Queries about circumcision

[thom_cat_]

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

Just mentioning this.
I have never experienced smegma. Maybe it's the fact I shower? Or maybe I'm just awesome in general... but I have never seen the stuff.

My opinion is that you should be able to give consent. I don't care what parents think is right for their child. Men don't need nipples but there's no good reason to cut them off.

 

[thylasos]

In the US, areas of Africa and the Middle East, it's the norm. In the rest of the world, it's not.

I can see no reason for the automatic assumption that newborn boys are better off being circumcised, personally.

There are religious reasons, and certain medical conditions which necessitate it, but otherwise there's no reasons for it which aren't either aesthetic, based on bias of the culture you're in, or easily remedied with a basic level of hygeine.

People who have serious problems with the appearance of a natural wang... that's odd. I've no problem with the appearance of a modified one.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Really you couldn't use the search bar on this? This has been done many, many, many times before and should be one of those banned topics on the Escapist. Long story short it will decrease sensitivity but if that decreases pleasure is subjective and any performance "benefits" are not scientifically worth mentioning either way.

As an aside what is circumcision in American hospitals is a far cry from what was done in religious faiths years ago and continues to be.

 

[The Gnome King]

OK, so I know that this can be a somewhat private issue (not just for me, but for many people), but I want some discussion and insight into it anyway.

Bottom line, it's unnecessary and no major medical organization recommends it. Here are some links to check out:

http://www.drmomma.org/2012/04/circumcision-decision-who-made-you.html

A really good link by a mom arguing that men/boys should have the right to do this; she compares it to removing a girl's clitoral hood - because it's the same thing; the hood surrounding the clitoris basically keeps it moist and sensitive which is what the foreskin does for the glans of the penis.

http://www.circumcision.org/confessions.htm

Written by a man who was ticked off they chopped off thousands of nerve endings on his penis.

http://www.intactamerica.org/

An entire website dedicated to informing people about the evils of circumcision.

http://www.alancumming.com/blog.php?id=525

Alan Cumming is a funny guy and this was his take.

And lastly, when people throw the anti-semite insult at you, here's a Jewish group that opposes circumcision:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Please, read the sites and decide for yourself. This definitely isn't something I would do to my sons.

 

[Belaam]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

 

[The Gnome King]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

Every time I hear a circumcised man describe how much fun sex is (for the record, I'm circumcised as well and I think sex is so much fun I have two partners I live with) -

... I think of what Alan Cumming said. Because he's on the money with this quote:

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

No man wants to hear his sexual prowess might have been compromised, which is why you get all the circumcised men jumping up to say "my sex life is just fine!" - well, yeah, but what if it could be even better?

 

[Zerstiren]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

 

[Naeras]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

This post summarizes everything we ever need to know about this thread.

 

[Belaam]

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

Good quote, though I definitely don't see myself as "defensive and protective of the procedure" as I indicated that I would not circumcise any sons if I had any. I think the whole procedure is a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo and serves no real purpose.

I was simply trying to calm the OP's concerns that though circumcised, he will likely still find sex enjoyable. It is entirely possible that I could be having even better, longer, etc. orgasms; the point to the OP was that circumcised orgasms are still rather enjoyable.

 

[Shpongled]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

Every time I hear a circumcised man describe how much fun sex is (for the record, I'm circumcised as well and I think sex is so much fun I have two partners I live with) -

... I think of what Alan Cumming said. Because he's on the money with this quote:

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

No man wants to hear his sexual prowess might have been compromised, which is why you get all the circumcised men jumping up to say "my sex life is just fine!" - well, yeah, but what if it could be even better?

I've had sex with and without a foreskin, and i much prefer without in all honesty. It's not that i feel any less sensation than i did before, just that it takes longer to build up, which is only a good thing for me. All my most memorable orgasms have been after the op. The only disadvantage is in my wallet, lube isn't as cheap as it could be, but it's definitely worth it.

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

You and your dick are missing out on a world of pleasures, everything's always better when things are slippy, take it from me.

