Circumcision???

lcrcboy

I could have gone to the mens lunge forum or whatever its called, but I thought this topic would better suit after hours as we have women on here as-well.

So my question is this do you agree with circumcision or are you against it, would approve of it been done to your son or not??... and has it been done to you (this question for the lads).

Personally I'm against it unless its down to medical reasons for which it needs to be done.

crosstownk

Why would anybody voluntarily chop a bit of their lad off? :eek: And would you wish on your son?

*crosses legs in sympathetic pain*

hypermuse

What if you could get it done for 10% off!

flyaway.

No, I don't agree with routine infant circumcision as I've never seen any actual reason to do it. It's not really much of an issue in Ireland, though, is it?

Of course, there are times when it needs to be done, as sometimes there is a problem, but those times do not include the first few days of a healthy baby's life. I don't know how some people got the idea that a foreskin is a birth defect...

TeddyTedson

Cutting bits (not to mention the penis:eek::eek::eek:) off people for no reason is just wrong. Let them decide for themselves if they want to cut it off.

TeddyTedson

Is it true the sometimes eat the bit that's cut off or something:eek::eek:

Micky Dolenz

I don't care about it. It won't happen to me unless it's on sound medical grounds. What men do with their cocks around the world isn't my concern.

Wheres the "I couldn't give a cock" option?

El Guapo!

If it's for medical reasons or if when you're older you decide you want it done then that's fine. But if it's for religious reasons then no I don't agree with that.

bazza1

It's no skin off my.....oh!

RB94

I think we can all agree that it's acceptable for medical reasons.

However, I'm completely opposed to circumcision for cosmetic reasons (not a fan of religious reasons either). The foreskin helps keep the glans lubricated. Anyone who has been circumcised eventually builds up a layer of callous skin, which usually decreases sensitivity, and therefore pleasure experienced.

The foreskin not only lubricates, but is the first barrier to bacteria and infections. Once it is properly cleaned every day, I don't think being circumcised is more hygienic.

Why would you put through your newborn baby through an unnecessary surgical procedure? (which involves anaesthetic - a smaller dosage is obviously needed, which doesn't always numb the area properly.) I certainly wouldn't put this trauma on any of my future children, deciding to remove a part of their body while they are so vulnerable.

My name is URL

Genital mutilation has never hurt nobody

Chuck Stone

It's a barbaric practice when carried out on defenceless babies. It causes unnecessary pain and suffering up to and including death.

HYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90
LOST BOYS: AN ESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS

- Dan Bollinger

Abstract: Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

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

galwayrush

This ****ing rip off keeps cropping up.

volvoman480

Hear the one about the short sighted circumcisor????





















He got the sack....... boom boom



Thangyou........

later12

Where's the option for 'I haven't read any of the literature, so I don't know'?

I really don't know. First guess would be anti, but there may possibly be some health benefit (HIV,or cancer?).

IM0

the only advantage is that you cant rip your banjo string when circumcised

boomkatalog

I voted before I read the op, whoops. Maybe you should have specified religious or cosmetic purposes, not medical.

darragh16

Some fellas just don't like their lad wearing a polo neck...

Micky Dolenz

IM0 wrote: »

the only advantage is that you cant rip your banjo string when circumcised

To be fair, that's a pretty big advantage.

toexpress

crosstownk wrote: »

Why would anybody voluntarily chop a bit of their lad off? :eek: And would you wish on your son?

*crosses legs in sympathetic pain*

I was done as a child (am not Jewish) it wasn't painful as a child though I believe it is as an adult and if you get a bit excited I hear that hurts like a motherf**ker

Now all of that said, speaking as someone who is a bit gay like I have to say I prefer men that have had the cut done. It's cleaner for play without being to graphic

IM0

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

To be fair, that's a pretty big advantage.

but it can be mitigated against with experience

krudler

had it done as an infant for medical grounds, zero memory of it so the pain thing was never an issue, know a few guys who got it done in later life who said they wouldnt wish it on anyone, so in that sense I'd rather had it out of the way. annoys me when people who arent try to say it ruins your sex life and all that, since when is having a super sensitive knob a good thing?never had any complaints anyway. only people who will know the difference are guys who had it done as adults and have experienced sex both ways.

toexpress

krudler wrote: »

had it done as an infant for medical grounds, zero memory of it so the pain thing was never an issue, know a few guys who got it done in later life who said they wouldnt wish it on anyone, so in that sense I'd rather had it out of the way. annoys me when people who arent try to say it ruins your sex life and all that, since when is having a super sensitive knob a good thing?never had any complaints anyway. only people who will know the difference are guys who had it done as adults and have experienced sex both ways.

