So, my wife has said that she is ambivalent about her future son (about 4 months to delivery) having a defrocked penis like his father (and when I find that guy . . . ). I'm not Jewish so it isn't a religious issue. I've heard that wives of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer.
My wife said she would ask her doctor what he thought about circumcision and I said, "Since I've read Freakonomics I know that experts are idiots (besides having a financial incentive to do the procedure). I will ask the most ignorant people I can find." My wife agreed I am very wise. So I pose the question to you, dear reader, to cut or not to cut? The fate of the foreskin is in your hands (eewwww).
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
We had a very interesting discussion on this on several other forums a while back. Beverly, twinky, and I may be able to summarize for you a bit.
I know that Jon Boy and I will not be circumcising our son.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
We had a lenghty conversation about this on Sakeriver's "The Sex Thread." WARNING: Content may not be approved of by all audiences. For that reason, I will not provide a link. And Jon_Snow (my brother, Ricky) does NOT have permission to view that thread under any circumstances. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You were looking for ignorant people, and you decided on hatrack?
Have you never heard of Yahoo! or AOL Chat rooms?
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Medically there isn't any benefit to cut from my understanding.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
You might be interested in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
Don't do it.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Ela your link is, by far, the only link offered to date. I appreciate it very much and will consider its information.
Katarin, thank you for rising to the bait, something no one on Ornery would do. You know I love you guys no matter how I treat you (I got that one from my wife).
To the rest of you, thank you for your votes, they do count, but we are in a republic so the electoral college is in play. The question is, will your vote swing your state?
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Here's a good point my brother made: If God made us this way why mess with it? The only real analogy I can come up with is if we removed everyone's eyelids at birth. Functionally it's the closest thing. And that's really absurd to cut off eyelids, right? So, why do it to the foreskin.
Edit: Here's some more interesting insight: When they do that stuff to girls, it's called genital mutilation. Equal rights, eh? In fact, I find it more accurate to call it mutilation in this case.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Kent:
According to Ela's link there is a Task Force on Circumcision. But you don't have to worry about the Circumcision Police, yet.
My policy is like father/like son. I did not want my son to be perplexed all his young life as to why he didn't "shape up" like his father.
And it's easire to keep clean anyway...
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
[Edit: Sakeriver link deleted because I'm self-conscious about what I link to from a family forum and because that thread was written in what was originally a private, comfortable environment that some may not want made public.]
[ December 07, 2005, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Brinestone ]
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
KrankyKat: Good thing your father didn't favor saving semen, and then cut off his entire penis, eh?
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
Well, chreese...to bad your father didn't bother saving his semen.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We circumsized my son and don't regret it at all. I know there are few medical benefits to doing so, but there are SOME and it's easy to keep clean and in this area many more kids are circed than not, so we went along with it. Like I said, we have no regrets over making that decision.
Posted by Mama Squirrel (Member # 4155) on :
We planned on getting Mooselet circumcised at birth, but circumstances conspired against us and it didn't happen in the hospital. Then he got sick and it just didn't happen. He kept getting recurrent urinary tract infections. Since having him circumcised at 28 months (not fun, let me tell you, even though he was put under for the procedure) he hasn't gotten a single infection. That was more than two years ago.
We had Superstation circumcised in the hospital after birth. We plan on having this next boy circumcised as well.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
My non-expert opinion is that * elective cosmetic surgery on babies is not a great idea * if he wants it done, he can do it when he's older; but he can't un-do it
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
If wives of circumcised men really do have lower rates of cervical cancer, I'd say do it.
I dunno, it seems like it would be helpful, not just cosmetic.
-pH
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
We were going to circ our first but because of his heart condition and being on blood thinners the doctors did not want to risk it. As he got older it never (not yet anyway) became necessary. We taught him how to keep it clean and have to remind him (he is a boy after all ). When our second son came along we didn't do it either. We haven't really had any problems with either of them.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
My first son is circed, my second is not. One of the very few things I wish I could go back in time for is to leave #1 intact. If you change your mind, you can always circ later ( or your son can decide to) but it's a heckuva lot harder to undo.
