And no sensitivity, or any other kind of, problems to speak of.

And just to clear things up... if you're uncircumcised, it's straight, like a tube. If you're circumcised, it looks like it has a little cap/mushroom head on top.

Uncircumcised, and personally I can't see the point in circumcision. I mean, if you've got relatively OK hygeine levels you shouldn't run into any problems.

Hello no! Nobody gets close to my penis with a knife, scalpel, piece of glass, or something that cuts!!! Uh-uh. No - fucking - way!

(And it is very uncommon to be circumcised in Germany - I actually only know of one friend who had to have it done after a freak accident with his girlfriend... :eek: )

Yup, I'm circumcised, and it doesn't bother me one bit. I honestly don't think there is one way or another that is more right, and I've never had a problem with being "too sensative" or "not sensative" enough in that regard.

This is going to sound stupid but… what exactly does circumcision remove? Which part is the foreskin? I haven't knowingly seen a circumcised penis, so I can't… erm… compare. :eek: I don't think I'm circumcised.

Next time you go to gymn, take a good look around the locker room but don't be to obvious about it or people might think you are something you may not be. :D

I am and I'd say it's not that bad. Sex still feels axtreamly good and I last longer. Plus I've been told it's supposed to feel better for a woman if the man is circumcised.

Actually its not tradition, its God's Law. Just so you all know. For Jews (like me, yea!) it would probably get you sent to hell if your not circumcised.


Also you should change the poll also aking the women if they have a preferance.

I don't understand why your god would create mankind with foreskins and then demand them to remove it. If he's loving, and cares about his followers, why would he force them to go through a painful and unnecessary procedure as babies? What is so evil and wrong about the foreskin? It protects the penis..

P.S. The poll is about male circumcision, not mutilation of the labia. The poll is to find out the proportion of guys who had the operation done.

I am and I'd say it's not that bad. Sex still feels axtreamly good and I last longer. Plus I've been told it's supposed to feel better for a woman if the man is circumcised.

What garbage! When your cock is erect there is minimal difference if it all to the effect it would have in a woman's vagina, as the skin rolls back completely when erect.

I believe it's achoice that should be left to the individual, the argument for STI's is solid byt the difference is minimal.

The argument effectively is similar to saying well your appendix serves no purpose once your out of the womb so let's open up children's stomachs.

The potential for severely damaging nerve endings and infection should be enough to steer everyone away from this practice but meh, it's no different to any other form of self- mutilation provided it is actually your choice for the mutilation to occur.

I decided to get circumsized when I was 21. I wanted a penis that was as sleek and modern as the man who owned it.

I am and I'd say it's not that bad. Sex still feels axtreamly good and I last longer. Plus I've been told it's supposed to feel better for a woman if the man is circumcised.

Well - I have had both, and I'd say as long as it's someone you really like, and you are mature enough to have a clue what you're doing (lol not 18) then there really is no difference. Sorry guys, but really...lol...

I have talked with both kinds and from what I understand not being umm :rolleyes: is more sensitive, but then that is objective - how can you know how the other feels? I know both enjoy what they do with it.

As for god's law - there were a lot of things that were "laws" that made sense at the time due to hygenic reasons (pork & trichonosis, shell fish & toxins, when you can :fluffle: based on the woman's cycle) - and I"m sure that having sand rubbing up in there wouldn't be pleasant, nor hygenic if you didn't have regular baths.

Anyhow -- not a guy expert nor a guy -- lol
Starry

It's wrong and solves nothing. It creates problems… namely less "sensation", apparently.


Im circumcised.

Does this mean I'm missing out on something that a uncircumcised guy would be experiencing in a relationship?

I'm circumcised. Not only was I offered no choice in the matter (I was 2 days old), but I don't believe my parents were offered a choice either. It was just standard practice in those days. ("Those days" being 1966.)

A co-worker's son was also circumcised without parental consent about eight years ago (the parents were never asked, so the hospital can claim they never objected. :rolleyes: ) For his second son, the father made a point of telling the doctors he did not want his son circumcised.

When my son was born (almost 7 months ago), my wife and I decided against circumcision. We had to say we didn't want him circumcised seven different times before they stopped asking. (Several times the question was, "You want him circumcised, right?" :headbang: )

I was told recently that 95% of the boys born in this country are still circumcised. I think that may be a bit high, but it's probably not far below that.

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=English Humour]Actually its not tradition, its God's Law. Just so you all know. For Jews (like me, yea!) it would probably get you sent to hell if your not circumcised.


I really don't believe insanity has a place in this debate, choosing which bits of Mosaic Law from the bible you are going to follow is bizzare and unnecessary.

No righteous and just personality of godhead would send some to hell for not removing a piece of skin, surely.

P.S. Ever worn fibers from two different 'fields'

Some people have made the accusation that the large amount of Jewish doctors in the US has resulted in circumcision being semi-mandatory here.

I have a circumcision, I however prefer theterm 'German Soldier' over mushroomhead, thank you very much.

Some people have made the accusation that the large amount of Jewish doctors in the US has resulted in circumcision being semi-mandatory here.

That would be a terrible thing, imposing their customs on those who don't share their beliefs. I wonder if it's true to some degree.

Actually its not tradition, its God's Law. Just so you all know. For Jews (like me, yea!) it would probably get you sent to hell if your not circumcised.


I really don't believe insanity has a place in this debate, choosing which bits of Mosaic Law from the bible you are going to follow is bizzare and unnecessary.

No righteous and just personality of godhead would send some to hell for not removing a piece of skin, surely.

So are you dimissing the whole Jewish religion? (Just Kidding, that would be stupid of me to say)

If you read the Bible God makes it pretty clear that he wants his chosen people to be circumcised. Dont ask me why, but most likly as a test of his people, to see if they are crazy enough to cut up their penises.

Also when the Israelites take over towns and crap in the Old Testament, they cut off the guy's foreskins also.

Check out http://www.thebricktestament.com for a fun way to read the Bible, that uses real quotes from the Bible too!

oh, and for the record,
When Iwas seventeen I pierced my own penis with a safety pin-just to see if I could do it--the pain was...exquisite, no other description can be applied.

That would be a terrible thing, imposing their customs on those who don't share their beliefs. I wonder if it's true to some degree.
There is no denying that there are a relatively large amount of Jewish doctors when the total population of US Jews and the professed religion of all US doctors of is taken into account. I’m not anti-Semitic or anything, but I doubt it is a coincidence that we are the only Western nation (besides Israel, I guess) where circumcision is way more common than not.

What garbage! When your cock is erect there is minimal difference if it all to the effect it would have in a woman's vagina, as the skin rolls back completely when erect.

In some men, yes. In others, no. There is considerable variety in the amount of skin and how much it covers.

Although, I support your assertion that there is very little, if any, difference for anyone being penetrated.

Ugh, gross. What a low and barbaric thing to do.

My dad told me he had to threaten several doctors so they wouldn't cut me. As common as that shit is in this country, I don't doubt that for a second.

Yeah, there are a lot of Jewish doctors in this country... That probably is one of the reasons the practice is so common. Not being anti-Semitic, but, it's probably one of the reasons.

I'm from a pagan country and therefore I'm not circumcised. I'm not an expert about medical statistics and infections and whatnot but I hear circumcised men last longer during sex.

I don't think there's ever been a survey on that. I used to hear the same old wives' tale and started trying to figure out all sorts of ways to compensate before I ever even had sex. Once I got to try them out I was leaving my girlfriends exhausted. Not at the same time or anything, in succession, just... well, the effort was probably unnecessary.

oh, and for the record,
When Iwas seventeen I pierced my own penis with a safety pin-just to see if I could do it--the pain was...exquisite, no other description can be applied.

The pain was.. exquisite? As in, intensely delightful? :eek:

Barbaric Jewish custom forced on Gentile Americans without any choice. At least they don't force everyone to go through the full Jewish "mohel" circumcision, involving a rabbi's mouth (!) over that area...causing quite a uproar between the city health department and the Jewish community after two infant Jews died of herpes contracted through the Orthodox Jewish ritual in New York.
Info on the Orthodox Jewish Mohel Circumcision: Warning-Graphic (http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm)

Barbaric Jewish custom forced on Gentile Americans without any choice...

What can't people find a way to blame on the eeeevil Jews! :rolleyes:

Barbaric Jewish custom forced on Gentile Americans without any choice. At least they don't force everyone to go through the full Jewish "mohel" circumcision, involving a rabbi's mouth (!) over that area...causing quite a uproar between the city health department and the Jewish community after two infant Jews died of herpes contracted through the Orthodox Jewish ritual in New York.
Info on the Orthodox Jewish Mohel Circumcision: Warning-Graphic (http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/mohel.htm)

i can assure you that the Jewish ceremonial circumcision, called a "bris," does not includ anything involing the mohel's mouth. I have been to many, including my own, and I have never seen this occur. Although sucking on wounds was a common practice in ancient times, and I wouldn't be surprised if it might've used in this situation. As you can see from the "translations" of our holy books on your website, this would be to ensure the child isn't injured. Also, it says that in recendt times a tube is used to prevent the spread of disease.

And the idea that Jews force it upon others is ludicrous. Jews tend to be hesitant to allow others to convert, much less force a controversial operation on an infant.

What can't people find a way to blame on the eeeevil Jews! :rolleyes:

This is the second anti-Semite troll I've seen on here tonight...most troubling development, especially when so many kids are going back to school.

This is the second anti-Semite troll I've seen on here tonight...most troubling development, especially when so many kids are going back to school.

Erm, Fass was being sarcastic. Note the :rolleyes:. It seemed kind of obvious to me.

Erm, Fass was being sarcastic. Note the :rolleyes:. It seemed kind of obvious to me.

Sorry, you misinterpreted what I meant. :)

I was mentioning to Fass that the previous poster was the second anti-Semite troll I've seen tonight; I know, beyond any doubt, that he isn't an anti-Semite (or anything else).

Sorry, you misinterpreted what I meant. :)

I was mentioning to Fass that the previous poster was the second anti-Semite troll I've seen tonight; I know, beyond any doubt, that he isn't an anti-Semite (or anything else).

Glad for the clarification. I suspected it after I posted my response but figured I'd just wait on yours instead. :)

Glad for the clarification. I suspected it after I posted my response but figured I'd just wait on yours instead. :)

Yes, I should have been a little more clear.

i can assure you that the Jewish ceremonial circumcision, called a "bris," does not includ anything involing the mohel's mouth. I have been to many, including my own, and I have never seen this occur. Although sucking on wounds was a common practice in ancient times, and I wouldn't be surprised if it might've used in this situation. As you can see from the "translations" of our holy books on your website, this would be to ensure the child isn't injured. Also, it says that in recendt times a tube is used to prevent the spread of disease.