Yeah and in my experience we tend to last longer as well

later12

toexpress wrote: »

It's cleaner for play without being to graphic

Hmm, it's not particularly difficult to keep that area clean in fairness.

I've heard (from a mate who is cut) that guys who are cut have more endurance in bed because they're less sensitive, but maybe that's just his opinion.

edit: oh, well above got there first.

toexpress

later10 wrote: »

Hmm, it's not particularly difficult to keep that area clean in fairness.

I've heard (from a mate who is cut) that guys who are cut have more endurance in bed because they're less sensitive, but maybe that's just his opinion.

edit: oh, well above got there first.

Well I have to say as someone who has no real memory of having one I cant comment on the whole cleaning thing but I have heard some things over the years and once saw something at the gym that very nearly made me blow my groceries ... that was after he had used the shower

Doc Ruby

Circumcision is barbarism.

Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby's penis clean.

Reality check: In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger. It is harder to keep circumcised baby's penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment.

Myth: Little boys won't clean under their foreskins and will get infections.

Reality check: The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty. Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger. After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy's shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else! It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises. (Camille 2002)

Myth: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma.

Reality check: Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years. Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.

Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult."

Reality check: Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby's foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change. Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection.

Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria. Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures. The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care.

Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised.

Reality check: Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children's foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. Any such diagnoses in infants are based on misinformation, and are often made in order to secure insurance coverage of circumcision in states in which routine infant circumcision is no longer covered.

Even some adult men have foreskins that do not retract, but as long as it doesn't interfere with sexual intercourse, it is no problem at all, as urination itself cleans the inside of the foreskin (note that urine is sterile when leaving the body.)

Phimosis can also be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003) These treatment decisions can and should be made by the adult man.

Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)

Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.

In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.

It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.

Myth: Circumcision is worth it because it can save lives.

Reality check: Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008). How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?

Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.

Myth: Circumcision is an important tradition that has been going on forever.

Reality check: In the United States, circumcision wasn't popularized until Victorian times, when a few doctors began to recommend it to prevent children from masturbating. Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877). Circumcision caught on among the sex-negative Victorians, but only wealthy parents could afford it. In 1932, only 31% of men were circumcised; this peaked around 85% in 1980, and has been dropping ever since (Laumann 1997, Wallerstein 1980). Far from an ancient tradition, it was only popular in post-war America; think of it as "your parent's body mod."

Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."

Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).

Myth: "If I were any more sensitive, it would be a problem."

Reality check: The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis (Sorrells 2007). In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band (Cold 1999). This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing.

It may feel like the penis is overly sensitive to a circumcised man because there is little sensation left to indicate excitement, leading to unexpected premature ejaculation (a common problem with circumcised young men). However, as circumcised penises age they become calloused and much less sensitive. (See the interview listed below for more details.)

A much better response than anything I'm going to come up with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTS6iVpSPI

RichieC

I was cut as a child for reasons unknown. I dont remember it being cruel...

Stiffler2

Once the foreskin is cut and the purple monster exposed to the elements the purple monster is frequent to brush against the jeans zip and material you're wearing.

After a while the purple monster doesn't like this so he builds himself a caless of sorts around the purple meaning he won't be so sore next time he rubs off something.

This is turn means the purple monster looses sensitivity which makes the roide worse.

If you've a cover over the purple monster though he will remain at high sensitivity.

Now - Q the next person who has had one claiming it's the bomb - :rolleyes: ye.... right

44leto

I was mutilated in infancy.:mad::(

teddansonswig

i remember a long drinking night with an italian jew, circumcision came up and i was against it for the sensitivity reasons! he dodged the question as far as i remember but the interesting part of the convo was when he was showing off his tattoo, and somebody said its also agains jewish rules to get a tattoo

and he replied ' its my skin i can do what i want with it '

so i said ' thats exactly my point!'

