|Circumcision... Page 16 of 18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)|
In addition, my little brother was NOT and he suffered a great deal of ridicule in school.
I went through some ridicule, too. I would think that most American males who don't get cut probably will hear one thing or another in the locker room. It wasn't too bad; but I did hear the occasional comment. The future risk of being ridiculed is not a valid reason to circumcise an infant.
The more important point is that circumcision is medically unnecessary. Most of the studies cited which show a link between circumcision and lower rates of STDs cannot conclusively attribute the lower rates to circumcision itself, rather than to socioeconomic or regional factors. Since circumcision over the last century has been a practice of the wealthy and middle-class, rather than the working class or destitute, it is plain that people with financial means have access to better protection from STDs and better treatment if/when an STD is contracted.
Circumcision is barbarism. Circumcision damages the function of the penis, as many studies have shown. It's also medically unnecessary, as there are more effective ways to circumvent the spread of STDs.
Posted: 3/26/2009 2:29:31 PM
|I think there are so many little boys getting out of the maternity ward with their bits intact, that when they're a few years older, the other kids won't hassle them. Anyway, in this day & age none of them use the locker rooms any more.|
I read a message on another board from a resident at a hospital in the Southwest, who said that there, circumcision is the thing the doctors most hate to do, and they'll try to talk the parents out of it. But I think this kind of thing is regional and cultural--so in that area, with a lot of Indians and Hispanics, it probably isn't common.
Agreed that the evidence is piling up that says circumcision helps prevent disease. But then, so does being a bit careful.
Posted: 3/26/2009 2:54:01 PM
|In the Western States circumcision is on the way out. We have a lot of Asians and others who perceive mutilation of the penis as barbarism. Boys with denuded**** are now already in the minority. |
If it is such a great idea to amputate part of the body to prevent disease so ordinary hygiene won't be necessary, why stop at the penis? Dandruff can be surgically prevented; bald people don't get dandruff so let's just prevent all growth of hair on the scalp. And nobody will ever get toothache if every tooth is automatically extracted as soon as it grows in.
Posted: 3/26/2009 4:09:05 PM
|Good grief you guys are sensitive about your winkies. Let's remember one thing: |
They don't cut it off, it's not like losing a limb.
If done as an infant, it's not likely even remembered. I just asked my 23 year old son (who is quite sensitive about his own winky) and he remembers NOTHING. Sort of like his belly button falling off ~ not a clue. To each their own, I'm happy I made the decision to have my son's winky customized and if I were in a deciding position again ~ I would make the same decision.
Posted: 3/26/2009 5:10:46 PM
|People have entertained some false notions about the efficacy of circumcision for a long time. It's not as much a matter of personal preference or approval as it is a matter of rationality and common sense. We don't do unnecessary tonsillectomies and appendectomies. FraSe had an excellent point about things like dandruff---we don't shave people bald because they might get a condition affecting the hair. We don't hack women's breasts off when they have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene so as to prevent probable future breast cancer. Penile cancer and STDs associated with intact foreskin comprise much less of a risk for males than breast cancer does for women. Circumcision, therefore, is unwarranted.|
Any additional risk of contracting an STD when one is intact is a miniscule risk. Other risk factors are much more prevalent. As for whether an infant remembers the circumcision, I'm not sure that is relevant; but there is evidence which indicates the brain waves of infants change premanently during and after circumcision. The procedure is now deemed by the AMA and other medical associations as being extremely painful to babies without anesthetic (circumcisions used to be routinely performed without anesthesia). There is no medical indication for this procedure which justifies routine neonatal circumcision.
I'll take it a step further: barring an appertaining religious edict, any parents who assent to the procedure for their sons are in the wrong. They messed up. They got it wrong. It should be a decision made by the person in question when they are of an age to understand. There is no justification for it, and the only excuse is ignorance. Apologize to your kid now. Thankfully, the trend in this country is continuing to move away from circumcision.
