How do you feel about circumcision?

Recommended Videos

awmperry

Geek of Guns and Games
Apr 30, 2008
222
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
I personally approve of it it (but don't disagree if parents or whatever opt not to)
You don't disagree if parents opt not to? You mean you'll graciously allow me to leave my son (due next month, incidentally) uncircumcised? That's very big of you.


Bara_no_Hime said:
Berethond said:
There is absolutely no reason to.
And fucking aesthetics is NOT a valid reason to chop part of their dick off. Why don't you let them grow up a little and then decide if they want a "better-looking penis".

Though really, I think it should be illegal.
Um... why?

A newborn can't remember the pain and heals in days - whereas an adult must go through several weeks of painful recovery.

Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?

If you don't care for it, that's fine, but why so... passionate about this topic?
Why? Because it's genital mutilation. On an adult, slicing up their genitalia without their approval or medical necessity would be considered a sexual assault.

Pierced ears and tattoos are generally done at the person's own request, and any reputable tattoo parlour will refuse to tattoo anyone not old enough to give legal consent. Pierced ears, again, have some degree of age limit; I have seen people who've had their toddler's ears pierced, which I have similar opinions about.

Circumcision is forcibly removing a non-trivial part of a non-consenting child's genitals. Its medical advantages are questionable (the old hygiene chestnut is nonsense for anyone who's learned the arcane art of washing), and its aesthetic justification is subjective at best and entirely fallacious at worst.

*You* think it makes the penis look better. (Personally, I find circumcised penes to look rather lumpy and misshapen, but I understand that that's my subjective opinion, not an objective fact.) I'm not sure why the appearance of a child's genitalia is of that much significance to you, but the sheer arrogance of imposing that subjective view on a child is staggering. What about if someone were to decide they wanted to cut their child's ears off because they preferred the smooth-sided look? Would that be all right?

Besides, in any instance where it matters how it looks, the foreskin will be retracted anyway. Unless you mean the showers after gym class, but anyone suggesting hygiene as an excuse for circumcision clearly would never find themselves in that situation anyway.

In my view, circumcision is child molestation in all but law. There are conditions that make it medically necessary, but in my view anyone who has it done for any non-medical reason is being simply abusive.


Bara_no_Hime said:
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure. ... Again, foreskin removal has no medical downside.
Now, that is just incorrect. It protects the glans from friction (allowing the glans of an uncircumcised man to retain its original sensitivity), keeps it moist, and contains lots of nerve endings of its own - in fact, some studies suggest that it's one of the most sensitive areas ("the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis." (Sorrells, 2007))

"the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings?many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." (Boyle, 2002)

Studies do vary, of course - it is a distinctly subjective matter, and few people are in a position to comment on both states - but what is certain is that it contains a high density of nerve endings, as does the frenulum.

There are also more specifically medical advantages of retaining it; to take just one example, several meatal conditions such as stenosis are far less common among uncircumcised men.

There are also a number of complications that occur with varying regularity; everything from unpleasant scarring, cysts and skin bridges to ulcers, necrotising fasciitis and impotence.

Incidentally, 117 boys died in 2010 following circumcisions. It's rare, but the risk exists.


Bara_no_Hime said:
If I had freakishly long earlobes as a baby, and my parents chose to trim them to look more normal, I would be fine with that.
You're implying that circumcision is perpetrated to "look normal", suggesting that retaining something that every male is born with is abnormal. Well... Actually, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

If an infant is born with a defect that is surgically correctible - hexadactyly, for instance, or a third nipple or something - by all means correct that to "look normal". But if you try to tell me that a foreskin, which provides so many benefits and so few downsides, is abnormal (bearing in mind that over 80% of European males are uncircumcised) I will oppose you at every turn.

You do not mutilate a child to satisfy your own personal aesthetics. It's that simple.

---
EDIT:

Shiny Koi said:
In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?

They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!

Unless you practice lots.
Given the choice between circumcision and "lots of pracatice"... I know which I'd pick. As for how long one lasts... perhaps I should let my wife handle that one. ;-)
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,525
0
0
It seems to be an American fascination for some reason.

The topic rarely crops up in the UK. Who really gives a toss (see what I did there?) whether their little boy's penis looks good with or without a hood.

The hygiene 'issues' can be tackled by, you know, bathing and I assume, because the glans is exposed, that sexual sensitivity is reduced.

 

That's Funny

New member
Jul 20, 2009
805
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Foreskin is useless. It serves no practical purpose - it has no effect on sexual stimulation or pleasure.
Incorrect. The foreskin serves a pratical purpose as a gliding mechanism, and is also a huge part of sexual pleasure, and stimulation (keyword Masturbation).

Also Foreskin protects the penis from infections. If evolution put it there, it is not a birth defect.
 

ImperialSunlight

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,267
0
0
TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.
If you can't tell the difference, you probably are.