Also, having had one of each, we did nothing special to clean the intact one.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I dunno, it seems like it would be helpful, not just cosmetic.
Yeah, cause that damn foreskin is always in the way.</sarcasm>
There was a thread about this a while back, I think Storm Saxon started it. (NOTE: this is not to say we can't have this discussion again, because frankly when people say we already discussed this, you don't have anything we didn't already cover it just pisses me off.)
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Personally, I wouldn't circumcize unless you are doing it for religious reasons. It's just not medically necessary, for most boys.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I say do it, it's more than just cosmetic. It's easier to keep clean and leaves the area less prone to infection.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Lyr, except that the first is untrue, and the latter, statistically, is margnally true, but the risk is comparable (around the same order of magnitude) to the risks of the circumcision itself.
As a child, you don't need to pull back the skin (that's actually a bad thing), and older it takes the same amount of time... Most of the "icky" stuff that looks like it is needed to be cleaned is actually antiseptic, and is essentially created to clean for yourself.
I would say that the statistics, at best, slightly lean toward circumcision, but it isn't a settled case, in any event.
-Bok
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
From the AAP link:
quote:Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.
quote:...the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%).
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I wasn't saying there was no more to be said about it. What I was saying was that I knew of several very good discussions about this that might be a good starting point for this discussion so that those of us who contributed heavily to the earlier discussions (specificially beverly) wouldn't have to repeat themselves.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Here's a good point my brother made: If God made us this way why mess with it? The only real analogy I can come up with is if we removed everyone's eyelids at birth. Functionally it's the closest thing. And that's really absurd to cut off eyelids, right? So, why do it to the foreskin.
Are you serious? Cutting the foreskin is waaaay different than cutting your eyelids off. You need your eyelids for a whole lot of reasons, most of which I think are pretty obvious. You don't need the foreskin for any special purpose, as far as I know, and it's definitely less important than eyelids. And the "If G-d made us that way" argument doesn't really make sense either. If G-d made us have hair that is constantly growing, why should we cut it? You could argue it's for sanitary purposes, the same way you can argue that cutting the foreskin is. Functionally, cutting the foreskin and cutting your eyelids are pretty different. That was not an accurate analogy.
Edit: Wow! That link Chreese Soup provided is so wrong. I read the first paragraph on infant circumsision, and I've seen multiple circumsisions myself, and I assure you, in my experience, they have never strapped the baby's arms and legs down and ripped the foreskin off. That's not a good link. That's one of the most inaccurate, one-sided article I've ever read. I suggest you take it down.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think it's ritual genital mutilation. I don't see how it can be called anything else. We only think it's okay in our culture because we're accustomed to thinking it's okay. In actuality it is no different from any other ritual mutliation practiced by any other culture, that is to say, pretty darned creepy, in my opinion. The baby gets no choice, and if he did, what choice do you think he would make? It's not like babies don't feel pain.
There is even some (small) risk of it being botched if you do have it done. I read about one kid who had the end of his penis accidentally cut off during a circumcision attempt. I'm sure that's very rare but why take that risk at all? The only reason I can see that makes sense to me is if you do it for religious reasons. If that doesn't apply then I would say let the kid decide for himself when he gets older. It's his body, after all.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
I remember my own circumcision. :/
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
Tatiana, I agree entirely.
When I was 5 or 6 in Somalia some sort of circumcising nurse guy came around our neighborhood and did his job for the entire neighborhood in like one afternoon. Sad thing is, we were told he was coming WEEKS ahead, so all we could do is dread and dread it...
And it hurts terribly.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
My son was circumcised as an infant and I don't regret it. I'd say do what you feel is best for your son, with the experience and knowledge that you have.