Posted: 3/26/2009 5:20:04 PM
They don't cut it off, it's not like losing a limb. VGE, 99.9% of the time I agree with what you're saying; however, this is not one. Risks of circumcision include: bleeding; pain; a cosmetically ugly result; infection; disfigurement; loss of part, or all of the penis; and death. There are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS for routine circumcision. NONE. 75% of the population on the planet have never been exposed to routine circumcision. Comparing circumcision with "your belly button falling off" is like comparing being beaten unconscious with ball bats (an experience many don't remember either), to watching a fight on TV. The pain associated with circumcision is so intense the infant's scream goes quiet. The face will still be bright red and splotchy, the mouth and eyes in a screaming posture, but all of a sudden, sound quits coming out. Sometimes they'll make sort of a gagging or "hocking" sound, but the scream just abruptly ends. But so what, they don't remember it right? Even if they deaden the area, simply giving the anesthesia is painful; and that does nothing to reduce the other risks.
As has been mentioned the "lower risk of STD's" associated with circumcision is questionable at best; and VERY MINIMAL if it actually does exist. A lot of those studies compare men in rural Africa with men in the US. WAY different populations. As far as ridicule goes; as long as they stay in North America, they're cool; at least for the time being; as the practice is receding. I'm not circumcised; I played sports, and was in a lot of locker rooms; and I was NEVER EVER ridiculed in any way. As a parent of an uncircumcised child you should simply point out to them when they are young that, IN THIS COUNTRY some do, some don't...no big deal. Kids don't make fun of someone if it doesn't bother them. They say something, the kid shrugs and says "so what", and they quit.
Routine circumcision is done for social and religious reasons. I disagree with, but can accept the religious reasons; although, that's part of why they circumcise little girls in parts of Africa; and we don't accept that. To be educated on the subject, and still circumcise your child because, "By God it was good enough for ME!", OR because mom and dad don't want to be concerned with the extra care cleaning requires for an infant, is unconscionable.
Posted: 3/26/2009 7:46:07 PM
Risks of circumcision include: bleeding; pain; a cosmetically ugly result; infection; disfigurement; loss of part, or all of the penis; and death. There are NO MEDICAL INDICATIONS for routine circumcision. NONE.
Sorry to disagree, but I'll go with the CDC and the AMA on this one:
Risks Associated with Male Circumcision
Reported complication rates depend on the type of study (e.g., chart review vs. prospective study), setting (medical vs. nonmedical facility), person operating (traditional vs. medical practitioner), patient age (infant vs. adult), and surgical technique or instrument used. In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection.
As has been mentioned the "lower risk of STD's" associated with circumcision is questionable at best; and VERY MINIMAL if it actually does exist.
I should have been much more specific in my original quoting ~ you need to view the following portion of the link I posted to get to the portion associated with the United States:
HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States
There is an incredible amount of data there so, you guys are on your own to read it, research it, interpret it, or whatever you'd like to do with it. It's out there, it's current and it's about the US. I don't have a winky to be worrying about and I'm certainly not having more children, but I found it interesting, nonetheless. Nothing learned each day is a wasted day. Enjoy.
Posted: 3/27/2009 6:49:49 AM
|I am not circumcised and find it no problem to "freshen up" with soap and water at a sink or with a hand sanitizer, before and after sex. I agree that a circumzed penis looks "better" than a natural one. Not all vulvas look "attractive," in their natural state. In fact there are plastic surgery procedures to make them look "better." As far as bacteria, etc. The vulva has MUCH more bacteria than an uncircumcized penis. Go to a drug store and look at all the deoderants, anti fungual and yeast infection products for women. You don't see too many (none) for uncircumcised men. |
There is a procedure in some countries where they circumcise the foreskin around the clitoris. If women think circumcision is such a good idea, how many have had this procedure done to them? (No, I'm not talking about how some backward countries remove the entire clitoris)
Posted: 3/27/2009 7:13:20 AM
|If most cervical cancer was caused by uncircumcised men, that means there would be almost no cervical cancer in Jewish women, right? (since all Jewish men are circumcised) Cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus strains. Now you have to ask yourself. How did the HPV virus get under the foreskin? Hpv virus doesn't fly in the air and land under a foreskin. I bet he got the virus from dipping in a vagina! |
The vagina is moist, warm and keep in the dark. A perfect bacteria breeding ground. Bacteria grow and mutate into different strains. A vulva is a cesspool compared to an uncircumcised penis.
Posted: 3/27/2009 9:02:39 AM
If most cervical cancer was caused by uncircumcised men, that means there would be almost no cervical cancer in Jewish women, right? (since all Jewish men are circumcised) ...