And the idea that Jews force it upon others is ludicrous. Jews tend to be hesitant to allow others to convert, much less force a controversial operation on an infant.

This circumcision by mouth is still going on today, and as I said, has become a tense issue in New York over some recent health issues surrounding the rite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?ex=1125720000&en=7f688eb83442b177&ei=5070&emc=eta1

A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes - one of them fatal - in infants. But after months of meetings with Orthodox leaders, city officials have been unable to persuade them to abandon the practice.

The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

It became a health issue after a boy in Staten Island and twins in Brooklyn, circumcised by the same mohel in 2003 and 2004, contracted Type-1 herpes. Most adults carry the disease, which causes the common cold sore, but it can be life-threatening for infants. One of the twins died.

Since February, the mohel, Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer, 57, has been under court order not to perform the ritual in New York City while the health department is investigating whether he spread the infection to the infants...

Circumcision is common in the US, from what I understand it used to be done for hygienic reasons. Now those reasons aren't as necessary, but the practice still continues.
It is also common in the Jewish faith, as has been mentioned repeatedly, but also in the Muslim faith, which hasn't been mentioned.

Well pain wise its best to do it at birth although some hospitals offer pain medication for it, oh please dont even compare it with female genital mutilation these are not the same things ...this is just a piece of skin thats all-- the little girls in Africa and the Middle East are tortured and mutilated by having their clitoris burned and ripped ( NO anesthesia thank you) while being held down by tribal elders and being cut and suffering...little girls mind you. This is not the same thing. For this to be the same thing the babies would have to have their penis cut off! My sons were circumcised and they were treated kindly. The female thing is a barbaric ritual imposed by MEN to take away sensation from the females to make sure they are faithful wives :sniper: Sick!!! There is no excuse for that!!!

It's wrong and solves nothing. It creates problems… namely less "sensation", apparently.

For you or anybody else who worries about the loss of "sensation"

My friend got his cut at 25. :eek:

He will tell you that the sensation loss is highly overrated. What you get is easier spontaneous sex. You don't have to clean it as much as you do.

He also said his wife did not get as many "female" problems after he had his done......

My husband and I did a lot of research on the subject, and decided against circumcision. It helped that our son was born at home, so we didn't have to fight with any doctors about it. He is three, nearly four and has never had an infection of any kind.

My personal feelings are that it is needless genital mutilation of an infant. You are actually removing a structure that provides immunological function through mucosal tissue, protection of the ureter from feces, and contains many nerve fibers.

If my son wants to get himself circumcised when he's older, he'll have my blessing, but I won't be a party to it.

*In hulk voice*

ME CIRCUMCISED! ME PLEASED!

:D

My husband and I did a lot of research on the subject, and decided against circumcision. It helped that our son was born at home, so we didn't have to fight with any doctors about it. He is three, nearly four and has never had an infection of any kind.

My personal feelings are that it is needless genital mutilation of an infant. You are actually removing a structure that provides immunological function through mucosal tissue, protection of the ureter from feces, and contains many nerve fibers.

If my son wants to get himself circumcised when he's older, he'll have my blessing, but I won't be a party to it.

Very good attitude, I think.

When you circumcise a penis, you are making what is an internal organ (ie. under the skin) into an external organ. Would you remove a male child's nipples at birth? They don't serve any function, even less function than a foreskin, in fact, but I doubt many parents would allow them to be removed.

Back in ye olden days of yore, there was an argument for it on the basis of hygiene, because people back then didn't clean themselves and didn't have modern antibiotics. In the modern day, in a developed country, it's simply not necessary. If you have a decent level of personal hygiene, then there's nothing to worry about.

I personally think that circumcision at birth is wrong, and should actually be illegal. I'm not entirely certain whether I think this should apply to those whose religious beliefs dictate their child should be circumcised, but I lean toward yes, because not all children of Jewish of Muslim parents end up taking their parents' faith into adulthood.

Basically, you're unnecesarily permanently removing a piece of your child without giving them any say in the matter. Most circumcised guys I know don't really care, but a couple of them are actually pretty angry that it was done to them without their permission. I tend to think it should be boy's decision to have it done or not when they become a legal adult, and before that, they should be left intact unless there are pressing medical reasons.

Well pain wise its best to do it at birth although some hospitals offer pain medication for it, oh please dont even compare it with female genital mutilation these are not the same things ...this is just a piece of skin thats all-- the little girls in Africa and the Middle East are tortured and mutilated by having their clitoris burned and ripped ( NO anesthesia thank you) while being held down by tribal elders and being cut and suffering...little girls mind you. This is not the same thing. For this to be the same thing the babies would have to have their penis cut off! My sons were circumcised and they were treated kindly. The female thing is a barbaric ritual imposed by MEN to take away sensation from the females to make sure they are faithful wives :sniper: Sick!!! There is no excuse for that!!!
There is a lot more to female genital alteration/circumcision/mutilation (whatever you wish to call it) than simply 'men taking away sensation from females to make sure they are faithful wives'. It is a much more complex issue than that and oversimplification doesnt do anything to address the reality.

The fact is it is mostly women who perform the proceedure, and mothers are as likely as anyone to want their daughter to undergo the proceedure.

here are a variety of proceedures that go under the label of 'female circumcision' and a variety of reasons why people consider the proceedure desirable. Ignoring the multitude of reasons why female circumcision is considered by some people to be desirable, doesnt help to address the issue, because it is ignoring the true causes.

Im circumcised.

Does this mean I'm missing out on something that a uncircumcised guy would be experiencing in a relationship?
Yes, and we're not telling what it is.
The vast majority of the world are having better sex than you - but it's a secret so don't tell anyone.

well i'm circumcised, not through choice, when i was a small boy i was very sick
"Everyone awwwww's"
yes i know
and after a second operation
the doctors advised i get the snip
my parents agreed and here i am
i'd kinda prefer if i wasn't though, because i don't know one other person who is

There is a lot more to female genital alteration/circumcision/mutilation (whatever you wish to call it) than simply 'men taking away sensation from females to make sure they are faithful wives'. It is a much more complex issue than that and oversimplification doesnt do anything to address the reality.

The fact is it is mostly women who perform the proceedure, and mothers are as likely as anyone to want their daughter to undergo the proceedure.

here are a variety of proceedures that go under the label of 'female circumcision' and a variety of reasons why people consider the proceedure desirable. Ignoring the multitude of reasons why female circumcision is considered by some people to be desirable, doesnt help to address the issue, because it is ignoring the true causes.

It should be interesting when you explain this, yes? A 'complex' issue like this with lots of ignoring the desirable should have some light shed on it!

Also, my comment on topic, a few quotes from the New Testament.

Galatians 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

and then later, in Gal. 6:13 Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh.

15: Neither circumcision nor uncicumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

In Colossians 2 11-12: In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Basically, anyone who says that circumcision is required by the Bible is full of crap. It's VERY clear that when Jesus came and died for our sins it wasn't just the sacrificing of sheep that went out the window - it was ALL of the rituals designed to remind the Hebrews that they were loyal to God in a time when the rituals were needed. If you're Jewish, and you claim the right to follow this ritual, then I challange you that you must follow ALL of them ... you don't get to pick and choose any more than I do about which of Jesus' declarations and parables I aspire to.

If there are health reasons because you're living in a country that doesn't have running water, then yeah, circumcision is probably necissary but other than that (or any other sort of emergency medical reasons) leave your little man intact.

I'm cut. It's far more aesthetically pleasing than some hooded monster.

Watch 'Penn and Teller: Bullshit'. They have an episode about circumcision. They decide it's bullshit. But personally, I'm glad I was cut, and I intend to have my sons done as well.

I am glad to be circumcized, because I find uncircumcized penis to be disgusting. If I ever have a son, though, I won't have him circumcized at birth. If he gets circumcized, it will be his decision.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

Circumcision is for Jews and Americans. The vast majority of males aren't cicumcised.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

I thought that circumcision was limited to the jew traditions and some other ancient people... I don't know any circumcized and -excepting the religious- I don't find any reason to do it. I haven't had infections. Never.

Circumsission benefits the penis in the same way cutting off eye lids benefit the eye.

I'd like to point out that, with the exception of "The Black Forest" and the mouth thing, the only evidence that anyone has referenced more authoritative than "I heard that..." was Penn and Teller: Bullshit (which I personally like, and was probably accurate, but it's just about the only thing that we can say is probably accurate). The only person here who actually does have the ability to compare circumsized to uncircumsized said this:

For you or anybody else who worries about the loss of "sensation"

My friend got his cut at 25. :eek:

He will tell you that the sensation loss is highly overrated. What you get is easier spontaneous sex. You don't have to clean it as much as you do.

He also said his wife did not get as many "female" problems after he had his done......


As for the whole mouth thing: Read the entire articles that were posted, not just the first couple paragraphs. Most orthodox and all other jews have abandoned the use of the moel's mouth during the bris. Even when it is used, it's just to suction away blood to prevent infection.

And let us not forget that all religions have smoe of these luddite traditions (and in my opinion all of them are bad).

Well pain wise its best to do it at birth although some hospitals offer pain medication for it, oh please dont even compare it with female genital mutilation these are not the same things ...this is just a piece of skin thats all-- the little girls in Africa and the Middle East are tortured and mutilated by having their clitoris burned and ripped ( NO anesthesia thank you) while being held down by tribal elders and being cut and suffering...little girls mind you. This is not the same thing. For this to be the same thing the babies would have to have their penis cut off! My sons were circumcised and they were treated kindly. The female thing is a barbaric ritual imposed by MEN to take away sensation from the females to make sure they are faithful wives :sniper: Sick!!! There is no excuse for that!!!
The theory that newborns can't feel pain is crap. If you are going to do it, have them anaesthetized. Of course, they will have an open wound afterwards so you should continue to administer pain medication. And anti-biotics. Not that most do, but then newborns can't really lodge a complaint, can they?

FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) takes many forms, and some of them are just as harmless as male circumcision. It is a practice coninued by women, especially infibulation, where it is performed by the women of the tribe. Interestingly the argument put forward in favour of it is that the girl would not be able to get a husband without it (social ostracization) which is essentially identical to the 'locker room' argument in favour of male circumcision (social ostracization).
My opinion is that you do not own your child, and you have no rights over their body. No elective surgery should be legal, except to correct physical deformities. When they reach eighteen they can make their own decision.

In my opinion, genital mutilation without consent at any age is wrong. If female circumcision can be outlawed for causing immense pain, why not male circumcision...

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised.

In America there is a large portion of circumcised men who are circumcised for reasons outside of religion - and your statement is very true withinn America. In most of the rest of the western world very few are circumcised and those that are are circumcised for religious reasons.

Circumcision is for Jews and Americans. The vast majority of males aren't cicumcised.

