Circumcision

LegacyUser

Just wondering how common it is, and do guys who are think they're less sensitive?

rubadub

they are only going to know if they were circumcisied in adulthood. i have read some circumcised in adulthood say they are less sensitive and the erection can be smaller too (due to skin expansion restriction). i have read the average male circumcised at birth has a smaller erection since they, on average, start to masturbate at an early age which messes with various growth hormones and results in stunted physical growth of both height and sexual development. they begin masturbating earlier since the exposed glans (knob) is rubbing against their clothes and so they are sexually aware from an early age.

Lex_Diamonds

Originally posted by rubadub
they are only going to know if they were circumcisied in adulthood. i have read some circumcised in adulthood say they are less sensitive and the erection can be smaller too (due to skin expansion restriction). i have read the average male circumcised at birth has a smaller erection since they, on average, start to masturbate at an early age which messes with various growth hormones and results in stunted physical growth of both height and sexual development. they begin masturbating earlier since the exposed glans (knob) is rubbing against their clothes and so they are sexually aware from an early age.

Somebody needs to tell that to Peter North! :eek:

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hah, i heard the exact opposite to that before

that being uncut makes you more prone to masturbation and a girl iw as talking to wanter to get her kid cut so he wouldn't od it as much..

bleh, it's a ridiculous argument.

there's no medical benefit to circumsision.

rubadub

thats sick. have your kid mutilated to stop him doing something natural. i wonder if she would have her daughter circumcised (clitoris cut off) is she masturbated too much.

like cutting his the thumb off because he sucks it too much.

the foreskin is full or sensitive nerve endings which add to sexual pleasure

imp

Apparently it cuts down on the sensation. I wouldn't know.

But yeah... female circumcision is against international law. Equality my ASS!

}:>

Enygma

Had mine snipped about two months ago now. Basically before I got it done sex was very painful so obviously I didn't enjoy it.

I wouldn't say there is less sensation now but sex is obviously much better, all in all I'm glad I got it done.

smiles

Originally posted by imp
But yeah... female circumcision is against international law. Equality my ASS!

Female circumcision involves cutting off the clit. ie. removing pleasure point from her..... "hmmmmmm" it's not an equality issue.

<< Fio >>

DMT

Originally posted by smiles
Female circumcision involves cutting off the clit. ie. removing pleasure point from her..... "hmmmmmm" it's not an equality issue.

That reads like you think there's absolutely nothing wrong with male circumcision or that you don't care about it*.
Please clarify.

(* Maybe it's just me - I have a temperature - damn this cold.)

imp

Basically I just think its slightly hypocritical that parents are allowed to cause such terrible pain to a boy but not a girl. Surely all forced circumcision should be outlawed? I know that it raises religious issues for some people, I don't have an answer to that but it does seem a little barbaric to me.

}:>

smiles

Originally posted by DMT
That reads like you think there's absolutely nothing wrong with male circumcision or that you don't care about it*.
Please clarify.

(* Maybe it's just me - I have a temperature - damn this cold.)

male circumcision is not designed to remove the pleasure of sex from the male. female circumcision is. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it, but i'm saying that there's considerable less wrong with it than with female circumcision.

<< Fio >>

smiles

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is a destructive, invasive procedure that is usually performed on girls before puberty. Part or all of the clitoris is surgically removed. This leaves them with reduced or no sexual feeling. Orgasms are sometimes impossible to experience later in life. Many health problems result from the surgery.

FGM originated in Africa. It was, and remains, a cultural, not a religious practice.

Among individuals and groups opposed to the mutilation, it is seen as a method of reducing the sexual response of women in order to make them less likely to become sexually active before marriage or to seek an extra-marital affair after marriage.

To some who promote the operation, it is seen as a cultural requirement that has health benefits and makes women more physically beautiful. These views are not shared by the rest of the world.

The operation is forced on approximately 6,000 girls per day, worldwide -- about one every 15 seconds. Since FGM is practiced when the girls are young, they are unable to give their informed consent.

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is practiced in many forms:

* Sunna circumcision in which the tip of the clitoris and/or its covering (prepuce) are removed.
* Clitoridectomy where the entire clitoris, the prepuce and adjacent labia are removed.
* Infibulation (a.k.a. Pharaonic circumcision) which is a clitoridectomy followed by sewing up of the vulva. A small opening is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass. 1 A second operation is done later in life to reverse some of the damage. In some cultures, the woman is cut open by her husband on their wedding night with a double edged dagger. She may be sewn up again if her husband leaves on a long trip.

