How do you feel about circumcision?

[TrXster Dinu]

i don't know what to think about this, i have paraphimosis, and i don't have i single problem, except the part when my penis is in erection i pull my foreskin very hard, but i can pee with no problem, i can clean my penis easily, my only concern is for my sexual live, i don't know if it will affect it or not, but im confident it won't, but overall circumcision is necessary to those with serious problems, like hygienic problems, or urinal problems, if they don't then its optional.

 

[l3o2828]

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?

So it would be ok if your parents branded your ass?
And put piercings on you, or the circumcision equivalent would be just chopping your ear off because they prefer that look.

You're using extreme examples to prove your point. I'd point out the logical fallacy by name, but honestly saying it is rather tired. You know what you've done.

But, to answer the heart of your over-wrought question...

If my parents decided to have my ears pierced when I was an infant... I'd have thanked them. I hated getting my ears pierced at 16 because I am irrationally afraid of needles. If it was already done for me, and healed, it would have been a lot less painful and frightening.

So yes, I would want part of my body harmlessly altered because my parents though it looked nice and/or provided health benefits.

Since I don't have a penis, I can't really speak about foreskin directly, but none of the guys I've ever dated have had any, and they don't seem to mind. I will be circumcising any boys I happen to have. I have no religious beliefs about it (being pagan) - I just think his future girlfriends will appreciate it.

Hah! You do know that the foreskin CAN be a pleasure facture for the man and the woman?
Also, if you've ever seen a penis with foreskin on it then you see it goes up and down, right?
Well, guess what! IT MAKES SEX MORE PLEASING.
Anywho.
Tell me the facts on except for the tight foreskin or religion on why I should take a piece of my penis and cut it off?
I like my penis. We're best friends.

I was about to post this. I myself, am not circumsised, and i wouldn't force my children to be circumsized, unless they had phimosis or something.

 

[Oisin XD]

I think genital mutilation belongs in the dark ages. It hardly matters, but in my experience, it really hurts when (sorry for being graphic) the foreskin slips off and your bare head scrapes along the inside of your pants. At any rate, parents shouldn't have the right to choose that for you, just like baptism. This is worse than baptism of course, since it's not reversible.

The pros and cons between the two are so small they might be dismissed as statistical anomalies, so to each his own, I guess. I'm just glad no one did it to me. I like my penis hydrated thank you very much.

 

[GigaHz]

Honestly, who cares?

Whether its a religious choice, aesthetic choice, or a 'health' choice, it's in most cases, out of control of the person who is getting the procedure. Why should they feel better or worse about something they had no say in anyway?

I'm more about leaving the decision to when the child reaches sexual maturity. Then they can weigh in the facts and studies about whether or not they can choose to get the procedure done.

The only thing I can attest to is my experiences. My longest sexual partner comes to mind.

I grew up with an uncircumcised penis. This particular partner is Jewish and her formal sexual partners were all circumcised. It never really became a topic of conversation until we started taking showers together. She mentioned that it was the first she's ever seen and actually thought it was interesting. I asked her if she thought it was better or worse than circumcised ones. Her answer was it was different but not necessarily better or worse. She did enjoy the 'natural' ribbing it gave but it wasn't something that she felt she couldn't live without. Especially because condoms can mask it. I also asked her if she thought it was gross looking. She kind of thought it was weird looking when flaccid but it wasn't much different than a circumcised penis when erect.

Obviously I can't speak for the women of the world but it seems to me like a little bit of extra skin is not really a deal breaker. Sure, there are arguments that it is more hygienic to have an uncircumcised penis due to potential collection of smegma and diseases but it can be easily remedied by washing the foreskin regularly.

I mean, women go to gynaecologists to ensure that their larger folds aren't holding any nasty surprises. Why can't guys easily manage a much smaller piece of skin that literally takes a few seconds to clean?

 

[Simskiller]

2. I don't remember the pain.
rebuttal: If someone was raped using a roofie, does it matter? Even if they don't remember?

Your logic is equally flawed.

rebuttal: An infant lacks the ability to convert short-term memory into long-term memory. They also heal faster (because they are still growing rapidly) than an adult would. That means that their pain passes more quickly, and is forgotten without becoming a part of their personality.

Whereas rape, even while unconscious, is a terrible and scarring experience due to the feeling of violation. Just knowing you have been raped is terrible, even if an individual can't remember it. Also, even while asleep, an adult brain still records data - it still transfers that data to long-term memory. So even if you're raped in your sleep, part of that experience is retained.

So an infant will truly forget, whereas an adult cannot truly forget. Hence your point is not valid.

So it's okay to rape babies is what your saying? Because obviously they won't remember it.

HEY EVERYONE LET'S ALL RAPE OUR NEWBORNS!