The terrorists hate us for our beautiful penises.

In my opinion, genital mutilation without consent at any age is wrong. If female circumcision can be outlawed for causing immense pain, why not male circumcision...

Female circumcism is not even comparable to male crcumcism. True there are levels of it but the reason it is often outlawed is because it often involves cutting away the clitoris and sewing the womans vagina closed. The idea is to prevent the girl from being able to have sex and to remove any female pleasure. In more extreme cases the girls husband has to literally cut her open in order to have sex with her on their wedding night. No matter what your opinion on the rights and wrongs you cannot say that male circumcism comes close to this in terms of motives or suffering.

An equivalent of female circumcism in men would be to cut the head of the penis off and then sew the penis to the stomach or testicles.

Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?


If I remember rightly, circumcision was invented by the ancient Egyptians as a preventative measure against a disease called Schistosomiasis. One of the symptoms of Schistosomiasis is blood in the urine so they assumed that it had something to do with the genitals and that cutting part of the genitals off might help. It didn't work (since the disease is actually caused by water-borne parasites) but the custom persisted and this is the origin of the superstitious idea that circumcision is "good for the health" or prevents infections.

As for the religious aspects of it, it was introduced into Jewish tradition by Moses who was, incidentally, raised by Egyptians.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised,
Could you please qualify that to mean Western men? Because I doubt you could make a case for this on a global basis.

Oh, and I'll vote on my husband's behalf.

It didn't work (since the disease is actually caused by water-borne parasites) but the custom persisted and this is the origin of the superstitious idea that circumcision is "good for the health" or prevents infections.
It's actually not a "superstition:"
Circumcision reduces AIDS transmission and infection rates by 70% (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163695,00.html)

While the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't consider circumcision to be medically necessary, there are some medical reasons for performing one. Those include preventing recurring infections of the head of the penis, avoiding obstruction of urine flow that can result when the prepuce's opening narrows, and preventing a tight prepuce from retracting over the glans. Also, circumcision may reduce the incidence of penile cancer (a very rare condition).

Even barring these considerations, infections, including urinary tract infections in infants, are less common in a circumcised penis. That's because a circumcised penis is easier to keep clean. (By pulling back the uncircumcised foreskin and cleaning carefully, a man can reduce the formation of smegma, a cottage cheese-like substance that can lead to a foul odor and infection).

Finally, circumcision might have a small protective effect against AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), "some research suggests that circumcised men may be at a reduced risk for developing syphilis and HIV infections." Some scientists blame any increased risk in uncircumcised penises on increased mucosal cells that can allow infection to enter more easily. What's more, microorganisms can flourish in a warm, moist area under the foreskin.

More evidence
More recent research shows that circumcision may prevent or reduce penile inflammation, certain penile infections, phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and reduce the risk of urinary tract infections in infancy. In addition, circumcision may lessen the chances of acquiring sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, and reduce risks of penile cancer.

U.S. pediatric organizations have accordingly now reversed their stance. The U.S. Academy of Pediatrics 1989 statement outlines the medical benefits of circumcision, recommending that parents be told about them before deciding whether to have their infants circumcised. Canada's Pediatric Society is in the process of reviewing its position, neither promoting nor discouraging the practice at present.

The medical benefits of circumcision

The known benefits of circumcision include reduced risks of infant urinary tract infections, less risk of penile inflammation and possibly less danger of penile cancer and STDs.

* Prevention of infant urinary tract infections. The strongest medical argument favouring circumcision is its ability to curb childhood urinary tract infections. Several large U.S. studies have found that uncircumcised boys aged one week to eight months were 10-20 times likelier to have urinary tract infections than those circumcised. Childhood urinary tract infections may necessitate hospitalization and can scar fragile young kidneys or even lead to kidney failure. Urinary tract infections can also lead to meningitis and generalized blood sepsis (sometimes fatal).

* Possible avoidance of some sexually transmitted diseases. Several reports suggest lower risks of contracting gonorrhea, herpes, candidiasis and HIV infection (AIDS) among circumcised men. Studies from Africa show that uncircumcised men are more likely to become HIV-positive after exposure to the virus. But better-controlled studies are needed to confirm the benefits of circumcision in preventing STDs.

* A newly-found link between intact foreskins and penile cancer gives circumcision another boost. In the U.S. the incidence of penile cancer is 2.2 per 100,000 in the uncircumcised, but only three isolated cases have been reported among circumcised men in the past 20 years. While only 750-1,000 cases of penile cancer are reported yearly in U.S. men, circumcision proponents calculate that this number could rise to 3,000 per year if the whole U.S. male population remained uncircumcised. NB: Certain babies should not be circumcised: those who are ill, have genito-urinary malformations or a known family history of bleeding problems.

Some men need it later on

Statistics vary on the number of adult men who later require circumcision for medical reasons. A proportion of boys not circumcised as newboms later require the procedure for the treatment of conditions such as balanoposthitis (penile inflammation). One U.S. study found that 12-15 per cent of uncircumcised men eventually sought circumcision as adults, but a Finnish study found that only six per 100,000 men were later circumcised. Cultural variables probably play a significant role. Since foreskins are considered expendable in the U.S., they would be cut off at the first sign of trouble. But in Finland, where foreskins are the norm, any infection or other problem may be handled differently.

If you want to leave your sons intact, more power to you but don't be surprised (especially if you're an American) if your son will want to be circ'ed later in life.

That won't be an issue with me, because I'll have been living in another country entirely by then.

Female circumcism is not even comparable to male crcumcism. True there are levels of it but the reason it is often outlawed is because it often involves cutting away the clitoris and sewing the womans vagina closed. <snip>
Actually, infibulation is the least common form.
Most other forms are of comparable value/harm to male circumcision.

There has been a lot of negative talk of circumcisions on here and it seems like it has come from women (who don't have any real point of reference) and uncirc'ed men (many of whom seem to live outside of the US).

I chose to be circ'ed at 19, having spent all of my youth with a foreskin, so I know both sides of the issue and because of this, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the costs and benefits of the procedure.

I am much happier after the circ.

Why? What made you want one in the first place?

Also, before I had it done, I did a lot of research. The rate of satisfaction with adult circumcision is nearly 100%. This is probably because if you are getting one as an adult, you actively sought it out and we're forced to get one by your parents or doctor.

I will be a father within the next year and if I have a son, I will have him circumcized. Yes, it was painful, and yes it took some time to recover- I REMEMBER THE PROCESS WELL- but the benefits (even if they are purely aesthetic) are better than the alternative.

What is the alternative? All I understand from what you have said is, "Pain and a permanent scar are better than a penis I don't like the look of," which is hardly a reasonable argument.


Also, having a foreskin the U.S. is somewhat of an embarrassing thing. Whenever a character on TV or a movie is mentioned as having a foreskin, the character almost ALWAYS is circumcized after the discovery. Many women in the U.S. have never seen an uncircumcized penis- I know, I know, it is how it is 'supposed' to look- and so, the site of a foreskin can leave them wierded out or disturbed.

You do realise that Nip/Tuck is not real yes?

My bio teacher said that not getting circumcised means there's a higher chance of the woman getting some sort of infection.

But, she also said that what ever that woman got was her problem, and she was going to circumcise her son for that.

Heh.

Um… after reading all of this, I think I'll stick with the idea that circumcision is mostly something that should not be done to kids. :eek: The glans is actually very sensitive much of the time, so it sounds painful for a long time.
If I ever have kids, I won't circumcise them… living in the UK, I thought it was only Jews or people with medical reasons who got circumcised.

I've got a helmet, not by choice though. Doesn't affect me one way or the other, but concerning infants, I think circumcision is a barbaric religious practice. I would let my sons decide for themselves whether they'd like to have the procedure or not.

It's just....Wrong.... Unnatural...... UGH. Case closed. Jesus. Who would want to be mutilated? Christ, that makes me feel ill :S

Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

It depends on the infection, and how clean the guy is. A guy who doesn't properly clean himself is going to be more likely to get bacterial/fungal infections because a simple run under the water won't get an uncircumcized penis clean. You actually have to pull back the foreskin and get up in there.

With viral vectors (like HIV), a circumcized man practicing the same level of safety probably is less likely to contract it. This is due to the presence of more mucous membranes in the uncircumcized penis - with cells that more easily take up the virus.

I've also got me a helmet. I don't hate my parents for doing it. It's like tradition here i guess.
To most guys my age that are circumcised, it really isn't that big of an issue to them. Its not like they'll ever know the difference.

Interesting... circumcised guys and uncircumcised guys are exactly tied at 68...

Interesting... circumcised guys and uncircumcised guys are exactly tied at 68... The butchered and the whole.

Since my wife prefers them this way, I am glad it was done. She would not put her mouth anywhere near it if it were uncircumcised! ;)

Unless it was necessary to save my life, I would not have it done as an adult, not even to please my wonderful wife. (I normally refuse all but life-saving surgery. No cutting on me, anywhere, ever. I even hate to have splinters removed, if they go under the skin and cutting is necessary for removal. Used to have a big scar on left thigh from giant splinter acquired and never removed... ) :(

LOL ingrown penis! :D

Anyway... I feel that the only time circumcision should ever be performed on a child (male or female) is due to genuine medical necessity (ie. something's damaged or malformed, with written parental consent), or at the explicit, written request (not consent, request!) of the child's parents.

Otherwise you end up with shitty situations like by boyfriend's, who had two botched circumcisions, leaving him scarred and desensitized, or his brother, who's horribly botched circumcision destroyed his urethra (yay for constant, unending surgeries!). :mad:

Any doctor who circumcises a child without written parental consent should be charged with assault causing bodily harm.

What kind of sick perverse parent would mutilate their childs genitals?

Oh right, those kind of parents...

Genesis 17:11
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

I forgot about the 200 or so references to foreskin in the bible. God loves a good foreskin to snack on.

Otherwise you end up with shitty situations like by boyfriend's, who had two botched circumcisions, leaving him scarred and desensitized, or his brother, who's horribly botched circumcision destroyed his urethra (yay for constant, unending surgeries!). :mad:

Where in the hell did they live? And were they going to someone other than a doctor to do it?

Any doctor who circumcises a child without written parental consent should be charged with assault causing bodily harm.

Technically, it is already illegal to do this - at least in the US. I'm not sure what the charge is, however.

I have a circumcision, I however prefer theterm 'German Soldier' over mushroomhead, thank you very much.
Hopefully you do know that the vast majority of German men is not circumcised... Thus the name is not really fitting.

Anyway - I haven't had any problems with my foreskin, neither infections myself nor causing any with my girlfriends.
Man, just keep'em clean and you won't have any problems.