 

[The Gnome King]

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

Good quote, though I definitely don't see myself as "defensive and protective of the procedure" as I indicated that I would not circumcise any sons if I had any. I think the whole procedure is a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo and serves no real purpose.

I was simply trying to calm the OP's concerns that though circumcised, he will likely still find sex enjoyable. It is entirely possible that I could be having even better, longer, etc. orgasms; the point to the OP was that circumcised orgasms are still rather enjoyable.

Sure, orgasms feel good. Even some women with their entire clitoris removed in some Middle Eastern countries claim that they still have full orgasms. They're enjoying sex.

They just might be enjoying it a lot more with a clitoris. And men might a lot more with a foreskin.

I commend your decision to not mutilate your own sons!

 

[The Gnome King]

I've had sex with and without a foreskin, and i much prefer without in all honesty. It's not that i feel any less sensation than i did before, just that it takes longer to build up, which is only a good thing for me. All my most memorable orgasms have been after the op. The only disadvantage is in my wallet, lube isn't as cheap as it could be, but it's definitely worth it.

Interesting. I'm a bi guy who has been with men who have had foreskins, some who have not, and some who were in your shoes. I've never met a single man who had his foreskin removed that said sex was better afterwards; most are ticked off at a lack of sensation. The only man I know that said sex was better had a foreskin that didn't properly retract (which was his reason for the operation in the first place) if you have a medical REASON for a circumcision it might make sex better, but I have yet to meet anyone that had it done as an adult for religious purposes that says sex is BETTER after they were cut.

If you didn't have any medical issues and prefer the cut penis; you are the first man I have ever met in my life that felt this way. And I've been pretty intimate with a *lot* of men. And women. Most women who have experienced both tell me they prefer the lack of chafing involved with a foreskin because of the "sheath within a sheath" effect.

Will there be exceptions, sure, but I doubt nature provided the foreskin for no reason all the while filling it with thousands of nerve endings while producing a fluid that keeps the glans penis wet. Also, they are doing a lot more research now that men who are circumcised have a lot more ED problems - you might enjoy that lack of sensitivity in your 20's but what about 40 or 50 when your issue isn't coming too fast but getting and staying hard at all?

Lots of things to think about. It's definitely not something I would do to a kid without a medical necessary reason. Thanks for sharing your story tho, as I said if you did this for religious reasons as an adult and didn't have any medical reason for it you are the single, only guy I have ever met who claims sex was better post-mutilation.

 

[The Gnome King]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

They never need lube.

Circumcision was ONLY used on a mass scale by religions to stop boys from masturbating. It was only later did they make up the BS that it was cleaner and such.

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/male-circumcision-originally-created-to-prevent-masturbation/

John Kellogg (yes, the guy behind Kellogg cereal) was the main proponent of circumcision in early 20th century America because he taught that it prevented masturbation. Before that it was almost never done to non-Jewish or Muslim boys.

 

[The Gnome King]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

They never need lube.

Circumcision was ONLY used on a mass scale by religions to stop boys from masturbating. It was only later did they make up the BS that it was cleaner and such.

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/male-circumcision-originally-created-to-prevent-masturbation/

John Kellogg (yes, the guy behind Kellogg cereal) was the main proponent of circumcision in early 20th century America because he taught that it prevented masturbation. Before that it was almost never done to non-Jewish or Muslim boys.

Funny thing is, every time a circumcision thread pops up I have to post that. No one believes me.

It's historically accurate and anyone who doesn't believe you can go do their own research. It is very, very true.

The guy who invented the Graham cracker? He was a total anti-masturbation nut, too. He used to promote his crackers as a way of "reducing unnatural sexual urges" in young boys.

My thought? These old men thought wayyy too much about young boys, their penises, and what young boys do with their penises.

 

[Dimitriov]

See, if I say I like chips better than anything that means I like chips more than everything else in the universe (sex, candy, true love, immortality, EVERYTHING).

If I say I like chips more than cookies it means just that and nothing else. Understand yet? NO?

Okay, what he said was that he considers "religious reasons" more important than one fairly specific thing which he considers unlikely to occur. I have no information to give on the probability of it myself, but the language is pretty clear.