Because of poverty and lack of medical facilities, the procedure is frequently done under less than hygienic conditions, and often without anesthetic by other than medically trained personnel. Anesthesia is rarely used. Razor blades, knives or scissors are usually the instruments used. The In the rural Mossi areas of Burkina Faso, group female circumcisions are scheduled every three years in many villages. Girls aged from 5 to 8 are assembled by their mothers into groups of up to 20. The circumcision "uses a knife-like instrument, the barga, reserved specifically for this purpose; after each operation she simply wipes the knife on a piece of cloth, sometimes rinsing it in water first." 2 In some areas of Africa, FGM is delayed until two months before a woman gives birth. This practice is based on the belief that the baby will die if she/he comes into contact with their mother's clitoris during birth. We are unaware of any medical evidence to support this belief.

Side effects of the operation can include: hemorrhage, shock, painful scars, keloid formation, labial adherences, clitoral cysts, chronic urinary infection, and chronic pelvic infections. Later in life, it can cause kidney stones, sterility, sexual dysfunction, depression, and various gynecological and obstetric problems.

One of my friends worked on an AIDS and Sexual Awareness Programme in Kenya last summer, one of the facts that she was explaining to the local women was that female circumcision is designed to remove *pleasure* from them, she said in several of the villages that the women cried, because they didnt even know what had been taken from them.

You're trying to compare this is the loss of foreskin, which is traumatic in its own right, but to a lesser degree.

<< Fio >>

Goodshape

Not circumcised... wouldn't consider it mutilation, but at the same time I wouldn't really see the point in it.


...I heard recently that the term 'schmuck' (spl?) is actually the name of the discarded skin after circumcision... seems plausible enough - schmuck being a very Jewish word and that - does anyone know for sure?

s0l

Originally posted by imp
Basically I just think its slightly hypocritical that parents are allowed to cause such terrible pain to a boy but not a girl. Surely all forced circumcision should be outlawed? I know that it raises religious issues for some people, I don't have an answer to that but it does seem a little barbaric to me.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldnt they use anesthetic?
Well in a hospital I'm sure they do, dont know about the jewish sacrement thing that i forget the name of.

thedrowner

Originally posted by imp
Basically I just think its slightly hypocritical that parents are allowed to cause such terrible pain to a boy but not a girl. Surely all forced circumcision should be outlawed? I know that it raises religious issues for some people, I don't have an answer to that but it does seem a little barbaric to me.

}:>

and in conjuction with smiles post i have heard the horror stories about african tribes. i think when the girls are 13 they get taken somewhere, theyre not told where but really look forward to this coming of age outing and then they get circumcised, and the 'operation' is quite barbaric

i agree with you imp, that forcing someone to be circumcised is barbaric, if it's to stop them from masturbation, but i think most circumcisions (ni ireland anyway)are done because the foreskin is too tight, and its more barbaric to keep it than to have it gotten rid of.

Annasopra

But yeah... female circumcision is against international law.

The Union of Students in Ireland (USI) Womens Rights Officer who has done a thesis on FGM and has been campaigning against it this year recently told me that FGM is not illegal in Ireland

http://www.usi.ie/news/petitions10sept.htm
http://www.usi.ie/news/onasanwo3sept.htm
http://www.campus.ie/user?cmd=item-detail&itemid=6303
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/09/11/story786488096.asp

imp

I'm pretty certain female circumcision is against some UN human rights legislation.

Also, according to a priest I know, babies aren't given anaesthetic for religious circumcision (i don't know if you can give babies anaesthetic at all anyway) and he says seeing it done is one of the most horrible things he ever saw. Hm.

}:>

Redshift

I had it done a couple of years ago for medical reasons, I found it to be a very painful experience they tried to do it under local anaesthetic but it wasn't doing much so I had to have a general halfway through the procedure. I am very pleased with the result though no problems at all. I don't agree with routine circumcision of infants unless for religious reasons. I found it very painful I can only imagine what it is like for a child with no anaesthetic.