I'm glad nobody cut anything off of me - that's the way it's gonna stay and I'll definitely not let any doctor near my baby son (should I ever have one) to do anything close.
Otherwise I'd go all MacGyver on him - and believe me, that Swiss army knife will be dirty... chop chop chop chop chop :D

Worst.procedure.ever.

Could you please qualify that to mean Western men? Because I doubt you could make a case for this on a global basis.

Oh, and I'll vote on my husband's behalf.

I'm not trying to make a case for it, just wanting to find out how many guys are circumcised on this forum.

God loves a good foreskin to snack on.


I feal safer now knowing that god wont want to put his mouth near my wiener...


jk jk...

It has hygienic benefits and for others religious. In men the hygienic benefits are very good, but were more important in the past. In women the benefits are also very good, but there are also potentially large drawbacks. It is important to understand that most of what the Arab and African world do in this respect is crude, unprofessional and this is the biggest problem with it.

A doctor or other expert would be far more appropriate than having a husband do this on his wedding day or witch doctor do this as her “coming of age”.

A lot of this depends on exactly what is removed. It is far more complex than I would prefer to get in to here. The untrained people usually involved do not have the necessary understanding to take these matters in to account.

Male circumcision should also be done by an expert, in most cultures this is the case. Seven days is the absolute optimum time for it in a newborn because they have the best blood cell ratios. They should not sever the frenulum.

i'm not!!! wow, i have more feeling than guys who are???? YES! hahahaha. everyone in the us is (most people are) everyone makes fun of kids who aren't. so thus, no one knows about me.. but hahaha.. now i know i feel better than they do.. at times. hahaha. yes!

It's actually not a "superstition:"
Circumcision reduces AIDS transmission and infection rates by 70% (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163695,00.html)



More evidence

The story on circumcision reducing AIDS transmissions was a study done only in South Africa where there is a practice called 'dry sex' where the woman inserts ground up bark or some other type of drying material into the vagina. The idea being that it creates more friction and more pleasure for the man. So, what do you think is going to happen if you put an abrasive material on mucous membranes and then introduce friction? There's a lot more tearing, hence way more chances for bodily fluids to be exchanged. One way circumcision may help this is because the head of a circumsized penis becomes keratinized...that is the flesh becomes tougher than it was originally. I'm surprised that this practice was not taken into account. If I can find the story I first read about this, I'll post it...I'm pretty sure it was a BBC article, since I don't like to read most US media.

And while this may be good for men who are hetero, the study had this to say: "For example, doctors don't yet know if circumcision can help protect against male-to-male transmission of HIV or whether the findings will hold up over the long term."

Also, I wonder if the infection that caused the Egyptians to start this ritual was really a bladder infection. When they get bad enough, you will start having blood in your urine.

As for the cut vs. uncut debate among women, I've been with both and have no preference either way. The boyfriend I had who was uncut was always very careful to keep clean. I always kind of liked the fact that it was tucked away in it's own little suitcase.

I am glad to be circumcized, because I find uncircumcized penis to be disgusting. If I ever have a son, though, I won't have him circumcized at birth. If he gets circumcized, it will be his decision.
hahaha.. funny, because i find the circumcized penis funny looking and kind of gross. hahaha..

Also, having a foreskin the U.S. is somewhat of an embarrassing thing. Whenever a character on TV or a movie is mentioned as having a foreskin, the character almost ALWAYS is circumcized after the discovery. Many women in the U.S. have never seen an uncircumcized penis- I know, I know, it is how it is 'supposed' to look- and so, the site of a foreskin can leave them wierded out or disturbed.

Eh? At almost all times at least 20% of the nation's male population was been uncircumcised. And the current trends show a marked decrease. Better yet my region, the western, is down to ~1/3 of newborns getting circumcised with 2/3s remaining natural. I think women will have no problem with it. A penis is ugly whether its cut or not.

The story on circumcision reducing AIDS transmissions was a study done only in South Africa where there is a practice called 'dry sex' where the woman inserts ground up bark or some other type of drying material into the vagina.

Untrue. There have been several studies, including one done on the cells of the foreskin vs. the cells of the outer penis demonstrating that those of the foreskin (which are mucous membrane cells) take up the virus more readily than skin cells. This isn't exactly surprising, but lends quite a bit of credence to the other studies (not all of which were performed in South Africa).

I can't believe that some people just can't see the the obvious sinful nature of the foreskin. I can see it at first glans.

Foreskins cause 35% of all disease.

People with foreskins are 48% more likely to commit violent crime.

Say the word "foreskin" backwards and you have Nik Surroff - which is Aramaic for Devil's Flap.

Scientists have determined that Atlantis was destroyed by an enormous foreskin.

I can't believe that some people just can't see the the obvious sinful nature of the foreskin. I can see it at first glans.

Foreskins cause 35% of all disease.

People with foreskins are 48% more likely to commit violent crime.

Say the word "foreskin" backwards and you have Nik Surroff - which is Aramaic for Devil's Flap.

Scientists have determined that Atlantis was destroyed by an enormous foreskin.

ROFL!! :p

I just see that if we are born with it, it can't be bad 'per se'.

I'm not..... and as a matter of fact I know only one guy who is

Unless it is done for religious reasons it rates along side getting your baby son tattooed because every other numpty in the locker room has one.

250 deaths in the USA from 1995 to 2003! Great thing to do for no good reason.

The story on circumcision reducing AIDS transmissions was a study done only in South Africa where there is a practice called 'dry sex' where the woman inserts ground up bark or some other type of drying material into the vagina. The idea being that it creates more friction and more pleasure for the man. So, what do you think is going to happen if you put an abrasive material on mucous membranes and then introduce friction? There's a lot more tearing, hence way more chances for bodily fluids to be exchanged. One way circumcision may help this is because the head of a circumsized penis becomes keratinized...that is the flesh becomes tougher than it was originally. I'm surprised that this practice was not taken into account. If I can find the story I first read about this, I'll post it...I'm pretty sure it was a BBC article, since I don't like to read most US media.
How would drying it be more pleasurable? The weird things people do :rolleyes: .

Unless it is done for religious reasons it rates along side getting your baby son tattooed because every other numpty in the locker room has one.

Why do you think it is ok to physically alter your child for your own religion - one that they are not old enough to understand, and may or may not agree with when they get older?

Why do you think it is ok to physically alter your child for your own religion - one that they are not old enough to understand, and may or may not agree with when they get older? 'Cos governments have better things to do than face angry hordes of Jews in the streets. :)

I am 'uncut', and would never consider being 'cut' - except in the same sort of circumstances where one would have a hand amputated, for example... you just don't go around cutting off parts of your body.

As far as I can tell, in the UK almost nobody is circumcised (except for Jewish religious reasons - i.e. a mark of covenant between Yahweh and Israel) - whereas in the US (at least in the south), almost every male IS circumcised.

My son will not be circumcised.

Untrue. There have been several studies, including one done on the cells of the foreskin vs. the cells of the outer penis demonstrating that those of the foreskin (which are mucous membrane cells) take up the virus more readily than skin cells. This isn't exactly surprising, but lends quite a bit of credence to the other studies (not all of which were performed in South Africa).


Well, this is a good point, but the story that was linked mentioned only a study done in Johannesburg I believe.

I will recheck my links about the immunological benefits of the foreskin...it was a scientific paper and it is highly possible I misread the report and the immunological benefits of the cells in foreskin are only beneficial at birth.

I once had a woman railing on me for having my son circumcised .... but she had her daughter's ears pierced at 5 months old.

Takes all kinds, I suppose.

Yes, by the way, I will "mutilate" my children in any way I damn well please and there's not thing one you can do about it. However, I no more consider circumcision "mutilation" than I consider a fetus a "baby".

Why do you think it is ok to physically alter your child for your own religion - one that they are not old enough to understand, and may or may not agree with when they get older? I wouldn't, tha's why my children can choose thier own religion. But for those with strong faith, they may see not doing it as not behaving in the best moral interests of the child. Other than this the 'health' benefits are.. well b#ll#cks.

...Yes, by the way, I will "mutilate" my children in any way I damn well please and there's not thing one you can do about it...


When it comes to circumcision, you seem awfully cocksure. :D


I agree. If we outlaw circumcision, then only outlaws will have beautiful penises.

Someone's already posted something about a german guy in a relationship, the she of which demanded he "rolled back", right?

So why don't noncircs just go and "roll back" when they have too -- they can be either, and turn back at a moments notice! Whereas all you circ's can't ever have a natural, god-given penis. You circs are all missing out. Really.

Why do you think it is ok to physically alter your child for your own religion - one that they are not old enough to understand, and may or may not agree with when they get older?
Bah... my parents ruined me psychologically through religion. I fail to see what sniping off a little bit of skin in the name of religion will do.


[for that matter, it's not even religious anymore, everyone is doing it... it's like Christmas]

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?


While I'm not a guy..the vast majority of men are not circumcised. Where did you get the idea they are?

While I'm not a guy..the vast majority of men are not circumcised. Where did you get the idea they are?
*cough*porn*cough*

I'm jewish, so i've had it done....

I'm jewish, so i've had it done....
Good reason.

I used to be cirumcised but I am restoring it so I voted the second choice in the poll. Basically right now when I stand I have complete foreskin but when I sit there is only the end gland coverage. I hope to be completly finished in less than a year. Anyway I hate male genital mutilation. Unfortunatly 60% of the guys in my country (USA) are circumcised so I am considered crazy for regrowing my foreskin (a docter told me that and suggested going to a psyciatrist (not those exact words but that is what he said)). The good thing though is that I think it will soon become an issue here and in the next 2 or 3 generations no American baby boy will be mutilated (except the jew and muslim ones). Because I have done the research and my dads generation 90% was circumsised but in my generation it is 60% so at that rate it will die in 2 or 3 generations.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

I have a foreskin and NEVER had any infection of any sort. I believe that to be an urban myth/prejudice born of ignorance, actually, because I've never heard anything about uncut causing infections. Then again, in Quebec (Canadian province) the majority isn't circumcized.

My personnal position is: don't cut at birth. If a man wants to get circumcised, he can always have the surgery later. If he wants to stay like his mama made him... well let's just say circumcision is a pretty final thing.

well, a circumcision seems a whole lot less painful than a subincision.

check this out:
http://encyc.bmezine.com/?Subincision (http://http://encyc.bmezine.com/?Subincision) - graphic warning

well, a circumcision seems a whole lot less painful than a subincision.
check this out:
http://encyc.bmezine.com/?Subincision (http://http://encyc.bmezine.com/?Subincision) - graphic warning

Broken link, you put two 'http://' in mate. :)

try this: new linky (http://encyc.bmezine.com/?Subincision)

For the record circumcision is NOT part of the christian religion.
Read Acts Chapter 15.