*Walks into a hospital, goes to the infant ward, gets stopped*

"Nah it's okay doctor/nurse/security, THEY CAN'T REMEMBER THE RAPE! THEY'RE INFANTS!"

Raping babies, the new dead babies joke.

Herp derp. It's mutilation. Plane and simple. I'm so against it, you wouldn't even know. Parents aren't even supposed to pull their sons' foreskin back themselves, but let their sons discover it themselves, then teach them about proper hygiene. Oh and "it looks better"? My cock looks the same as a circumsized one if I peel the forskin back, so that's not a valid reason. Forskin provides so much, it protects, it lubes, it has a TON of nerves in it to provide pleasure.

Please never mutilate your children people.

 

[HassEsser]

I am circumcised, and I'll agree, it definitely looks better, but the cons definitely outweigh the pros, and I wish I were never circumcised.

That being said, I don't really give a shit anyway.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

There might be a gen

 

[Blaster395]

All evidence for any benefits are either false, or contradictory (Some studies show it increases risk of STDs, others say it reduces risk).
No medical body in the world recommends it.

One person said something to me about babies going to sleep after having the operation. That isn't them going to sleep, that is them going into NEUROLOGICAL SHOCK. To sum it up, so much pain that they are knocked out.

As someone has already stated it likely caught on as a way to reduce masturbation. It was the same time that Cornflakes and Graham Crackers were invented to try and combat masturbation. It makes masturbation harder (Your removing half the surface area of the penis) and masturbation is a good thing.

It should be banned on being done on under 18's except in cases where other injury may result and since it may actually increase the chance of STDs and has no effect on other diseases then there is little reason for it to happen.

 

[Simonism451]

Wha-?
Why is this even a thread?

 

[Cowabungaa]

It's an archaic practice with advantages that are negated by basic personal hygiene and the proper use of preconceptives. In only a few cases has real medical value and in those cases it's fine of course.

But as a cultural thing it's simply silly and shouldn't be pressed on children. If only for the small part of male children who are, basically, becoming forced transsexuals thanks to a medical mishap.

 

[Substitute Troll]

Well, I'm not gonna get into the religious reason for doing it. Since it's rather stupid if you think about it...

Now, I feel the same way about circumsition as I do about baptising infants. Don't do it if the person you're forcing it on doesn't agree with it. And since you can't know if you have the infants consent, you will just have to fucking wait and ask the person when he/she is older. Also, "it makes the penis look better" is not a good fucking reason to do it to a baby. You might think it looks better, but the poor bastard might not.

However, if it's for medical reasons, then that's another thing. If I had some kind of wierd "foreskin disease" I think I would like my parents to slice it off.

 

[Fangface74]

Gotta go with the facts;

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/262125/detail/

about 30 mins long but it's an important study.

 

[Vivi22]

it is not, by literal definition, abusive.

Abuse: "to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way"

How is cutting off part of a child's body not causing injury? That it's done for no good reason makes it worse.

Mutilation, yes, though I would say it's based on a very loose interpretation of mutilation (mutilation typically involves the severing of an essential part of the body... but you know, if you wanna use it your way, it works too).

Taking the definition of mutilation from wikipedia: "Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death."

Or a dictionary definition of mutilate for you: "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:"

It most certainly is mutilation to circumcise a child, and not by some imagined loose definition that only exists in your head.

But I don't care about the definitions. The REAL question is: is it a problem? my answer: unequivocally no.

It is the removal of a part of a child's body without their consent without a valid reason (except when performed out of medical necessity, but that's not the question at hand). There are no proven health benefits to it. And even if the health claims were valid, soap and water in the shower and condoms while having sex do a better job of accomplishing the same goals. And the argument for aesthetics isn't a valid reason to cut off part of a child's body without them ever being given the choice. Particularly when it does have known negative effects such as reduction of pleasure during sex, for both the man and the woman.

Circumcision without the child ever even being given the chance to consent is most certainly mutilation and abuse. A baby can't consent, and if they're circumcised, will never be given the opportunity to choose to do it on its own. To remove part of another persons body in such a way without their consent is immoral if it isn't being done for their benefit. As plenty of people have established, there is no significant benefit to doing it. Therefore it is wrong. Whether you're okay with it or not.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

I'm a bit biased with the whole subject. There is NO medical proof that it's a benefit (I was considering getting it done, im 20, and it's technically now called a "body enhancement" or mutilation. depending what way you go)

The thing I hate most though is because of the public generalization, It actually damages men emotionally who's parents didn't circumcised them, because everyone now assumes ALL men have it done, and anyone who didn't is a freak. It's that damn common in Aus, I'm the only one of my mates who wasn't cut. Although it does make using condoms fucking annoying which is why I got the shits with my Ex's because they'd not use them with their prev' boy but will with me "just in case"


....YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THIS LAST LONGER THEN IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE! (and cutting off 80% of the feeling)

 

[Jovlo]

I was born with a foreskin that was to tight.
It would have caused lots of pain from puberty on.