The only thing to say here is that 'anything' is not necessarily a synonym of 'everything'. Just look the word up, please. Your grammer is not gooder than mine.

*sigh*

"I like chips better than everything." (This means that I like chips better than everything in the universe combined).

I like chips better than anything." (This means that I like chips better than any ONE single thing in the universe - but that single thing could be ANY thing that possibly exists).

I like chips better than something." (This means that there is ONE SPECIFIC thing that I like less than chips - there COULD be other things that I also prefer chips to, but the one established point is that there is SOMETHING I like chips better than).

He used a "something" (religious reasons are more important than the minor chance of fuck ups - I paraphrased that - in this case we have a single thing "a chance" that is deemed less important than the other), but you said "anything" which as I have clearly explained above means something else.

I am explaining this because you may have a basic grasp of English, but clearly do not have a handle on logic.

And if I asked you why you like chips more than anything, it might be the case that I find them disgusting and think there's nothing that chips are tastier than. Context has a huge effect on language.

Alas, logic has little to do with this. You don't get to deprive the word of all meanings but one you approve of.

Bolded that bit for you, it's the entire point I am trying to explain to you. This is not my meaning, but the inherent meaning implicit in the combination of words you chose (context? remember?)

But I no longer expect you to understand, and to be charitable I am pretty sure English isn't your first language at this point as most other languages seem to have these kind of logic problems (at least when translated into English) like Spanish using double negatives.

Good day, Sir!

 

[Aprilgold]

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.

Well, if the child goes into a bar and says "I want a beer" then he won't get it, its the same exact reason that allowing children to decide what their body is.

Having your foreskin chopped off, from what I can tell, does nothing and doesn't really change what it looks like in its normal state, because in sex the foreskin is back.

Since when is beer an irreversible operation?

Anyone who makes these comparisions are practically the same fucking nutcases who make a "case" for FGM.

If a beer is denied, they can get one later when they are older. He cant get his foreskin back when its already done. This is fact, and your argument is more retarded than the "case" made by creationists and flat earthers.

A beer is a addictive substance, if a child gets addicted to said substance they grow a need to have the substance. And depending on age can very badly fuck up their mind.

My point is that its the same train of thought, you wouldn't let your 5 year old go into a tattoo parlor to get a tattoo. So why should the child decide what body alterations he has till he isn't older. I'd like to point to who I was originally quoting said that you should let the child decide for himself or herself, but a child can not fully comprehend its actions fully yet, so it would be stupid to let them choose for themselves until they are a adult.

You wouldn't let your five year old fly your plane, so why allow them to decide if or if not they have foreskin.

I'm not saying that a child can't choose certain things for themselves because that would be a lie, but anything that has a permanent repercussion or possibility of one should be handed over to the parent.

Once again, theres no case for or against circumcision the way I see it. Why does it matter anyway, you have to pull the foreskin back to actually get any action and only you will see your penis when it isn't erected. Its so bloody subtle that it doesn't matter, honestly, I don't feel like I'm missing a appendage of my body for being circumcised since it works A-OK anyways.

So once again, why does it matter? Because its barbaric? If we honestly cared about how this is barbaric we would all stand up and realize how barbaric some of our very modern conventions are. Guns are barbaric, they are not a tool to do good, they are a tool for a person to do with what they please, and usually ends in death. War is barbaric, only existing so that one creed over another can get more land or a edge on other creeds.

Circumcision doesn't matter and just because something is barbaric doesn't mean that there aren't more noticeable things you shouldn't be mad about.

Why not respect your child and let him make that decision on his own?

Well, if its a child, then it can't decide for itself, its not allowed.

So fuckin' wait. Jesus, it's not like it needs to be done immediately or his dick may or may not fall off entirely. It's cosmetic surgery done for fuck-all reasoning with tangential benefits and very real consequences.

Well, if the child goes into a bar and says "I want a beer" then he won't get it, its the same exact reason that allowing children to decide what their body is.

Having your foreskin chopped off, from what I can tell, does nothing and doesn't really change what it looks like in its normal state, because in sex the foreskin is back.

And what do we say to the child that wants a beer?
"Wait until you're older."