For the record circumcision is NOT part of the christian religion.
Read Acts Chapter 15.
do i have to?could you read it and post it here,cos im really lazy and dont have a bible

do i have to?could you read it and post it here,cos im really lazy and dont have a bible


http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act015.html

This is a bunch of specific verses here (sorry about the King James version). Anyway it mentions that Jesus changes your heart and circumcision is useless. I am a christian myself and I believe it is a sin. I am very glad that foreskin restoration exists. Getting my foreskin back has made me feel alot better about myself.

Fore those interested in it go here. http://www.norm.org

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?
The vast majority of men aren't cut. It's only the U.S. and countries with musilm or jewish majorities where the majority of men are cut. In Canada even, uncut is the majority.

Furthermore, I don't think it's something you should do to a kid who can't make the decision himself. Let him grow up and pick whether he wants to keep or lose the foreskin.
Men with foreskin don't suffer more infections that I know of, there's an increased risk of getting aids through unprotected intercourse, but condoms are much more effective at eliminating the risk of hiv/aids anyways.

I once had a woman railing on me for having my son circumcised .... but she had her daughter's ears pierced at 5 months old.

Takes all kinds, I suppose.
While piercing an infant's ears is stupid, due to the fact that piercings can and will migrate to the most silly of places as they grow, it's at least easily reversable, unlike circumcision.

I have a foreskin and NEVER had any infection of any sort. I believe that to be an urban myth/prejudice born of ignorance, actually, because I've never heard anything about uncut causing infections.

Maybe that's because noone has claimed that the foreskin itself causes infections. However, having it can increase your risk of certain infections. The majority of these can be adequately prevented with proper hygeine - something that is actually more important in the uncircumcized (who must peel back the foreskin for proper cleaning) than those who are circumcized (since just letting water hit it in the shower will most likely do a good enough job).

Then there is the fact that certain viruses and bacteria can pass more freely through a mucous membrane than through keratinized skin. Thus, having the foreskin and its mucous membrane can increase the rate of transmission of certain infections with an equal amount of exposure. In other words, if a circumcized man and an uncircumcized man both had sex with the same person who had some sort of infection, the uncircumcized man would have an increased percentage chance of contracting the disease.

While piercing an infant's ears is stupid, due to the fact that piercings can and will migrate to the most silly of places as they grow, it's at least easily reversable, unlike circumcision.

Funny, none of my piercings have gone away, even those that I no longer wear jewelry in.

First off, I've heard it said that the only people who wonder whether or not they've been circumsiced are those who have been. If you're uncircumcised, you know it.

Also, I'd like to point out that the current trend toward circumscision in the United States had little to do with hygene or religion when it began around the turn of the century. Because it lowers the sensation, it was done to discourage masturbation, and it eventually became American culture.

Before high-minded people with high moral standards started snipping left right and center, American Christians were just as uncut as European Christians.

Funny, none of my piercings have gone away, even those that I no longer wear jewelry in.
It varies from person to person and even from ear to ear and hole to hole...
I've had to repierce some holes in my right ear a couple times, but never my left.

It depends on how long you've had them too... Like the holes I've had since I'm 6 would take several years without earrings whereas the cartlidge piercing I got today would heal over if I left it out overnight.

I hate how girls bitch about how a real penis is nasty looking. Guess what it looks the same erect and it gives you (the woman) more pleasure!! Now I am a straight guy but I think the vagina is pretty nasty looking so why do girls have to even have this stupid complaint a penis is nasty looking one way or another but if you think about it a skin colored tube sock is less nasty than a disfigured discolored mutilated mushroom with a ring around it.

My dad got circumsized after he was an adult, because this certain doctor was shocked he hadn't been earlier and told him he certainly needed to be, even though there had never been any problems resulting from him being un-circumsized. Then the doc cut off too much skin and he had to get a skin graft.

I hate how girls bitch about how a real penis is nasty looking. Guess what it looks the same erect and it gives you (the woman) more pleasure!! Now I am a straight guy but I think the vagina is pretty nasty looking so why do girls have to even have this stupid complaint a penis is nasty looking one way or another but if you think about it a skin colored tube sock is less nasty than a disfigured discolored mutilated mushroom with a ring around it.
I think the cut ones look much worse than the uncut ones.

They look strange either way... but uncut looks better. :)

My dad got circumsized after he was an adult, because this certain doctor was shocked he hadn't been earlier and told him he certainly needed to be, even though there had never been any problems resulting from him being un-circumsized. Then the doc cut off too much skin and he had to get a skin graft.
Ouch.

My dad got circumsized after he was an adult, because this certain doctor was shocked he hadn't been earlier and told him he certainly needed to be, even though there had never been any problems resulting from him being un-circumsized. Then the doc cut off too much skin and he had to get a skin graft.


That docter obviously has some problems. I have a hatred for the docter who sexual mutilated me (even though I have never met him). I just know he was jewish. I want tell him that the results of your horrible abuse are gone now and I hope he dies a horrible death. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Ok I guess I am getting a little carried away. Seriously I know he is going to hell.

It's wrong and solves nothing. It creates problems… namely less "sensation", apparently.


incorrect some men are born with a foreskin which is too tight, this cuts off blood to the penis causing it eventually to die and fall off, so yes it does solve problems

also cleaner

I hate how girls bitch about how a real penis is nasty looking. Guess what it looks the same erect and it gives you (the woman) more pleasure!! Now I am a straight guy but I think the vagina is pretty nasty looking so why do girls have to even have this stupid complaint a penis is nasty looking one way or another but if you think about it a skin colored tube sock is less nasty than a disfigured discolored mutilated mushroom with a ring around it.


I haven't seen or been with an uncut guy. I use to think the cut version was the real version til a girl friend of mine told me about one of her uncut bf's. She had nothing negative to say about it LoL. If I ever have a son he will not be cut. I think it is unneccessary and if done wrong can cause some problems(like how it did my dad).

Hello no! Nobody gets close to my penis with a knife, scalpel, piece of glass, or something that cuts!!! Uh-uh. No - fucking - way!





Same.

incorrect some men are born with a foreskin which is too tight, this cuts off blood to the penis causing it eventually to die and fall off, so yes it does solve problems

also cleaner
It doesn't kill the penis. I don't know where you heard this. The only issue I've ever heard of is that the foreskin wouldn't retract so it had to be cut, but that rarely happens.

And it's not cleaner. If you shower once a day either way, you're good.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised
You figure wrong, Yank. It's very rare in non-Jewish Britons. And, although I can but imagine a circumcized penis (not something I do often, thank you very much), it looks horrible. If I leave my foreskin rolled down, my glans goes all dry and crinkly. I'd hate to be like that 24/7.

My parents had it done when I was born b/c at the time it was believed to be more hygenic. Looking at this thread it seems like there is still some debate over how true this is or isn't so I figure that the option should still be there for people. As for the whole wait for the child to grow up, that doesn't make much since to me. Afterall everyone seems to agree that if it isn't kept clean there can be a problem, and it seems to me the ones that this would be the most of an issue for would be children, who are not known for their cleanlyness. One would think it would b/c less of an issue for adults, since they can be, better, trusted to keep themselves clean. Not to mention if I was going to have it done I, personally am glade it was when I was to small to remeber, as to some latter point when I'm more "aware" of the situation.

Its not just the christian or jewish communities that get circumsised as someone else also said muslims get circumcised and i should know im one of them

and i have no problems with my penis lacking foreskin and if i have a son my kid is losing his too.

and for all the people talking about how its not your parents decision all i have to say is the hell its not. they feed you they clothe you they take care of you and for the first few years of your life you dont really have a clue do you its not like you are born knowing how to take care of yourself or anything are you?so cut the ungratefullness

because at least for the first decade or so of your life your parents know best and if they are good parents they will want whats best for you

I don't understand why your god would create mankind with foreskins and then demand them to remove it. If he's loving, and cares about his followers, why would he force them to go through a painful and unnecessary procedure as babies? What is so evil and wrong about the foreskin? It protects the penis..

P.S. The poll is about male circumcision, not mutilation of the labia. The poll is to find out the proportion of guys who had the operation done.

It's not done because the foreskin is evil; it's done because it's the "sign and seal" of the Abrahamic Covenant... A mark to set them apart (sanctification) from the rest of the world, as God's choosen people.... Baptism parallels it (at least for covenential faiths, such as the Reformed church) in the "New Covenant"...

It's not done because the foreskin is evil; it's done because it's the "sign and seal" of the Abrahamic Covenant... A mark to set them apart (sanctification) from the rest of the world, as God's choosen people.... Baptism parallels it (at least for covenential faiths, such as the Reformed church) in the "New Covenant"...

Or, alternatively... it COULD just be another weird example of how patriarchal religion devalues women...

The foreskin, once excised, is a useless 'ring' of flesh, that once belonged on the penis, and serves no other purpose.

Thus, you CAN view circumcision as yet another example of Judeo-Christian oppression of women.

(Of course, the religious types would argue STRONGLY against that version... but, of course, that doesn't make it wrong....)

People are disgusted by abortion, but post-natal penile mutilation...not so much.

Now that I think about it I'm pretty pissed I never had a choice to how my penis is shaped. Alas, it is too late to turn the clock back for me <Sigh>

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?
Circumcision Fact Sheet (http://www.infocirc.org/facts.htm)

Over 80% of the world’s male population is genitally intact, with 20% being subjected to some form of childhood genital mutilation.

The U.S. is the only country in the world to circumcise the majority of its newborn males for non-religious reasons.

Over 90% of infant circumcisions performed in the U.S. are for non-religious reasons.

100% of infant circumcisions are done without the consent of the individual concerned.

Those are just some of the facts.

Or, alternatively... it COULD just be another weird example of how patriarchal religion devalues women...

The foreskin, once excised, is a useless 'ring' of flesh, that once belonged on the penis, and serves no other purpose.

Thus, you CAN view circumcision as yet another example of Judeo-Christian oppression of women.

(Of course, the religious types would argue STRONGLY against that version... but, of course, that doesn't make it wrong....)

How the removal of the foreskin (circumcision) upon males puts over as a devaluing of women... has got to be one, if not THE most absurd, disconjoined, leaps of "logic" I have ever heard Grave....

People are disgusted by abortion, but post-natal penile mutilation...not so much.

Now that I think about it I'm pretty pissed I never had a choice to how my penis is shaped. Alas, it is too late to turn the clock back for me <Sigh>

Its not to late... you can get restored. I am doing it and it really isnt a big deal. If I was in a public shower everyone would think I am intact. Just dont go to a docter though because he will tell you your crazy (at least thats what happend to me).

and for all the people talking about how its not your parents decision all i have to say is the hell its not. they feed you they clothe you they take care of you and for the first few years of your life you dont really have a clue do you its not like you are born knowing how to take care of yourself or anything are you?so cut the ungratefullness

So a parent can do anything they want to their child? Because they own him by clothing and taking care of him?