Posted by luthe (Member # 1601) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: [QUOTE]Edit: Wow! That link Chreese Soup provided is so wrong. I read the first paragraph on infant circumsision, and I've seen multiple circumsisions myself, and I assure you, in my experience, they have never strapped the baby's arms and legs down and ripped the foreskin off. That's not a good link. That's one of the most inaccurate, one-sided article I've ever read. I suggest you take it down.
NO don't take it down,jesus load please don't go back and edit your posts to change the flow of the conversation. The fact that you claim it is wrong doesn't mean it should be censored from the conversation.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
See sweetbaboo, that would normally be a good idea, but I am an idiot (ask anyone) and have no experience or knowledge in these things (except for my own little experience of being a circumcised male). I rely on you folks to decide for me.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Uhhh, ok luthe, but I don't think anyone else commented on it besides me. Wouldn't really be changing the conversation if he just added *Edit to remove horribly inaccurate and possibly offensive link*, but whatever.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
Bokonon is right. The intact prepuce secretes smegma, which keeps it soft and acts as a natural antibacterial agent.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: You don't need the foreskin for any special purpose, as far as I know, and it's definitely less important than eyelids
The foreskin protects the glans of the penis from irritation, secretes lubricants and has a large number of nerve endings.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"* if he wants it done, he can do it when he's older; but he can't un-do it "
Ever watch Penn and Teller? ::shudder::
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'm not a girl, but every girl I've talked to about this said the first time they saw an uncircumcised penis they thought it was weird (several of my female friends still haven't seen one).
Which means nothing except the majority of guys my age are probably circumcised. I'm glad I am, because it seems to be the norm. But I don't think there's much, if any, medical advantage to it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Edit: Wow! That link Chreese Soup provided is so wrong. I read the first paragraph on infant circumsision, and I've seen multiple circumsisions myself, and I assure you, in my experience, they have never strapped the baby's arms and legs
Actually, that is pretty much what is done when a baby is circumcised in a hospital or a physician's office. (I might object to the use of the word "torn" - which I think they used for emotional, rather than factual, impact, seeing as the site is against circumcision. I also think they sensationalize the baby's response to the procedure.)
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
I like being mutilated, and I mutilated my son to carry on the family tradition!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I strongly object to circumcision for non-religious reasons. My husband and I had a huge argument over this the first time I was pregnant before we found out it was a girl. Eventually, I won. His main concern was that "his would be different." I pointed out that my brother is not and my dad is, the question came up once, the answer given was, "You know how we talked about people looking different and having different hair and skin and eyes, and it's all beautiful and okay? This is like that, it's just one of those differences." He completely accepted that. THEN I showed him the numbers which showed that where we were living at the time, the rate is not that disparate between uncircumcised/circumcised, and that where we live now, more boys are actually uncircumcised than circumcised, and he was a little more swayed. So then I, um, used other means and won a concession on this issue. Since medical benefits are teeny-tiny and ambiguous at best and it can always be done later if needed but can't be undone, I feel very strongly about it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unmaker: I like being mutilated, and I mutilated my son to carry on the family tradition!
So did my husband. But it was a religious issue for us. Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: So did my husband. But it was a religious issue for us.
And, I don't have any problem with that. I do have a problem with people that do things for no reason at all other than to go along with the norm.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
For the love of all that is good, have the boy snipped. He will thank you a thousand times over when he isn't cleaning lint, etc out of the folds. Religion, science, bah.... it's about comfort when it comes to that.
Posted by JTruant711 (Member # 8868) on :
Oh yeah, you might get sued later on if the kid doesn't like that you chopped him... keep that in mind.
HAHAHAHAHA... ha.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
If you happen to live in Canada (which I do), more than 80% of males are uncircumcised.
Added: I don't blame my parents for having had me circumcised -- they simply didn't know any better. They thought there were health benefits. But then they had to take me aside when I was 12 or 13 and say "Just in case you're wondering why your penis doesn't look like everyone else's..." Anyway, Ela, KQ, and others have covered my feelings on the subject very well. Given the choice, I would rather not have been circumcised, and if I ever have a son he will not be circumcised unless it is medically necessary.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: So did my husband. But it was a religious issue for us.