You know what the irresponsible thing for the parent to do is?
Buy the beer for the kid.

And the argument that it does nothing is more reason not to do it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, right?

If it has no repercussions why change it? So many people on here are up-and-arms over nothing.

As I said above, if you honestly think this is barbaric, look at War for example and then tell me that this is honestly a better thing to dislike then say that.

Once again, the dude I quoted specifically said "Let the child decide for himself" and while I understand that, I was just putting it into bad wording and taking it full on literal. A child shouldn't decide for themselves what body altercations they get because if I was a child I would like to have a body mod that changes my arms into tentacles, obviously that is stupid but children, in general, are. Lets face it man, as a child, there was always one thing you saw in a movie that you thought was cool and wanted to do it, and if you were actually allowed to do said thing then you may have suffered a serious injury or made a very bad decision.

 

[Maze1125]

who I was originally quoting said that you should let the child decide for himself or herself, but a child can not fully comprehend its actions fully yet, so it would be stupid to let them choose for themselves until they are a adult.

Yes, exactly, the child can't decide, so let them wait until they're an adult.
Simple.

You wouldn't let your five year old fly your plane, so why allow them to decide if or if not they have foreskin.

I'm not saying that a child can't choose certain things for themselves because that would be a lie, but anything that has a permanent repercussion or possibility of one should be handed over to the parent.

That makes no sense. Just because the child can't decide for themselves, doesn't mean the right decision is to let the parents decide.

If the child can't decide for themselves wait until they can.
Simple, all problems solved.

Circumcision doesn't matter and just because something is barbaric doesn't mean that there aren't more noticeable things you shouldn't be mad about.

That's a complete fallacy. It quite possible to have an opinion on more than one thing.
I'm against pointless wars, in favour of greater gun control and against infant MGM.

 

[Zerstiren]

I've only ever heard of Americans using lube to masturbate, take that as you will.

This is what I think. I think any circumcised man still has enough skin for pulling (it's why I call mine "Stretch-Armstrong").

 

[Freechoice]

If it has no repercussions why change it? So many people on here are up-and-arms over nothing.

As I said above, if you honestly think this is barbaric, look at War for example and then tell me that this is honestly a better thing to dislike then say that.

Once again, the dude I quoted specifically said "Let the child decide for himself" and while I understand that, I was just putting it into bad wording and taking it full on literal. A child shouldn't decide for themselves what body altercations they get because if I was a child I would like to have a body mod that changes my arms into tentacles, obviously that is stupid but children, in general, are. Lets face it man, as a child, there was always one thing you saw in a movie that you thought was cool and wanted to do it, and if you were actually allowed to do said thing then you may have suffered a serious injury or made a very bad decision.

He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.

 

[Aprilgold]

He was speaking about the child as an adult. As in you don't fucking do some stupid ass, outmoded procedure that only benefits people in the third world just because GOD DEMANDS IT. Any parent worth their tax break would know that a 1/500,000 of the kid dying is far too high, especially because the surgery IS cosmetic.

Your strawman is weak and we shall burn his hayskin off.

I read a while back that one of the main reasons to have a circumcised penis that is in the desert, people who traveled it wouldn't bathe months at a time, and sand and all types of nasty things would get up there, causing infection, now back then, there wasn't any way to instantly stop infection, either you got over it or died from it. What they decided was to simply cut off the foreskin, allowing for super easy and quick cleaning.

Everyone who argues against circumcision treats it likes its the worst thing since Hitler fucked your mother with a atomic bomb. There are more things to be upset about and I'm honestly done having to fucking say this over and over again.

This is my opinion, and your not changing it, same way your not changing it on religion, which I think can burn in their type of hell. Either take your bullshit "BUT ITS WRONG" shit out until you realize there are so many things wrong with humanity that matter more that we should fix now, and leave this for later.

If your worried about children [1 out of 500,000 is a lot lower then war kills on average] dying before they can actually process pain, also realize that hundreds of thousands of adults who can fully feel their injury die in war, cancer, and many other types of terrible ways, because we humans are fighting over whether or not the other country said something about our mothers.