What would you say if a parent wanted to cut off another portion of the child's body? That it is their decision because they are the parents?

Now, if the reasons behind the procedure are medical - even as preventitive medicine - it truly is the parents' decision, as the parents are the ones charged with making medical decisions for that child until such time as he can do so himself. If the reasons are, "It looks better," or "My religion tells me to," it is no different than cutting off the child's finger for these reasons - something I am farily certain most people wouldn't argue in favor of.

It's wrong and solves nothing. It creates problems… namely less "sensation", apparently.
It reduces your chances of getting AIDS by 70 percent.

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q23

Research has shown that circumcised men are up to 70% less likely to contract HIV through sex. This is because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be particularly vulnerable to HIV. However, circumcision does not mean you cannot get HIV, it just means it's less likely. Circumcised men can also pass on the virus just as easily as those whose foreskin has not been removed.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?


My parents thought that I should have the choice...so I had it done when I was 13. I wish that they had it done at birth, no man should have his penis cut when he is old enough to remember! As far as infection two different MD's told me that foreskin is more risky so there you go. Forget the choice crap. If a man grows up circumsized all his life and yet feels robbed of his forskin I think he just has confidence issues! So anyway, take it from me, it is much better to not have a choice in this!

It reduces your chances of getting AIDS by 70 percent.

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q23

Research has shown that circumcised men are up to 70% less likely to contract HIV through sex. This is because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be particularly vulnerable to HIV. However, circumcision does not mean you cannot get HIV, it just means it's less likely. Circumcised men can also pass on the virus just as easily as those whose foreskin has not been removed. No, actually making sure you don't come into contact with the HIV virus is a much safer method that doesn't involve a knife.
My parents thought that I should have the choice...so I had it done when I was 13. I wish that they had it done at birth, no man should have his penis cut when he is old enough to remember! As far as infection two different MD's told me that foreskin is more risky so there you go. Forget the choice crap. If a man grows up circumsized all his life and yet feels robbed of his forskin I think he just has confidence issues! So anyway, take it from me, it is much better to not have a choice in this! Choice crap? This is about chopping off a part of yourself! You could as well say that childrens' hair ought to be forcibly removed by the roots, because hair can lead to lice.

Why do you routinely circumcise yourselves in the US? We survive without it in Europe!

Liskein, I was circumcised at birth.

I can tell you that I suffer from no shortage of sensation.

Liskein, I was circumcised at birth.

I can tell you that I suffer from no shortage of sensation. Ah, but how do you know? You have nothing to compare it to.

My parents thought that I should have the choice...so I had it done when I was 13. I wish that they had it done at birth, no man should have his penis cut when he is old enough to remember! As far as infection two different MD's told me that foreskin is more risky so there you go. Forget the choice crap. If a man grows up circumsized all his life and yet feels robbed of his forskin I think he just has confidence issues! So anyway, take it from me, it is much better to not have a choice in this!

Personally, if my parents had decided to have a piece of my body permanently removed for dubious reasons and without my permission, I'd have been pissed once I was old enough to realise what had been done to be.

As far as having your foreskin being more risky, sure, but a parent removing a piece of their kid for that reason is like permanently removing a kid's finger and toenails because there's a risk he might get ingrown nails later in life; it's just stupid.

But if you wanted it done and chose to have it done, good for you, but don't knock having the choice just because you chose to go one way.

ok im jewish and i think of the whole tradition thingy..........but yea is true are guys who do not get circumcisions get infected more?

ok im jewish and i think of the whole tradition thingy..........but yea is true are guys who do not get circumcisions get infected more? True. Let's not give our children electrolysis or remove their nails on the same basis, though - as those would easily lead to less infections.

Ah, but how do you know? You have nothing to compare it to.

Well, it was very sensitive when I was in my teens. So much so that premature ejaculation was a problem.

I can see where too sensitive would be a bad thing.

And you don't have sex anyway, so how would you know?

Well, it was very sensitive when I was in my teens. So much so that premature ejaculation was a problem.

I can see where too sensitive would be a bad thing.

And you don't have sex anyway, so how would you know? Many men report that after the operation, there is a significant difference.

Many men report that after the operation, there is a significant difference.

....which cannot be claimed to directly lead to the conclusion that doing it at infancy causes a loss of sensation. In an infant, the penis is not fully developed, nor are the neural connections that will be used for sexual pleasure. Thus, as the infant then develops, the development process may ensure that he has plenty of sensation in the organ, even with the altered surface area and keratinization.

In an adult who has the operation, the penis itself and the neural connections that lead to his sense of pleasure are already fully formed. Altering it at that point would be expected to result in an alteration in sensation as well.

If you want to see the evidence for yourself of circumcision for the love of all things holy, just Google 'circumcision' and you'll get a ton of information!
Here's just a sample:

http://www.coolnurse.com/circumcision.htm
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/circumcision.htm


From what I've read this morning, the only thing up in the air right now is the HIV transmission thing. The reports I read said that circumcision reduced the risk of female to male transmission of HIV by 65%, but this was only in studies done in Africa. They are continuing to do studies around the world but the results are not in yet.

I'm uncircumcised.

Personally, I have no problem with infection-causing microbes...I just jack off on a fairly frequent basis, and the activity is enough to keep it clean. ;)

My girlfriend also loves it. :D

To each his own about whether you get it circumcised for yourself, but you shouldn't make the choice for someone else...especially someone too young to have a choice on the matter.

From what I've read this morning, the only thing up in the air right now is the HIV transmission thing. The reports I read said that circumcision reduced the risk of female to male transmission of HIV by 65%, but this was only in studies done in Africa. They are continuing to do studies around the world but the results are not in yet.

They have also done studies on the foreskin itself - in order to determine if it took up the virus more efficiently than keratinized skin. Not surprisingly, due to the mucous membranous portion of the foreskin, it did. Unfortunately, you'd have to subscribe to the journal to get the article, however.

At least it isn't subincision.

Ok folks that are for circumcision I want you to read this.

As I mentioned earlier I am restoring my foreskin. I do not masterbait but the desire to do so has increased (because I can tell there is alot more pleasure there now). Now as I also mentioned earlier a docter told me I was crazy. My relationship with my parents was also bad for a while. The majority of the few people that know thought it was pretty weird (with the exception of my grandma (she said "Its your dinger do what you want to with it" and my friend who said something simular but it wasnt as funny). So I am going through alot for this. Now a true guy who wants to be a half-male (I dont see why though) could just go to a docter and get the surgerory quickly and feel pain a few weeks and all his close people would see nothing wrong with him. So do you see the difference?

It reduces your chances of getting AIDS by 70 percent.

http://www.avert.org/faq1.htm#q23

Research has shown that circumcised men are up to 70% less likely to contract HIV through sex. This is because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be particularly vulnerable to HIV. However, circumcision does not mean you cannot get HIV, it just means it's less likely. Circumcised men can also pass on the virus just as easily as those whose foreskin has not been removed.
If that is the case, then why is it that US males (ages 15 to 49) are twice as likely to contract HIV as compared to Canadian males?

HIVAIDS - Adult prevalence rate 15-49 years (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hiv_adu_pre_rat_15_49_yea&int=-1)

Also, US males (ages 15 to 49) are more than twice as likely to contract HIV than most European males.

Twice as many women in the US (ages 15 to 49) are living with HIV Aids as compared to Canadian women.

HIV AIDS - Women living with aids 15-49 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hiv_aid_wom_liv_wit_aid_15_49&int=-1)

If that is the case, then why is it that US males (ages 15 to 49) are twice as likely to contract HIV as compared to Canadian males?

HIVAIDS - Adult prevalence rate 15-49 years (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hiv_adu_pre_rat_15_49_yea&int=-1)

Also, US males (ages 15 to 49) are more than twice as likely to contract HIV than most European males.

Twice as many women in the US (ages 15 to 49) are living with HIV Aids as compared to Canadian women.

HIV AIDS - Women living with aids 15-49 (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_hiv_aid_wom_liv_wit_aid_15_49&int=-1)



You might want to ask why blacks and hispanics in the US get it at rates far higher than whites - or why homosexuals in the US get it at far greater rates than heterosexuals in the US.

It has less to do with the foreskin, and more to do with what type of sex you have (even if you have a condom on).

Here's some math from the CDC.

A condom, used ideally, gives 99.9 percent protection. That means, if perfectly used, it should fail one time in a thousand (not that the condom fails - but you get infected anyway).

Unprotected, if you engage in anal sex, the odds of transmission are 1 in 4 per event.

Unprotected, if you engage in vaginal sex, the odds of transmission is 1 in 16,000 per event.

Wearing a condom, engaging in anal sex, the odds of transmission are 1 in 4000 - a greater chance than having unprotected vaginal sex.

And those transmissions assume that one partner is infected (the one doing the penetration).

There are obvious sexual culture differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. And differences between black, Hispanic, and white hetersexual cultures.

And Canada is probably different as well. Maybe more condom use, or better condom use (you would be surprised at the requirements for "perfect"). Maybe a lot less anal sex than in the US. Or fewer homosexuals.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

Nobody's peeling my potato.

Nobody's peeling my potato.

Don't worry about getting circumcised. Worry about someone talking you into subincision (link to subincision).

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

My husband was circumcised at age 12, for him, it was a horrific experience, and he continuously says that he wishes it was done at birth instead of letting it become a problem. He says, knowing both sides of the story, he prefers to be circumcised.

As a woman, I prefer circumcised, it looks cleaner...

Don't worry about getting circumcised. Worry about someone talking you into subincision (http://encyc.bmezine.com/?subincision). OMFG! I could have done without the pictures!

Don't worry about getting circumcised. Worry about someone talking you into subincision (link to subincision).

Oh man, that's just wrong...I'm even feeling pain.

Why would anyone want to mutilate themselves that much?!?

It has less to do with the foreskin, and more to do with what type of sex you have (even if you have a condom on).

Exactly! A man who is uncircumcized is more likely to contract HIV, if he has the same amount of contact with partners who are HIV+. The most important determinant in this is whether or not the man has habits that are more likely to bring him in contact with it, or engages in sexual activity more likely to transmit it if he does. Circumcision or lack thereof, while most likely a factor, is a minor one. This is why, in order to study its contribution, populations must be chosen such that the men (both circumcized and uncircumcized) in the study are likely to have similar sexual habits and environment.

Oh man, that's just wrong...I'm even feeling pain.

Why would anyone want to mutilate themselves that much?!? I feel very uncomfortable right now.

I feel very uncomfortable right now.

If I had a penis, it would have shrunk back inside in fear and horror by now....

I understand circumcision, when it's done for medical reasons or religious reasons, but *THAT* is being unreasonable.