My parents had two options: remove or plastic surgery.
They picked the more expensive option, the plastic surgery.
I was three at the time, and I remember how much that hurt for weeks after the procedure every time I had to pee.
But honestly, I'm very happy my parents decided to let me keep it and choose for myself when I was old enough.
I'm glad to have it.

(Before you ask, it looks perfectly natural. OK, it looks even better than natural. None of that to much skin/worm business... The surgeon did a great job.)

(I'll just stop describing my penis to you now... This is awkward...)

 

[Raideh]

Cleaned.

 

[DaJoW]

I consider it to be a horrible practice and I'm happy it is so rare here. Mutilating infants is a pretty bad thing imo. If they want to have it done when they're adults, fine, but removing a part of the body from an infant is just awful.

 

[Marmooset]

Well, I'm pro-abortion, and i'd rather be circumcised than aborted, so-

 

[meepop]

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.

I'm sorry. Do you want to scar your child for life (Figuratively speaking)? If the child decides, around the age of 5-8, and undergoes the procedure, then it's probably going to be more painful than it was as a baby. Besides, if you had a child and let them choose wouldn't you just make it seem bad so that they didn't do it? As an infant, circumcision means minimal bleeding and little to no pain. Plus, those that are un-circumcised have more chance of getting diseases because it's more difficult to clean.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

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.

Spoiler: pic of the difference if you want to know

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.

makes penetration and masturbation harder..? how? just by logical reasons you have less skin, therefore slightly smaller object trying to enter in the vagina, how does it make it harder?

and that still counts, idk about you but when something is on or touching my body, especially if its even the slightest bit lubricated/damp, you bet your ass i'm thinking about it and annoyed.

like i said, fan on my nutsack, 24/7 at home, i like that shit dry and cleaned

The foreskin provide natural lubrication which does not make it wet in the way you are think of and are ignoring. The foreskin then folds back during penetration allowing the penis to enter the vagina more easily. Size is not an issue for vaginas since they expand to a degree to accommodate larger penis so no a small big extra will not make a difference.


Now to go back to masturbation the natural lubrication and movement of the foreskin makes this easier you should be able to logically reason that. Also given that circumcision was advertised for 1 reason to make masturbation harder around or before the 70s I think that would make my point if I ever find the links.

eh idk about that, i don't know how its lubricated in a way that i am ignoring..please express what i'm ignoring?

" The foreskin then folds back during penetration allowing the penis to enter the vagina more easily."

how does that make it easier than a circumcised penis?

and yeah i was never debating the masturbation thing, i'm sure it is easier to masturbate, but that probably would be a problem for me, as i said earlier if i got any hornier than i am now i'd be blowing loads 2-3 times daily with no control over it, so i'm pretty sure me being circumcised gave justice to alot of tissues/tube socks from being used...

I really don't see that making you hornier but I digress. Since you are circumcised there is no way for you the experiment with this yourself as I have and it is easier.

Any lubrication first. You seem to think that any moisture on your dong is bad as it makes you feel uncomfortable. The lubrication is natural like having a wet mouth as a bone dry mouth and throat would feel uncomfortable harder to swallow etc. A similar idea holds with the penis.The foreskin allows easier penetration when it folds back now without foreskin I can not think of any other way to experiment with something like this to prove it to yourself.

Right so I'll give this one more shot at explaining. A circumcised penis in normal sex(ie no condoms, lubs or other variants) has to rely fully on the natural lubricants of the woman's vagina along with it expanding to enter and penetrate it during sex right? Well the foreskin aids in this by moving forward and back.

Just read these two [http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/](this one has further citations) articles [http://www.historyofcircumcision.org/tag/male-infants] that I found using google and try google around for stuff yourself if you don't believe me.

....................

Also given that circumcision was advertised for 1 reason to make masturbation harder around or before the 70s I think that would make my point if I ever find the links.

Interesting. That sounds like the kind of social attitude back in mid and late 20th century USA. reminds me sort of like those stranger danger advertisements forbidding you to talk to other people and always be scared of others. What i mean is, every stranger was a pedophile (except for holy men...of course), and everybody had to buy American, and everyone had to have their phalluses (phalli?) snipped, everyone had to be a straight, women were carers and men providers, and all the boys played football and the girls played dollies.

I guess the whole snipping stigma helped push the sale of products like moisturisers and petroleum jelly too. $mart thinking. But this rant might be getting a little off topic now..

hehe, i just lol'd when i realised i'd 'snipped' that quote...ohh the irony

As far as I remember it was something like that why it was pushed. I still have 20+ pages to go through for links which I will later.