And, I don't have any problem with that. I do have a problem with people that do things for no reason at all other than to go along with the norm.
I want to make it clear that I am not at all critical of people who make a decision to circumcise based on reasons that are neither religious nor medical. I just don't happen to think, based on all the literature that I have seen, that it is a necessary procedure for most males. If we weren't Jewish, we wouldn't have done it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I have issues with cutting off bits of one's body for cosmetic reasons. It seems like a rather extreme thing to do in an attempt to fit in.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
snake wearing a turtle neck
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: If God made us this way why mess with it?
Well, He told us to.
As a nurse, I have observed hospital circumcisions, and as a Jew, I have observed religious circumcisions, done either at home or a synagogue. The religious ones, I was accustomed to, and the baby seems remarkably comfortable throughout (although new babies will cry when they are uncovered -- even for a simple diaper change). He is held securely in (usually) his grandfather's lap. Mom and Dad are right there. The procedure is very quick and the baby gets swaddled right up as soon as it is done. The baby usually takes a nap afterwards.
The hospital circumcisions were not what I was accustomed to. I wanted to rescue those babies and put a stop to the barbaric practice. I won't describe what I saw, out of respect for the squeamish, but I am convinced that those babies were suffering in pain.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I think there's a problem when a medical procedure can be done with less upset to the patient in a synagogue than in a hospital. I mean absolutely no offence to the Jewish people who are performing these circumsisons, but you would think it would be safer and less painful in a hospital, but our two jewish medical professionals have both said synagogue procedures looked to be less painful for the infant.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
OK, I withdraw about what I said earlier about the link being false. I've only witnessed religious circumsisions. I figured hospital ones must be even less painful since it's in a, well, hospital. Apparently I was wrong. I've seen the video of when I was circumsised (in a Jewish ritual) and I saw my brothers' circumsisions and it didn't seem all that bad. I was wrong. My bad. My opinion still stands about the analogy, though.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
It's funny that so many people say that they want to have the child circumcised so it would fit in. We've had this discussion on another forum and there were medical pictures linked that showed the difference which was the first time I'd ever seen an uncircumcised penis. Has anyone, circumcised or not, ever had someone draw attention to the cut/uncut state of their penis?
I've been so sheltered.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:the first time I'd ever seen an uncircumcised penis.
Um, wow.
Guess you don't read as many medical journals as I do. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Has anyone, circumcised or not, ever had someone draw attention to the cut/uncut state of their penis?
I'd have something to say about this, but I have the feeling my husband might object to my sharing it.
Actually, he says he doesn't. I was fascinated when I saw his because I'd only ever had extended exposure to my brother's before, and my brother's uncircumcised. But I have a feeling that wifely attention wasn't what you were talking about.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: Has anyone, circumcised or not, ever had someone draw attention to the cut/uncut state of their penis?
Other than my parents and girlfriends? No.
I have some other things I'd say, but I think they'd be outside the PG-13 territory Hatrack stays within.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"the first time I'd ever seen an uncircumcised penis"
I've still never seen one. Nor do I really have the desire to.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: I rely on you folks to decide for me.
Not a good parenting practice. Research, research research, then make your own decisions.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I'm a nurse, and I've seen all kinds. None of them are particularly freaky.
Except, you know, the freaky ones.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I was circumcised, and I have to say that, first of all, I have no memory of it, and secondly, I tend to laugh at people who get worked up about it. Especially when they use emotionally-charged words like "mutilation". I've lived with it for twenty-five years now, and I am no less whole or less manly or less whatever for it. I am, in fact, completely indifferent to it.
I also don't understand any of the arguments based on "fitting in". Fitting in with what? I, for one, don't go around looking at other guys' penises and taking note of whose looks like mine and whose is different. Maybe I'm just weird.