Duggy747

No foreskin = No cock cheese :pac:

endacl

Duggy747 wrote: »

No foreskin = No cock cheese :pac:

Wash = no cock cheese.....?

getuponthis

Think id prefer to wash it to be honest.....

Wibbs

For genuine medical reasons yes. Hell if you want to do it as an adult as a fetish thing, knock yourself out. Routine circumcision of newborns is IMHO an archaic religious blood rite excused by some societies medical types and better left in the bronze age where it belongs.

Even the Jewish version wasn't always so extreme in removing the lot. Ancient Greek texts show that Jewish men could "pass for" uncircumcised greeks and enter the annual games so some was left. The Jewish elders then required removal of the lot so this would be impossible. The Greeks and later the Romans considered it a barbarity of primitive peoples, hence alone among the Mark 2 Jewish faiths and unlike Muslims, Christians are not required to have it as a religious duty. Ditto for food restrictions. The Greeks and Romans thought them a bit daft(good luck in stopping an Italian eating pork). Yay for the Greeks and Romans on a few scores.

kfallon

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Is it true the sometimes eat the bit that's cut off or something:eek::eek:

Yeah that's why foreskin is known as "The Jewish Chewing Gum"

:pac:

Killer Pigeon

I imagine it's be great sex, but not so great if you want to have a casual **** as you'd need lube all the time. Also, you'd have to make sure you're trimmed down there because when you're walking about you don't want to get hairs stuck under there - it'd be quite uncomfortable.

Doc Ruby

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I imagine it's be great sex

Its the opposite of great sex, its crap sex:

Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."

Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).

hatrickpatrick

Genital mutilation of a minor for any reason than an absolutely necessary medical intervention should be 100%, completely, and totally illegal.

For those who claim this violates religious freedom, if a religion mandates human sacrifice do we get rid of murder laws to accommodate it? Ridiculous strawman. Circumcision for non essential reasons is absolutely barbaric and the fact that it is still allowed in so many Western countries disgusts me.

AnonoBoy

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm[/B] (O'Hara 1999).

Eh.... how would presence of a foreskin or a lack thereof affect a woman reaching orgasm?

Doc Ruby

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Eh.... how would presence of a foreskin or a lack thereof affect a woman reaching orgasm?

Its only about six posts back...

Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

hatrickpatrick

I have to say I find the above arguments irrelevant and a bit sick too. Imagine if we were talking about surgical intervention, of ANY king, on female infants "because it will feel better for the guys they have sex with later" or "because men prefer it that way"? :mad:

It would be rightly regarded as obscene.

Killer Pigeon

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its the opposite of great sex, its crap sex:

Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.

Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).

Irrelevant to most men really. It's ourselves we're thinking about, not women. Great sex for the man, not so much maybe for the woman.

Doc Ruby

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Irrelevant to most men really. It's ourselves we're thinking about, not women. Great sex for the man, not so much maybe for the woman.

If you think so superglue your foreskin to your shaft and let us know how you get on.

AnonoBoy

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Its only about six posts back...

Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.

Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.

Excellent news - I shall stop clitorial stimulation henceforth and inform the ladies that my foreskin is all they shall need!

Thank you doctor - you've saved my wrist!

Doc Ruby

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Thank you doctor - you've saved my wrist!

Surely you mean your fingers.

AnonoBoy

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Surely you mean your fingers.

I gots mad technique yo!

cocoshovel

Im not for or against it, I just dont give a toss.

Teyla Emmagan

It's multilation, of a baby. And in nearly all cases there's no medical reason for it.

So that's a 'no' then.

Micky Dolenz

A mate of mine got it done in his 20's because he kept ripping his banjo string. A few years on he can thump it off a hard surface and barely feel a thing, he says he'd have it back on in a flash.

Doc Ruby

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Oh c'mon. Sexual simulation comes from friction on the glads (head). If you take away the foreskin, that mean more stimulation/friction on the head which in turn means more pleasure.

By that logic sticking your flute in front of a sandblaster should be ecstasy.

Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877)

So the Mengele of masturbation advised circumcision to prevent said activity, because the friction causes discomfort and pain in males. Circumcised males experience more friction during sex, in a similar manner to the experience during masturbation, and no doubt with similar results.

Erectile dysfunction, a calloused helmet, desentisivity, premature ejaculation, and making it harder to please a lady.

Oh where do I sign up.