Red

The Sweeper

I think it's all a bit unnecessary.

If you have problems in adult life that lead to having surgery on your genitals to make life more comfortable, then that's just fine. Sort of like having your wisdom teeth removed if they're troubling you.

I cannot understand how anyone otherwise believes that multiliation is right and proper. At some point in millions of years of evolution, the skin that covers the hood of the penis became sufficiently important to be integrated with all the other bits that make up modern man. The human body is not built with bits designed to be chopped off by some overzealous sickle wielding nutter in the name of religion. I really do think it's a bad as tail docking in dogs for appearance.

The religious idea of severing the foreskin because it is 'unclean' comes from the same wealth of genius ideas such as 'you must have no contact with a woman in her moons because she is unclean' and 'you must not wear garments of mixed thread because they are unclean'...

Your body is your temple. Once you cut off the unclean bits.

Yeah, right.

rubadub

Originally posted by smiles
male circumcision is not designed to remove the pleasure of sex from the male. female circumcision is. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it, but i'm saying that there's considerable less wrong with it than with female circumcision.

<< Fio >>

its not designed specifically to remove pleasure but it does since the foreskin is full of sensitive nerver endings. sometimes the frenulum is cut away completely which is the male "equivalent" of the clitoral zone. i think mutilation of any child against their will is wrong. i would prefer the term "absolutuley unneccesary in all cases" about female circumcision than saying male circumcision is "less wrong".

most babies with a tight foreskin at birth go on to be perfectly fine later on if left alone

LegacyUser

Your body is your temple. Once you cut off the unclean bits.

How long are your toenails then?

pickarooney

Has the appendix any useful function? Would it not be better to remove that at birth to avoid any possible rupturing in later life?

mooman_00

your appendix has a purpose it stores unwanted and often dangerous pathogens (me thinks its been a long time since i done science), its just nowadays its not as important or as usefull as it once would have been.
Removing it at birth would be a uncalled for and pointless task as many people go through life with it intact.

/this is a personal opinion.....

mooman_00

Originally posted by Goodshape
I heard recently that the term 'schmuck' (spl?) is actually the name of the discarded skin after circumcision... seems plausible enough - schmuck being a very Jewish word and that - does anyone know for sure?

is that where the term you *schmuck* comes from?

Originally posted by rubadub
most babies with a tight foreskin at birth go on to be perfectly fine later on if left alone......

How exactly do you know this?........

/me reaches for phone to call c.o.p.i.n.e.

colinsky

Originally posted by smiles
male circumcision is not designed to remove the pleasure of sex from the male. female circumcision is. I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with it, but i'm saying that there's considerable less wrong with it than with female circumcision.

Both male and female circumcision are NON-CONSENTUAL SURGERY. The _degree_ of the surgery may vary, but the non-censentual nature (which is the part that makes it wrong) is directly equivalent.

edit: yes, they can can performed consentually later in life. that's perfectly fine and legal, as far as i'm concerned.

rubadub

Originally posted by mooman_00

How exactly do you know this?........

/me reaches for phone to call c.o.p.i.n.e.

i read it in the irish medical times journal. only babies with very tight foreskin should be circumcised for medical reasons. in some countries they just did it if it was tight presuming it would have to be done in later life which would (allegedly) cause more stress to the child.

it was documented that parents who went against doctors advice had children who didnt need to be circumcised later. the foreskin stretched itself as the child grew

mooman_00

Originally posted by rubadub
i read it in the irish medical times journal. only babies with very tight foreskin should be circumcised for medical reasons. in some countries they just did it if it was tight presuming it would have to be done in later life which would (allegedly) cause more stress to the child.

it was documented that parents who went against doctors advice had children who didnt need to be circumcised later. the foreskin stretched itself as the child grew

ok sorry i was just making a stupid joke......incidently if anyone comes a knocking on your door give a fake name

lyonsy

i always wonder if your lad would be fierce sore to touch. cos if ya pullback the foreskin and rub it its more sore than pleasureable, would it be like this if you were circumcised or would it toughen up over time, or maybe thats just me. ever get a hand job off a girl and she yanks down too hard.. ouch!

DapperGent

Originally posted by Goodshape
...I heard recently that the term 'schmuck' (spl?) is actually the name of the discarded skin after circumcision... seems plausible enough - schmuck being a very Jewish word and that - does anyone know for sure?