Sad story - in Ireland a couple of years back, a couple had their baby sone circumcised for religious reasons. Normally, boys are only circumcised if there is a foreseen problem with the foreskin, and then usually at birth, but this couple wanted it for other reasons, and were turned down at the hospital, because there was no valid medical reason for it. So they turned to the guy with the rusty blade, and their son died of bleeding afterwards. The parents were held responsible for his death...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0820/baby.html

Sadly, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.cirp.org/news/

It's fairly depressing.

Exactly! A man who is uncircumcized is more likely to contract HIV, if he has the same amount of contact with partners who are HIV+. The most important determinant in this is whether or not the man has habits that are more likely to bring him in contact with it, or engages in sexual activity more likely to transmit it if he does. Circumcision or lack thereof, while most likely a factor, is a minor one. This is why, in order to study its contribution, populations must be chosen such that the men (both circumcized and uncircumcized) in the study are likely to have similar sexual habits and environment.


Absolutly. The foreskin like everything else has pluses and minuses....it DOES increase your chance of catching a communicable disease. HOWEVER it LOWERS your chance of getting cancer in the region.

If given a choice I am going to protect my son against cancer and TEACH my son not to sleep with people who have diseases.


(Male, un-cut)

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?

I am circumcised. I believe it is better to have it done on a new born than to have it done later in life. I don not remember any pain although I was 3 when it was done. I was told however that I was in considerable pain.

Men that are not circumcised are no more likely to suffer an infection if they clean themselves properly.

Don't worry about getting circumcised. Worry about someone talking you into subincision (link to subincision).

That's just nasty! DAMN

How the removal of the foreskin (circumcision) upon males puts over as a devaluing of women... has got to be one, if not THE most absurd, disconjoined, leaps of "logic" I have ever heard Grave....

Well, I didn't think YOU would like it...

Just look at what I typed, and think about it for a while. Seriously.

(Off topic, one only has to look at the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, to find two more attempts to devalue the feminine.... it is hardly unique in Judeo-Christian mythology).

Damn. I've already asked for pictures in a thread today. Wouldn't want to be repeating myself, now.

i didnt read the whole thread, but it think the poll may be wrong. i always thought that it was when you cut off the head. then somehow make it into a trafic cone. am i wrong?

i didnt read the whole thread, but it think the poll may be wrong. i always thought that it was when you cut off the head. then somehow make it into a trafic cone. am i wrong?

Yes, you are wrong. Circumcision involves cutting off the foreskin, not the head. There is no procedure that I am aware of which involves cutting off the head of the penis, or shaping it like a traffic cone.

From a female perspective; the mushroom head looks aesthetically better and so much nicer to have in the mouth. ;)

From a female perspective; the mushroom head looks aesthetically better and so much nicer to have in the mouth. ;)

From a gay male perspective; the intact penis looks more natural and aestheically appealing, and is much nicer to have in the mouth and gives greater potential for varying the technique I use for giving blowjobs.

Seriously, that's just an issue of individual taste (no pun intended), nothing more. And frankly, unless it's from a medical practitioner for substantial medical reasons, the opinion of someone who's gentialia isn't actually in question is irrelevant.

I'm circumcised, and I don't mind. I don't remember it, I think I was an infant when it was done. It's the only way I've ever known it, so it just seems kinda normal to me. On this thread, people say that it makes the penis get less sexual feeling, but it's not like I have any basis for comparison, as I've been circumcised my whole life. And if it makes me last longer, that's a plus.

Yay for penises!

Yay for penises!

Damn right.

Rotovia speaks wisely, once again.

From a female perspective, it shouldnt matter, they're not getting cut up.

Smegma

Smegma


Bathing :eek:

The Penis game...


[in a little tiny quiet voice]...penis....

Or, alternatively... it COULD just be another weird example of how patriarchal religion devalues women...

The foreskin, once excised, is a useless 'ring' of flesh, that once belonged on the penis, and serves no other purpose.

Thus, you CAN view circumcision as yet another example of Judeo-Christian oppression of women.

(Of course, the religious types would argue STRONGLY against that version... but, of course, that doesn't make it wrong....)

I'm intrigued, please explain.

I figure the vast majority of guys are circumcised, but I'd like to create a poll just out of curiosity. Do you feel that it's okay to deny a male the opportunity to refuse the surgery by going ahead with it at birth? Do you believe it's true that men with a foreskin are more likely to suffer from infection?
a) the majority of men in the world are not circumcised. It is a practice performed among some African nations as a 'coming of age' ritual (Camara Laye: The Dark Child, by Jews and by Moslems. Who knows the origin of it among the latter? I imagine it began as a tribal ritual to discover how much pain a young male could endure.
b) a bit of soap and water (hard to get in some desert climes) is always recommended, and not only for that part of the anatomy.
c) the foreskin does protect the sensitive tip of the penis; the uncircumcised man can 'last' as long as the circumcised man, provided he learns how.
d) re: the pain an infant experiences: just listen to the normal cry of a baby and then listen to the scream of one who has been circumcised. That should put to rest any belief that babies don't feel anything.
e) besides, the uncircumcised male looks normal. ;)

Well, I didn't think YOU would like it...

Just look at what I typed, and think about it for a while. Seriously.

(Off topic, one only has to look at the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, to find two more attempts to devalue the feminine.... it is hardly unique in Judeo-Christian mythology).


I have only one response.... Can I have what you're smoking; because it has to be some good shit...

Seriously Grave, this is tin-foil hat-level to deflect CIA mind-control beam type stuff you're lowering yourself to.

I'm uncircumcised. And yes, it is fairly *ahem* sensitive.

From a female perspective, it shouldnt matter, they're not getting cut up.
Um, from a hetero or bi female perspective it sure as hell matters a lot...I pay attention to what is being stuck inside my body, thank you very much. The health and cleanliness of the male sex organs will directly impact any sexual partner he is with, so any woman who plans to have sex with males should absolutely be concerned about issues like these. Additionally, any female that plans to have children should care about these issues, because as a parent she will be required to make important health care decisions for her kids (some of whom may be male).

Um, from a hetero or bi female perspective it sure as hell matters a lot...I pay attention to what is being stuck inside my body, thank you very much. The health and cleanliness of the male sex organs will directly impact any sexual partner he is with, so any woman who plans to have sex with males should absolutely be concerned about issues like these. Additionally, any female that plans to have children should care about these issues, because as a parent she will be required to make important health care decisions for her kids (some of whom may be male).


/signed

:eek:

*Watching for other signs of the apocalypse ~ Ph33rdom and Bottle the same side, it HAS to be one of the signs :p *

Um, from a hetero or bi female perspective it sure as hell matters a lot...I pay attention to what is being stuck inside my body, thank you very much. The health and cleanliness of the male sex organs will directly impact any sexual partner he is with, so any woman who plans to have sex with males should absolutely be concerned about issues like these. Additionally, any female that plans to have children should care about these issues, because as a parent she will be required to make important health care decisions for her kids (some of whom may be male).

If any woman (or man, for that matter) is having sex with a man who doesn't keep his genitals clean, they've got more things to worry about than whether he's had the snip or not.

As for health and cleanliness, being circumsised or not hardly affects this unless the male in question has really poor personal hygeine. If there are real, pressing medical reasons for having circumcision, fine, but in the vast majority of cases the 'health reasons' are a series of vague, airy "what ifs" and, in the US at least, is more often a matter of dubious medical habit than anything else.

And yeah, (potential) parents should definitely be concerned about these issues, but they should think about actually teaching their male children good personal hygeine habits rather just immediately reaching for the scissors (figuratively speaking.)

I think she was referring to the fact that wives of circumcised men have less bouts of Yeast infections and things like that...

Circumcised men are less like to carry and re-infect their wives with the same problem over and over again.

I think she was referring to the fact that wives of circumcised men have less bouts of Yeast infections and things like that...

Circumcised men are less like to carry and re-infect their wives with the same problem over and over again.

Again, this is likely due to the husband's (lack of) personal hygeine. These women should really be trying to get their husbands to be less complacent about the the hygeine of their genital area. But making sure their genitals are clean is something all men should be doing, regardless of sexual activity or the presence of absence of their foreskin.

Most men wipe their arses, it always amazed that so many don't feel the same need to keep their penis clean as well. It just seems like common sense to me.

I'm intrigued, please explain.

Well, the Bible is a catalogue of attacks on the feminine gender... both the Old and New Testaments, in both the original tongues, and in the translation.

Translating has done plenty of damage - the excision of the feminine gender of the creative 'Spirit' of God on Earth, and the removal of the gender of the creation process that brings forth life, for example.

But, the crime was already committed within the text, and within the surrounding commentaries. Midrash texts suggest a second bride of Adam, rejected because he saw all her intimate workings and repulsed. The first Bride of Adam is suggested to be Lilith (mother of all Demons), who was rejected because she sought equal dominance.

The only 'bride' that was suitable, was the man-feminised... i.e. a clone of Adam, reconfigured to bear young... she is even made from the man... his own tissue excised.

When viewed in that light, it is not difficult to imagine circumcision to be a ritual based on the 'type' of the Adamic creation... man is somehow purified by the removal of a feminine element, and that feminine element is a waste product. One has only to look at feminine symbols throughout history (the cup, the cave, water...) to see parallels in terms of form, and even function.

At her most base symbolic, the feminine is the cup - a receiving form - like the excised foreskin (as a sheath).... basically a ring, removed from, but associated with, the penis... the very parallel of Eve in the Genesis tale.

Of course, the New Testament elaborates further - with the rape of Mary, the production of an infant who is his OWN father, and later, his own mother - even the mother of men.

Come Revelation, the whole of humanity has been converted into the 'bride' of a phallo-theistic avatar.

I have only one response.... Can I have what you're smoking; because it has to be some good shit...

Seriously Grave, this is tin-foil hat-level to deflect CIA mind-control beam type stuff you're lowering yourself to.

Is this the best you can do?

I have a serious point, which I have made, and elaborated on a little.

Your response is to accuse me of being addled by drugs, and/or insane.

Read my responses, perhaps. Think about them a little. Maybe look at some OTHER mythologies, and see if you can't find parallels... see if you can't arrive at some INDIVIDUAL revelations.

On the other hand, if you actually have something to say about any of the points I made, feel free.

Just don't waste bandwidth, forum space, and my time, with further vitriol.

Attack the argument, not the debator, my friend. It is sound practise.

I think she was referring to the fact that wives of circumcised men have less bouts of Yeast infections and things like that...

Circumcised men are less like to carry and re-infect their wives with the same problem over and over again.

I have to agree with Revasser on this... it seems far more likely that this is about cleanliness than about the actual skin.

So - is the circumcised man a better cleaniliness prospect, or has he just rubbed off most of the potential problems on the insides of his jeans...?