Circumcision was promoted in the US by Dr. Peter Remondino, a Union Army surgeon in the Civil War. Advocates of circumcision in those days didn't know about the phony arguments using HIV and cancer, so they argued from mental health. It goes like this:
There are few Jews in prisons. There are few Jewish alcoholics. Therefore, obviously, circumcision is good for you. If we circumcise all baby boys then voila there will be no more crime or alcoholism.
Even funnier is the "neuresthania" argument. Boys whose penises are uncut are more easily aroused to erection so they masturbate more.
We all know that masturbation causes hairy palms, warts on the hands, etc., but even worse is mastirbation's deleterious effects on mental health.
Masturbation makes boys pale, thin and weak. By circumcising them all, there will be no more "neuresthania" - a disease invented at that time in order to put masturbation into a mental health issue.
What about girls? Oh no, they don't masturbate. We know that because Queen Victoria said so.
The hilarious belief, that circumcised boys don't masturbate, isn't new. It comes from Moses Maimonides, 1190 A.D., in his "Guide to the Perplexed," part 3, chapter 49. Queen Victoria's insisting that girls have no sexuality comes from the belief that a wife's duty is to lie down and submit passively to her husband's lust while she thinks of England; she isn't supposed to enjoy it, her Christian duty is to cook his meals and make babies for him.
Posted: 3/27/2009 3:15:54 PM
Sorry to disagree, but I'll go with the CDC and the AMA on this one:
Alright, let’s go with the CDC and AMA; and I’ll throw in the American Academy of Pediatrics as a bonus.
Where it all began: In the mid-1800’s circumcision was endorsed to prevent masturbation, which some doctors claimed caused many diseases, including epilepsy, tuberculosis and insanity. The reasoning here was that in institutions insane patients masturbated frequently therefore, frequent masturbation led to insanity. In 1891, P.C. Remondino advocated circumcision to prevent or to cure alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, hernia, gout, rheumatism, curvature of the spine, and headaches.
85% of the world's males have NOT been circumcised. The practice hit its zenith in this country in the 1960's and 1970's when 90-95% of all males were circumcised. The National rate in 2006 has dropped to 56.1% (National Hospital Discharge Survey) and varies by region with the lowest in the West at 33.8%.
1975 that the American Academy of Pediatrics came out in opposition, arguing that good personal hygiene would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk. The AAP has not altered in their statement; and repeated this pronouncement as recently as 2005.
http://www.cdc.gov/HIV/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm...It's out there, it's current and it's about the US. Ummmmm…no….read it; the majority of all of those studies were from Africa. AND the results have NOTHING to do with cause and effect. Personal habits, and hygiene play a MUCH greater roll than circumcision.
American Medical Association: Report 10 of the council on Scientific Affairs (1999-2000) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html The following are excerpts from this report.
Of physicians performing circumcision, 45% use anesthesia, (55% used NO anesthesia! This was 1999 I don’t know what current stats are.)
The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons.
Urinary Tract Infection: …Depending on the model employed, approximately 100 to 200 circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent 1 UTI.
Penile Cancer: Penile cancer is a rare disease in the United States (0.9 to 1 per 100,000). Among uncircumcised men the incidence is estimated to be 2.2/100,000…Nevertheless, because this disease is rare and occurs later in life, the use of circumcision as a preventive practice is not justified..
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Sexually Transmissible Diseases: …behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as "protecting" against such infections.
[JAMA. 2008;300(14):1674-1684. Conclusions Pooled analyses of available observational studies of MSM (Men having Sex with Men) revealed insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs. (Sexually Transmitted Infections)]
Conslusions:Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision,
A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations, rather than medical concerns.
verygreeneyes From the CDC….In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates range from 0.2% to 2.0% [1, 14, 15]. The most common complications in the United States are minor bleeding and local infection. It said “MOST COMMON COMPLICATIONS”, it did not say ONLY complications. Common things happen commonly; of course minor bleeding and local infection are going to be “most common”; and they don’t even consider PAIN and INFANT DISTRESS; because these are universal; they happen EVERY TIME.
An excerpt from the most recent study I could find; from the journal Pediatrics: NNT = Number Needed to Treat i.e. how many circumcisions would you need to perform to prevent one occurrence of a particular problem.