Yeah as far as I know both "schmuk" and "putz" refer to the castoffs from circumcision.

What I'd worry about is your ability to ****. I can't imagine it being as much fun if my foreskin was sliced off.

kaimera

lotion....

or a warm mouth

Rnger

Originally posted by Mordeth


there's no medical benefit to circumsision.

Yes there is. The foreskin can cover the top almost completly making using it sometimes painful and impossible to aim with. Or so a friend once told me.

mirv

Originally posted by Redshift
I had it done a couple of years ago for medical reasons, I found it to be a very painful experience they tried to do it under local anaesthetic but it wasn't doing much so I had to have a general halfway through the procedure. I am very pleased with the result though no problems at all. I don't agree with routine circumcision of infants unless for religious reasons. I found it very painful I can only imagine what it is like for a child with no anaesthetic.

Red

How can you deem relegious reasons sufficent? For crying out loud, do you think a baby at a barmitsfa (or however you spell it) holds the helm regarding his faith in life? What's worse is the routine practice of it in North America where it's the norm and has been practiced since its believed to have medical benefits, all of which can be had from regular washing of the sebum secreted.

DMT

Originally posted by rubadub
only babies with very tight foreskin should be circumcised for medical reasons.

From http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/foreskin.html:

"The foreskin, in almost all infants (96%), is still attached to the glans as its skin. It is there to protect the glans and urethra from infections. It should be left alone. It should never be forcibly retracted. Later in life, the foreskin can fully retract in almost all individuals (age 17 years and up), but it still acts as a protection to the glans, keeping it soft and moist as nature intended it. The foreskin also keeps the glans warm."

Redshift

Originally posted by mirv
How can you deem relegious reasons sufficent? For crying out loud, do you think a baby at a barmitsfa (or however you spell it) holds the helm regarding his faith in life? What's worse is the routine practice of it in North America where it's the norm and has been practiced since its believed to have medical benefits, all of which can be had from regular washing of the sebum secreted.

I should have been clearer with my comment I disagree with doing it routinely as is done in the states. However it is also done as part of some cultures and religions I'm saying I have no problems with that, It is not my place to judge another culture or religion regardless of my personal opinion which is that it shouldn't be done unless nessessary.

Red

colinsky

Originally posted by Redshift
I should have been clearer with my comment I disagree with doing it routinely as is done in the states. However it is also done as part of some cultures and religions I'm saying I have no problems with that, It is not my place to judge another culture or religion regardless of my personal opinion which is that it shouldn't be done unless nessessary.

Typical liberal missing-the point.

While people have the right to practice their own religion in any way they see fit (including self-mutilation), it's inappropriate to impose your religion on anyone else. These people are performing a ritual of THEIR religion on infants, who are much to young to either profess to, believe in, or understand a faith. This is not a statement of the child's religious faith this is an non-consentual IMPOSITION of the PARENT'S religious faith.

If the child wishes, as a religious observance, to procure a circimcision when is old enough to give consent, fine. That's his own business and his own religion. Mutilating a child is not.

I have a permanant ritual scar on my body of someone else's religion, that I don't believe in, and that I had no say in. I find that vastly degrading. It's just wrong.

Religious and cultural diversity does not imply acceptance of child mutilation. ALL surgery without immediate medical necessity should be consentual.

feldy

Originally posted by Goodshape
...I heard recently that the term 'schmuck' (spl?) is actually the name of the discarded skin after circumcision... seems plausible enough - schmuck being a very Jewish word and that - does anyone know for sure?

the word "schmuck" is actually a Yiddish word. it means jerk, or p*nis, like we would call someone a knob. it does not have anything to do with circumcision.

Whats Yiddish?
Yiddish is spoken by about 4 million Jews all over the world, especially in Argentina, Canada, France, Israel, Mexico, Romania, and the U.S. Before the annihilation of 6 million Jews by the Nazis, Yiddish was the tongue of more than 11 million people. Yiddish, although it is not a national language, is spoken by Jews all over the world. It arose (c.1100) out of a blend of a number of German dialects in the ghettos of Central Europe, and from there it spread to other parts of the world. Phonetically, Yiddish is closer to Middle High German than is modern German. Its vocabulary is basically German, but it has been enlarged by borrowings from Hebrew, Slavic, Romance languages, and English.