I've never actually seen one that wasn't circumcised--but again, that's primarily because I don't go around looking. Sure, I could take a peek next time I'm in the locker room at the gym. But why? I don't care what they look like, and that would be a weird thing to do anyway.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:I tend to laugh at people who get worked up about it. Especially when they use emotionally-charged words like "mutilation". I've lived with it for twenty-five years now, and I am no less whole or less manly or less whatever for it. I am, in fact, completely indifferent to it.
Well, as a mother, I have no interest in anything that causes my baby unnecessary pain or discomfort. Even for a second. Even if he'll never remember it.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, that's your choice. And I've certainly never done a scientific study--or even so much as brought it up to a male friend--to see how many people remember the pain or resent the result. I can only give you my own personal opinion that it's nothing to get worked up about.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: I also don't understand any of the arguments based on "fitting in". Fitting in with what?
Well, you know. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
For the kid, I'd agree, they don't usually care either way about the end result. (Except the ones for whom the procedure goes horribly wrong.) But as a parent, it's a whole different kind of concern. I'm old enough to remember every trauma my children go through, minor or temporary or not.
Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
My two cents probably counts for very little in this case, but I'll give it anyway: I once dated a very nice, very hygienic boy who happened to be uncircumcised. Although he kept that area very clean, I could never quite get used to it (I'm sure, had our relationship been stronger/more mature, it really wouldn't have mattered one way or another). At the time, however, it led to some initial awkward moments in our relationship, and he often said he wished he had been circumcised as an infant. Most other guys in my general age group (17-25) that I've spoken to about this situation have felt much the same. Call me shallow, but I'm likely to have a better initial reaction to a circumcised guy than an uncircumcised one. It's just what I'm used to seeing. And I know that as a girl I can't really relate to the guys discussing this, I'm just trying to give my point of view.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Same here. I'm glad I got a circumcision, for Jewish reasons, when I was young, for pain and humilation reasons. I never even thought about what it would be like if I was uncircumcised until today. It just never mattered to me.
Edit: I'm a really slow typer. This was in response to Verily.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Avadaru, I expect that my sons will probably marry a girl who hasn't seen other ones (except perhaps her father's, fleetingly, or her brothers' as small children, like me.) So I would hope that situation wouldn't come up.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and according to my brother, most of the guys his age he's caught a glimpse of are uncircumcised-- about 70-75% is his estimate. It depends where you live.)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Saw a talk by a nursing student who surveyed local hospital practice. They're supposed to apply topical anaesthetic, and sometimes they do, but they usually don't wait for it to take effect. Maybe it's just in my locality. I don't know what makes adults so careless of avoidable pain in infants.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm reading this thread and impressed with how civil it has been. Much more so than I expected, especially given the recent atmosphere here.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Just for the record, (and I haven't read any medical journals or studied up on the matter, this is just my experience) "the procedure" isn't always a "cut" or "mutilation". My son had what they called a "bell" and my husband was there when they put it on him. He said it wasn't traumatic to our son and it wasn't a big deal. We treated it as we did the umbilical stump and the bell with the foreskin fell off in a couple days. I, too (Verily), find it strange to be such an emotionally charged topic.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Fahim was circumcised for religious reasons, but in discussing whether we'd circumcise our kids if we had any, we both agreed that we wouldn't. It's not necessary given the risks, and if the child wants it done, he can do it when he's old enough to make the decision for himself.
I've also never seen an uncircumcised penis that I know of. Or recall.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "the first time I'd ever seen an uncircumcised penis"
I've still never seen one. Nor do I really have the desire to.
If you ever have a baby boy, presumably you will...at least until the eighth day. Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
quote: Avadaru, I expect that my sons will probably marry a girl who hasn't seen other ones
I don't mean any disrespect, so please try not to take offense, but what you expect from your children and what actually happens don't necessarily end up being the same. I'm just trying to cover everything here.
I personally would want to spare my son any potential humiliation later in life, but I don't think one way is right or wrong.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I've seen several say he should be allowed to choose to have it done later if he wants.