NNTs to Prevent Undesired Outcomes
… In the case of UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) in the first year of life, … 100 children need to be circumcised to prevent 1 UTI. For penile cancer, although the association with circumcision status remains controversial,1222-24 conservative estimates (based on life table analyses and assuming circumcision to be 100% effective at preventing penile cancer), suggest a NNT of 909.24,25 Data for the reduction of the risk of human immunodeficiency virus exist, but have been derived from very different populations than US adults and have led to conflicting conclusions.11,26,27 Data from a sexually transmitted disease clinic suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of contracting syphilis,10 although results from a population-based study appear to refute this association.28 Moreover, sexual behavioral practices remain the most important modifiable risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases
Circumcised: 130,475 Complications: 287 (0.22%) HEMORRHAGIC: Intraoperative bleeding 209; Hemorrhage control 12; Suture of artery or vein 9; INJURY: Penile repair 23; Suture penile laceration 29; Wound-penis 3; Reconstruction of penis 1; INFECTION: cellulites 2
Not Circumcised: 223,822 Complications: 33 (0.01%) HEMORRHAGIC: Intraoperative bleeding 30; INJURY: Wound penis 1; INFECTION: cellulites 2
Because circumcision is not a lifesaving procedure,6 and its modest medical benefits may be offset by its complications, its indications are discretionary.
The probability of complications are 2,200% more likely with circumcision!!! WHAT THE HE[L IS “WOUND PENIS” and “RECONSTRUCTION OF PENIS”? and these were for a NON-MEDICALY indicated ELECTIVE procedure!
Does infant circumcision have risks?
Circumcision is surgery, and like all surgery it has risks. These include:
o Excessive bleeding
o Injury to the glans
o Infection (raw wound is exposed to feces and urine in diaper)
o Complications from anaesthesia, if used
o Surgical error, including removal of too much skin
o In rare cases, complications can be life-threatening.
The study didn’t even consider the following
Up to 20% of circumcised males will suffer from one or more of the following complications, to some degree:
o Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urethral opening due to infection and subsequent scarring, that occurs almost exclusively in circumcised boys) 
o extensive scarring of the penile shaft
o skin tags and skin bridges
o bleeding of the circumcision scar
o curvature of the penis
o tight, painful erections
o psychological and psychosexual problems 
The surface of the glans becomes dry if not protected by the foreskin. It is believed that dryness and abrasion may cause progressive loss of sensation in the glans, especially in later life. Circumcised men on the whole do enjoy sex and are able to orgasm.
If you want numbers and evidence: http://www.cirp.org/ (Home Page)
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ (Lit. Review)
(YES, this is a near militant anti-circumcision organization; however, they post links to the ACTUAL RESEARCH. You can discount the site; but you can’t discount the data)
Remember oral sex and the uncircumcised penis? This thread is about oral sex, and the uncircumcised penis. I’m for it. :-D
Posted: 4/1/2009 11:23:33 PM
|It's not just males who are victims of genital mutilation. In parts of Africa it is routine to cut off the clitoris of girls before they reach puberty. It destroys their pleasure and eradicates masturbation, leaving the girls as baby-making machines for the husbands who own them like cattle.|
This brutal practice is illegal in Egypt but is so ingrained in the population from thousands of years of tradition that the government has found it impossible to stop it. Circumcision of both boys and girls has been going on in that region since the Age of the Pharoahs.
Alice Walker's book "Possessing the Secret of Joy" is about the destruction of women's pleasure by circumcision. Tragically, men in those cultures flatly refuse to marry women who have escaped having it done to them.
Male circumcision is firmly fixed in Judaic and Islamic cultures, with all the force of religion backing it up. In India, where Hindu and Muslim populations live side by side, a circumcised man is considered unfit to marry by Hindus.
In America, genital mutilation was only applied to males and Federal law now makes female circumcision unlawful. Absurd health claims gave impetus to circumcision, and it was alleged that circumcised boys would masturbate less, so becoming less apt to suffer mental illness. This derives from Moses Maimonides in the Middle Ages and is entirely without evidence to support it.
There is no evidence that circumcised Americans masturbate less than intact males, and neither is there any evidence that masturbation causes insanity, alcoholism, baldness, hairy palms or warts on the hands. The arguments in defense of circumcision as a health measure are mostly just old wives' tales.
Posted: 4/2/2009 9:23:34 AM
|I think it's preference....for me, I prefer NATURAL men. That flesh was put there to protect that area and should STAY there! Of course, that choice is usually made by the parents, which is another reason why I HATE circumcision! If it were for religious reasons, Let the person having the commitment to his religion make the choice later on in his life. I don't think it has meaning to a 2 day old infant!|
As for natural ones, you can play rougher with them! They're more fun to play with! Just my opinion.