Anyway, to the original thread, I personally am circumcised and I have no problem with it. In fact, I find penises that aren't circumcised a bit unattractive (yes, I'm gay). It is true that there are few health benefits to it these days but it is easier to look after.
 

Thundero13

New member
Mar 19, 2009
2,392
0
0
Ok right, here is the problem with parents getting their babies circumcised, whether or not it's better like that is irrelavant, if you are circumcised, then you don't have a choice of whether or not you want to be circumcised, if you aren't circumcised then you can be if you want to
...
Also uncircumcised penises look a lot nicer, just saying
 

Bobbovski

New member
May 19, 2008
574
0
0
As I've said in previous circumcision threads; It shouldn't be done on babies/children unless it's done to cure a medical condition.
 

Eisenfaust

Two horses in a man costume
Apr 20, 2009
679
0
0
i honestly don't really care...

of all the other ways a parent can screw up a child, whether or not they slice off an inch or so of useless flesh seems like a dramatically unimportant issue to be focusing on
 

CaptainREBell

New member
Feb 11, 2009
138
0
0
So I've had 2 boyfriends, one was circumcised, the other wasn't...BIG difference.
I would say the one that wasn't circumcised was much better, but he had a bit more experience. Circumcision does allow the guy to go for ages, but my ex didn't seem as satisfied after climaxing than the guy who still had his foreskin.
Sooo yeah! The ex had it done for medical reasons, which I think is good. It shouldn't really matter, after all.
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
I'm circumcised, and I've never regretted it. I like the look better, and apparently uncircumcised people have abnormally sensitive privates, which can lead to unnecessary pain. Or so I've heard.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,071
0
0
TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

Being in locker rooms and such, you get an eyeful...and I have yet to meet a uncircumcised fellow, and I've had this exact talk with some friends(females) of mine, and they all prefer the aesthetics of the circumcised over uncircumcised

for my children? If my wife randomly refuses to have it upon them than no big deal, but i'll be doing it to my male children when the time comes, it's a useless part of the penis that according to people i know who like it, prefer it circumcised, so for my male's future girlfriends (or boyfriends) i will probably get them the snip.
 

djs.specs

New member
Dec 14, 2010
17
0
0
I don't agree in performing medically unnecessary surgical procedures. If there's a medical reason to circumcise, then go for your life.

Not even going to touch any religious motivations for circumcision.
 

ultimateownage

This name was cool in 2008.
Feb 11, 2009
5,346
0
41
Bara_no_Hime said:
Also, how is circumcision different from pierced ears or a tattoo?
You wouldn't tattoo a baby, would you? Saying that is the exact opposite of helping your case, you know.

O.T. I'm indifferent, but what I'm not indifferent about is that you guys need to stop making threads like this. It's not that it's just repeated so often, it's also quite tasteless.
 

saxxon.de

New member
Apr 18, 2011
112
0
0
A Friend of mine has had his penis circumcised a year ago based on medical reasons. He says, sex doesn't feel half as good since then.

Be happy with your "nice look" down there, but I'll stick with more pleasure, thanks.

Oh, and also: I think deciding if a human has a part of his body removed for no life saving reason before the individual is old enough to decide for itself should be considered a crime.

If I have my babies' small toe cut off because I think a foot with 4 toes looks better, I go to jail and rightfully so. This should be handled equally with circumcision and everyone who does it to an individual who isn't self-concious and self-aware should go to jail and have their kids taken away from them.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
Shiny Koi said:
To everyone saying "cut" people have less sensation:

In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?

They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!

Unless you practice lots.
There was a link in the last thread about this saying uncircumcised people do not last longer in bed and god damnit if I ever find that thread I will post all those articles along with the ones to do with penetration harder and increased erectile dysfunction and more fun things. Less sensitive in this case just reduces the pleasure not increase the duration.
gmaverick019 said:
TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

Being in locker rooms and such, you get an eyeful...and I have yet to meet a uncircumcised fellow, and I've had this exact talk with some friends(females) of mine, and they all prefer the aesthetics of the circumcised over uncircumcised

for my children? If my wife randomly refuses to have it upon them than no big deal, but i'll be doing it to my male children when the time comes, it's a useless part of the penis that according to people i know who like it, prefer it circumcised, so for my male's future girlfriends (or boyfriends) i will probably get them the snip.
It looks the same erect and it is obviously not useless or else it would not be there and god damnit I will find that thread for proof.
 

Kadoodle

New member
Nov 2, 2010
867
0
0
weker said:
Kadoodle said:
A a Jewish kid who had his dick chopped, I'd like to say that I am anti-circumcision.

Sure, it's easier to clean, and it SLIGHTLY lowers chances of STD's, but is that really worth losing the nerve endings? I don't get to enjoy sex as much as the next guy.