My husband & I were sort of "on the fence" and trying to decide before our first son was born. When the doctor indicated that occasionally (rarely) they need to be circumcized later for medical reasons, we decided to do it at birth. I REALLY didn't want to have to do it when they were older and would remember it, or be in a lot of pain. I mean I know babies feel pain, but it seems they don't feel it as long, or something; my boys both recovered really quickly, but I understand it takes longer for older males to stop hurting.
I didn't want them to ever have to come back to me and say, "Why didn't you get this done when I was a baby?!"
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Well, if it's going to be done, it should be as a baby. Of course babies can feel pain, but at that stage the memory of it will be very brief. I shudder to imagine having to go through it now.
Oh, and somebody mentioned the so-called "female circumcision" earlier. I just want to say that that is a completely different procedure, done for completely different purposes. So that's not even remotely a fair comparison.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I know many, many, many girls like Ava who are just not used to seeing an uncircumcised one. Whether you are against doing things to "conform to the norm" or not, the standard is still there (at least in the areas I've lived in - there are certainly areas where the opposite is true, I'm sure).
Wikipedia (which is not always the most reliable source) states that males with an uncircumcised penis are 10 times more prone to UTIs than those with circumcisions.
On the flip side, what I've gathered over the years is that very often guys with uncircumcised penises are able to hold off on ejaculation longer during sex - which may lead to more fulfilling sex for everyone involved.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:males with an uncircumcised penis are 10 times more prone to UTIs [. . .] guys with uncircumcised penises are able to hold off on ejaculation longer during sex
Well, there ya go. You win some, you lose some.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Actually, I don't think that number is completely accurate. I'll check later. (In the middle of SVU right now.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(But very quickly, Babycenter doesn't cite numbers, but says that although the risk for UTIs is higher in uncircumcised males, it is at most 1% for any male, uncircumcised or not. That's less than the risk for a lot of things, and UTIs are very treatable.)
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Don't do it.
Human Papilloma Virus causes the large majority of all cases of cervical cancer anyways (I've heard 93% to 97%)--And recently an HPV vaccine was shown to be successful at nearly eradicating the possibility for cervical cancer, although the treatment is not yet approved in the US. Also, cleaning is no problem.
quote:BobTheLawyer: Has anyone, circumcised or not, ever had someone draw attention to the cut/uncut state of their penis?
I don't think anybody really cares.. The most I've ever heard of is a little high school teasing.
quote:ketchupqueen: Avadaru, I expect that my sons will probably marry a girl who hasn't seen other ones (except perhaps her father's, fleetingly, or her brothers' as small children, like me.) So I would hope that situation wouldn't come up.
I wouldn't worry for a moment about it. No offense to Avadaru and erosomniac, but I think their experience is very very rare. I've never heard of anybody being humiliated because of this particular decision that their parents made anyway. Maybe things are different in other parts of the country, but around here (PacNW) I've never heard of anybody caring either way.
Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: Here's a good point my brother made: If God made us this way why mess with it?
Do I need to say anything else?
Cutting a newly born child is exactly like baptising them.
Exactly, fake. A newly born cannot decide that he's ready to dedicate him/herself to God.
Likewise a newly born cannot decide if cutting off certain parts his body is to his liking.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
I don't think anybody really cares.. The most I've ever heard of is a little high school teasing.
I care. I don't think I'd tease, but I definitely have my preference.
Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krankykat: Well, chreese...to bad your father didn't bother saving his semen.
Hanging on to traditions and chosing things which are not at all needed for your infant to be pure.
You're fighting a lost war here, if you're saying your child will suffer because he didn't follow his fathers tradition it can be considered a failure.
My father lost his virginity when he was 16 years old, lived his life up til his 20's and he also sniffed glue, did some minor drugs and was an alcoholic for a good period of his life.
Does that mean that I have to **** up my youth as well to be considered a proper offspring?
<snip>
Or not. Putting sarcasm aside: No, it's not hard. Please do not hang on to traditions, you're not helping your children.
quote:