Redshift

Originally posted by colinsky
Typical liberal missing-the point.

While people have the right to practice their own religion in any way they see fit (including self-mutilation), it's inappropriate to impose your religion on anyone else. These people are performing a ritual of THEIR religion on infants, who are much to young to either profess to, believe in, or understand a faith. This is not a statement of the child's religious faith this is an non-consentual IMPOSITION of the PARENT'S religious faith.

If the child wishes, as a religious observance, to procure a circimcision when is old enough to give consent, fine. That's his own business and his own religion. Mutilating a child is not.

I have a permanant ritual scar on my body of someone else's religion, that I don't believe in, and that I had no say in. I find that vastly degrading. It's just wrong.

Religious and cultural diversity does not imply acceptance of child mutilation. ALL surgery without immediate medical necessity should be consentual.

You obviously have very stong feelings on this subject given your circumstances. I however do not have either the interest in the subject nor sufficient knowledge of the faiths and customs that lead to the circumcision of infants to enter into a debate with you.
I'm just saying that I don't wish or intend to judge or decry the customs and faith of others especially those which I know nothing about.

Regards
Red

Kev

So you have no problem with female circumcision if its part of someones culture or religion ?

helen_br

Originally posted by smiles
In some areas of Africa, FGM is delayed until two months before a woman gives birth. This practice is based on the belief that the baby will die if she/he comes into contact with their mother's clitoris during birth. We are unaware of any medical evidence to support this belief.

Ha, that's a bit of an understatement - no sane thinking person could possibly think there was a link between infant death and 'contact with the clitoris' medical evidence or otherwise - you might as well say touching them with your ear will kill them.

bobsmith833

I think I probably need a circumcision as the foreskin is very tight and doesn't move easily over the glans, especially under erection. Any ideas?

Redshift

Originally posted by Kev
So you have no problem with female circumcision if its part of someones culture or religion ?

This is my final post on this thread, As I said I am NOT interested in getting into a debate on this matter.

Victor

FGM in it's severity cannot be compared to male circumcision. While the foreskin is largely only a piece of skin, it is a very important piece of skin. Would people remove the eyelids from a baby?

I think both are unacceptable, save in medical circumstance (which I doubt exists for FGM). A male friend was circumcised as an adult because the tight foreskin was tearing and bleeding (into the condom) during sex.

Some adults may want for cosmetic or other reasons to remove the foreskin or part of the labia (Jade's (Big Brother) "kebab" comment comes to mind).

Originally posted by bobsmith833
I think I probably need a circumcision as the foreskin is very tight and doesn't move easily over the glans, especially under erection. Any ideas?

Talk to your / a GP, they might recommend you to a urologist (specialises in this type of thing) who might recommend medication or "snip, snip"

bombidol

Just as a matter of interest, how much does the op cost to get it done and whats the waiting list like .

feldy

Originally posted by bombidol
Just as a matter of interest, how much does the op cost to get it done and whats the waiting list like .

whatever the cost, i doubt it will match the pain of the op.

OUCH:eek:

Magic Monkey

Feldy,

Have you had the operation done yourself?

As a friend of mine who has got a general anaesthetic, so he wouldn't feel any pain during the op (and he was under). The pain comes from the recovery. It's supposed to be 2 weeks of heightened sensitivity and discomfort (especially in the morning - think about it...). Then after that, about 4 weeks (?) until you can properly 'use' it.

AFAIK, if you have (family) medical insurance, it shouldn't come to > €200, all in (including urologist consultations). This is just what my friend told me, from his experience.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

friend of mine got it done, he tells me it is quite painful after the op when the stitches burst.. and they *Will* burst

feldy

Originally posted by Magic Monkey
Feldy,

Have you had the operation done yourself?

a long long time ago

i heard of someone who got it done in thier 20's and it hurt like hell

Magic Monkey

Yeah, my friend got it done when he was 20. The op itself was painless (as he was under general anesthetic), but once he woke up and for the next two weeks... :O

LegacyUser

im getting it done soonish. I can hardly wait.

Magic Monkey

Boom boom, if you don't mind my asking, are you getting it done for aesthetic or medical (i.e. phimosis) reasons?

LegacyUser

medical.