I will never forgive my parents for this, and so I promised myself I'd never circumcise my kids.
A guy posted a few back the Penn and Teller show about it.
In it they show and easy and NON surgical way of giving you it back (I really never thought i would ever have to say such a thing)

One thing I have learnt today is many Americans are circumcised which I had no idea about.
I have never met a person over here that is such in England.
You can get it back, sure. You basically stretch the skin and force it to grow over the area where the foreskin was. You can't get back the nerve endings, though.
 
Sep 14, 2009
9,071
0
0
Glademaster said:
Shiny Koi said:
To everyone saying "cut" people have less sensation:

In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?

They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!

Unless you practice lots.
There was a link in the last thread about this saying uncircumcised people do not last longer in bed and god damnit if I ever find that thread I will post all those articles along with the ones to do with penetration harder and increased erectile dysfunction and more fun things. Less sensitive in this case just reduces the pleasure not increase the duration.
gmaverick019 said:
TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

Being in locker rooms and such, you get an eyeful...and I have yet to meet a uncircumcised fellow, and I've had this exact talk with some friends(females) of mine, and they all prefer the aesthetics of the circumcised over uncircumcised

for my children? If my wife randomly refuses to have it upon them than no big deal, but i'll be doing it to my male children when the time comes, it's a useless part of the penis that according to people i know who like it, prefer it circumcised, so for my male's future girlfriends (or boyfriends) i will probably get them the snip.
It looks the same erect and it is obviously not useless or else it would not be there and god damnit I will find that thread for proof.

beyond the fact of having a slightly more sensitive dick (which honestly i can do without, i get so damn horny as is, i'd blow a load every day randomly if i had any more sensitivity) I don't see or know of much more purpose to having it there, someone said earlier on with some link to it that it keeps your dick moist, which no offense i HATE having my dick wet/moist, it is the most annoying thing in the world, and is why at home i constantly have a fan shooting right at my nutsack to keep it cool and dry.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,329
0
0
gmaverick019 said:
Glademaster said:
Shiny Koi said:
To everyone saying "cut" people have less sensation:

In spite of being a woman who is an avid supporter of uncut, I have to say one thing: Stop talking about being less sensitive like it's a bad thing! Any of you ever been to a sex store, or actually, you know, had sex?

They have a massive lineup of condoms and lubricants designed specifically to reduce your pleasure so that you last longer. The more sensitive you are, the quicker you'll pop!

Unless you practice lots.
There was a link in the last thread about this saying uncircumcised people do not last longer in bed and god damnit if I ever find that thread I will post all those articles along with the ones to do with penetration harder and increased erectile dysfunction and more fun things. Less sensitive in this case just reduces the pleasure not increase the duration.
gmaverick019 said:
TheDarkEricDraven said:
I have no idea if I am circumsised myself for I have no idea what the diffrence is and honestly, I'm a little scared to look it up.

Being in locker rooms and such, you get an eyeful...and I have yet to meet a uncircumcised fellow, and I've had this exact talk with some friends(females) of mine, and they all prefer the aesthetics of the circumcised over uncircumcised

for my children? If my wife randomly refuses to have it upon them than no big deal, but i'll be doing it to my male children when the time comes, it's a useless part of the penis that according to people i know who like it, prefer it circumcised, so for my male's future girlfriends (or boyfriends) i will probably get them the snip.
It looks the same erect and it is obviously not useless or else it would not be there and god damnit I will find that thread for proof.

beyond the fact of having a slightly more sensitive dick (which honestly i can do without, i get so damn horny as is, i'd blow a load every day randomly if i had any more sensitivity) I don't see or know of much more purpose to having it there, someone said earlier on with some link to it that it keeps your dick moist, which no offense i HATE having my dick wet/moist, it is the most annoying thing in the world, and is why at home i constantly have a fan shooting right at my nutsack to keep it cool and dry.
Circumcision increases chances of erectile dysfunction, does not prevent STDs or Cancer, makes penetration and masturbation harder and uncircumcised penises do not get wet as you think it does. It keeps the glands lubricated but not dripping wet.
 

Custard_Angel

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,236
0
0
I don't agree with circumcision due to my Christian faith. Pure and simple.

(Anyone who wishes to challenge me on that can refer to Galatians 5)
 

Kadoodle

New member
Nov 2, 2010
867
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
Arontala said:
Mimsofthedawg said:
DP155ToneZone said:
IT IS MUTILATION. Simple.
I'm circumcised. I have no problem with it.
That doesn't really change the fact that it's mutilation, you know.
So? It's only a problem if it causes a problem. There's all these people on this forum crying foul because you're abusing you're child... I don't feel abused. I've seen polls done and the VAST majority of people who've been circumcised (something like 98 or 99%) don't feel abused. Why is it an issue to you?

It just sounds like anti-religious, liberal hogwash to me.
Hey, I certainly feel abused.

And it does have its problems. Like I said before, you lose a lot of nerve endings. Sex will never be as pleasurable for you as it is for some other guy.