Posted: 4/11/2009 5:03:42 AM
|I know I was born with that piece of skin intact so it must have been there for a reason. Who in God's name came up with the idea of lopping off the end of a male's penis in the first place anyway? Just like the clitoral hood the foreskin is there to protect the sensitive membrane that it covers. Leave it intact and learn how to use soap and water!!|
I think most woman would prefer a cut penis.
Read the posts in this thread, I think you'll find you're wrong!
Posted: 4/13/2009 6:34:17 PM
|In any case, if you argue that hygiene is easier when the penis is denuded, then here's a terrific idea.|
We all know that dandruff can be a problem. You won't need to wash your hair if we do some surgery on babies a few days old. Removal of the scalp and its hair follicles will make sure that there is no dandruff. No need to depend on washing it to be clean.
Posted: 4/14/2009 12:06:12 PM
It is heartening to see so much anti-circumcision support by men in this thread. If I ever get the chance to test drive one, I'll come back and report.
Speaking as an intact guy, I've been kind of disappointed that the women I've been with have said that they can't feel a difference. But none have objected either!
When we take a shower together, I just have to remind them that there's a little more work to do.
Posted: 5/3/2009 5:31:48 PM
|i like it when its cut ..its hygiene...|
Posted: 2/13/2010 7:08:12 AM
|No doubt this ilovetoshop is going to have all her hair shaved off. It's so much more hygienic to be bald and it prevents dandruff on the scalp. She will save a lot of time washing all that unnecessary hair and she will save money when she no longer needs to buy shampoo.|
Posted: 2/25/2010 9:38:53 AM
|i curse my parents for having me cut, i lost a lot of sensitivity, condoms are a nightmare, i would do anything to be uncut, and have those nerve endings back|
Posted: 2/25/2010 11:53:40 AM
i curse my parents for having me cut, i lost a lot of sensitivity, condoms are a nightmare, i would do anything to be uncut, and have those nerve endings back
That's a little extreme dontcha think? Your parents made the decision based on what they knew at that time. I've already had this discussion with my #1... and the overwhelming GUILT... I allowed someone else to make that decision because I wasn't uneducated at that time. Trust me when I say that I'd like to go back and fight a little harder for my child.
It's hard for you to know exactly what you lost since you never had it to begin with. I know several men who've had to be circumcised in their mid 20's... all say they are better off!!
You can have the reconstruction surgery done if it's so important to you.
Just out of curiousity... does this affect how you think and act as a lover? I mean, is this an overwhelming thought when you are naked and being intimate with someone? Does it impact on your performance and enjoyment of sex?
Posted: 8/13/2012 9:54:23 PM
|lol...funny to hear a lot of guys say it takes a little more 'work' to wash if uncut! Come on people..literally takes a few seconds to was your di*k! That is not any hassle at all..smh...typical of people today lazy as heck...let me guess washing your ***hole is a lot of work too huh?|
Posted: 8/13/2012 11:48:16 PM
|For uncut u just have to learn to do hand jobs & bj's a bit different. For bj's I have found that the corona, the ridge around bottom of the head is so silky smooth in uncircumcised guys. I like the way its skin texture is so soft & more sensitive for the guy because its covered all the time. The circ guys it rubs on underwear all the time & commando rubs on jeans. Until the last few years I had been w 1 uncut guy in.my whole life. Also uncut guys use the foreskin in masturbation so I've learned how to rub it up & down. Once a condoms on u can't tell the difference. I still like the uncut visually better but a few uncut look really good. The skin doesn't go past the head & hang. I'm hungry for some Italian. Or Polish sausage now mmmm|
Just about every guy w penile cancer is uncut. And in Africa there are campaigns for men.to get circ to help slow down the spread of HIV which is rampant & they found some evidence this will help. But, we are not in Africa. A guy I'm seeing now is uncut. But he had his son circ & recommended that my daughter to have her son done when he was born. He felt it made a difference in cleanliness. He's. Always fine to me.
Posted: 8/13/2012 11:56:49 PM
|Im not against uncut. Just about all men who get penile cancer are uncut. In Africa they are urging men to get circa to help stop the spread of HIV which is rampant.|
Posted: 2/10/2013 8:55:40 PM
|uncut rules I myself am uncut and never had a complaint yet|
18 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)