I don't know where you heard this.

.


my doctor,

I have to agree with Revasser on this... it seems far more likely that this is about cleanliness than about the actual skin.

So - is the circumcised man a better cleaniliness prospect, or has he just rubbed off most of the potential problems on the insides of his jeans...?

I have no opinion of the ‘why’ aspect of it, only that from what I’ve seen that it is being shown as a statistically proven data and not just an old wives tale that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If it’s cleanliness or skin type I don’t know. I’ve seem Dem write some stuff in this forum about the foreskin type being a different type of skin and more susceptible to transfer than other skins and something about nerve counts in infant circumcisions having/creating a different result through adolescence without the foreskin thus making the adult male penis develop in a way that can’t be duplicated by the simple removal of the foreskin at adulthood. So, honestly, I think it could have both physical and cleanliness aspects…

Well, the Bible is a catalogue of attacks on the feminine gender... both the Old and New Testaments, in both the original tongues, and in the translation.

*snip middle of long post*

Come Revelation, the whole of humanity has been converted into the 'bride' of a phallo-theistic avatar.

Dude… OMGosh

Given that conscious state is supposed to be sharp, but we have seen that where complex physical properties are appealed to three theories of mind are false (or at least should be rejected) regardless of which view of vagueness one favors.

There is reason to investigate versions of identity and reality theory and dualism of reality and stimuli that appeal to the physical properties whose concepts are sharp (if such sharpness in reality exists) or not. For functionalism to be viable though we need to accept our realizations to have only restricted to properties whose concepts are sharp. But when perceptions becomes unclear it compounds the extent that there could be multiple realizations of reality, and hence no advantage functionalism could be enjoy over speculation in regard to the identity of theory IF our reality is not sharp.

In general, the foregoing arguments of yours in that post support attempts to explain consciousness and reality in terms of fundamental vagueness, which in turn in my mind is dependant on the likelihood that panpsychism (the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists) is true, but if it is not true that perception IS reality, then I think you are off your rocker! :p

Some may think that since fundamental physics is quantum physics, and quantum phenomena are indeterminate, the world at that level is vague. Though the issue is too complex to enter into here, I believe that quantum indeterminacies are very different from those associated with vagueness. Be that as it may, if the physical world is nowhere sharp, the three theories of mind are worse off than we can percieve. Not only are all materialist theories of consciousness false, dualism becomes incomprehensible as soon as one asks what “parts” of a vague physical world sharp consciousness states we must link up with. Here, even those most repelled by eliminativism might think twice. Recall however that most semantic and epistemic theorists believe the physical world is sharp; they should thus infer that materialist and dualist theories must employ sharp physical concepts. Whether the physical world is sharp or not, therefore, assumes that the consciousness of the mind does not altered, but makes it’s perception vague, versions of the identity theory, functionalism, and dualism that appeal to complex physical properties are false, then your complex association of one thing with another is likely to be purely metaphysical vagueness.


In other words, bullshit :p :D :p

Just messing with you a little bit. Almost everytime I read one of your interpretations of scripture I have to hit my head with a hammer to believe that you and I are reading the same book ;)

Given that conscious state is supposed to be sharp, but we have seen that where complex physical properties are appealed to three theories of mind are false (or at least should be rejected) regardless of which view of vagueness one favors.

There is reason to investigate versions of identity and reality theory and dualism of reality and stimuli that appeal to the physical properties whose concepts are sharp (if such sharpness in reality exists) or not. For functionalism to be viable though we need to accept our realizations to have only restricted to properties whose concepts are sharp. But when perceptions becomes unclear it compounds the extent that there could be multiple realizations of reality, and hence no advantage functionalism could be enjoy over speculation in regard to the identity of theory IF our reality is not sharp.

In general, the foregoing arguments of yours in that post support attempts to explain consciousness and reality in terms of fundamental vagueness, which in turn in my mind is dependant on the likelihood that panpsychism (the doctrine that mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists) is true, but if it is not true that perception IS reality, then I think you are off your rocker! :p

Some may think that since fundamental physics is quantum physics, and quantum phenomena are indeterminate, the world at that level is vague. Though the issue is too complex to enter into here, I believe that quantum indeterminacies are very different from those associated with vagueness. Be that as it may, if the physical world is nowhere sharp, the three theories of mind are worse off than we can percieve. Not only are all materialist theories of consciousness false, dualism becomes incomprehensible as soon as one asks what “parts” of a vague physical world sharp consciousness states we must link up with. Here, even those most repelled by eliminativism might think twice. Recall however that most semantic and epistemic theorists believe the physical world is sharp; they should thus infer that materialist and dualist theories must employ sharp physical concepts. Whether the physical world is sharp or not, therefore, assumes that the consciousness of the mind does not altered, but makes it’s perception vague, versions of the identity theory, functionalism, and dualism that appeal to complex physical properties are false, then your complex association of one thing with another is likely to be purely metaphysical vagueness.


In other words, bullshit :p :D :p


That's okay... I know obfuscation when I see it. :)


Just messing with you a little bit. Almost everytime I read one of your interpretations of scripture I have to hit my head with a hammer to believe that you and I are reading the same book ;)

Reading the same book... yes. But not with the same eyes.

You would say I look with unenlightened eyes, perhaps... and I might say you see the story as doubtlessly true, so look for no possibility of deeper issues or symbolism.

I only know that I see different things in the text to many... I don't think that automatically makes me 'wrong'. You have to admit... I'm an interesting perspective on the text, no?

Well, the Bible is a catalogue of attacks on the feminine gender... both the Old and New Testaments, in both the original tongues, and in the translation.

-snip-

Come Revelation, the whole of humanity has been converted into the 'bride' of a phallo-theistic avatar.

Well I've never read the Bible so I can't really comment here. The name Lilith sounds familiar but I can't place it.

Thanks for the explanation. :)

I'm pretty damn sure I'm not, then. Ouch… sounds painful… surely it'd be really sensitive all the time?

*goes into a paroxysm of wincing and instinctively crosses legs*

It depends how young you are when it is done to you. If it's done in infancy the wound heals FAR more quickly than in a boy or an adult male. I knew a guy who was an American of Muslim faith, his mother however had not had this operation done for him when he was a baby. She was a convert and he was born before she converted. That might have been why. Anyway he got married , but before he could get married, he's 23 years old so he has to have this operation as a grown man!
He took almost two months to feel anything like normal. Both he and his new wife really didn't enjoy haveing sex the first few times! It hurt him too much.
Incidentally there are arguments in favor of circumcision as far as the skin layers being more if a man is circumcised, if he is he's got 16 layers of cell, if not he has three layers of skin. The evidence is that it's harder to get diseases of all kinds if a man is circumcised.
It isn't an iron clad guarentee that a circumcised man will 'last longer' incidentally.
Endurance involves many factors. My ex husband was circumcised and hardly lasted. He had underlying illness, namely blood pressure and his meds made his problems worse. These days they have blood pressure medications which are better. Adjusting the dose might have helped him but he would not go back and talk to the doctor.
The one man I was with since then was uncircumcised and he lasted like for a good four hours. So it depends on a lot of factors.
A man's circulatory system and general health has way more impact on how well he lasts than if he's circumcised or not.

Well I've never read the Bible so I can't really comment here. The name Lilith sounds familiar but I can't place it.

Thanks for the explanation. :)

I seem to recall, from reading the Bible in Hebrew, that the word 'Lilith' only actually appears once in the Old Testament, and is translated as 'owl', I believe...

One has to look to the OTHER things that the Hebrews believed, to find evidence of Lilith, the Lilim and the 'missing second bride' of Adam.

Again, this is likely due to the husband's (lack of) personal hygeine. These women should really be trying to get their husbands to be less complacent about the the hygeine of their genital area. But making sure their genitals are clean is something all men should be doing, regardless of sexual activity or the presence of absence of their foreskin.

Most men wipe their arses, it always amazed that so many don't feel the same need to keep their penis clean as well. It just seems like common sense to me.

It would seem so, but you'd be shocked how many men don't even wash their hands!

It would seem so, but you'd be shocked how many men don't even wash their hands!

Ugh, you're telling me. In public bathrooms, maybe 60% of the guys wash their hands. I always wash mine, and I open the door with a quick push of the foot.

Hey, I just washed my hands. I'm not gonna grab a penis door!

Don't worry about getting circumcised. Worry about someone talking you into subincision (link to subincision).


omfg .. that is crazy. :eek:

I voted I have a Mushroom head.....

Well, the Bible is a catalogue of attacks on the feminine gender... both the Old and New Testaments, in both the original tongues, and in the translation.

Translating has done plenty of damage - the excision of the feminine gender of the creative 'Spirit' of God on Earth, and the removal of the gender of the creation process that brings forth life, for example.

But, the crime was already committed within the text, and within the surrounding commentaries. Midrash texts suggest a second bride of Adam, rejected because he saw all her intimate workings and repulsed. The first Bride of Adam is suggested to be Lilith (mother of all Demons), who was rejected because she sought equal dominance.

The only 'bride' that was suitable, was the man-feminised... i.e. a clone of Adam, reconfigured to bear young... she is even made from the man... his own tissue excised.

When viewed in that light, it is not difficult to imagine circumcision to be a ritual based on the 'type' of the Adamic creation... man is somehow purified by the removal of a feminine element, and that feminine element is a waste product. One has only to look at feminine symbols throughout history (the cup, the cave, water...) to see parallels in terms of form, and even function.

At her most base symbolic, the feminine is the cup - a receiving form - like the excised foreskin (as a sheath).... basically a ring, removed from, but associated with, the penis... the very parallel of Eve in the Genesis tale.

Of course, the New Testament elaborates further - with the rape of Mary, the production of an infant who is his OWN father, and later, his own mother - even the mother of men.

Come Revelation, the whole of humanity has been converted into the 'bride' of a phallo-theistic avatar.
Wow have you been googling Female Vampires like i was?

Wow have you been googling Female Vampires like i was?

Ha ha! No... this is just kind of my area of interest....

Although, I might go Google 'female vampires', now... :D

I personally happen to like my foreskin. I'm more sensitive than circumsized guys and I don't get "rug burn" from not jerking off with lube because my skin can move up and down taking away problems of friction, and I seem to have a general ability to make plenty of semen (precum) as it is, which helps too. If you're uncut and you have smegma... look it up if you don't know what that is, either you produce it more than normal, or you don't SHOWER. I clean myself and I never have problems. It takes like 2 seconds to pull the foreskin back, granted considering that you CAN pull you're foreskin back. Some guys can't as much because it wasn't done FOR them when they were born so it's held there and wont go under the head like mine can, also limiting masturbation and sex in certain ways I'd not be surprised to hear. Hopefully that wasn't too graphic for our viewers.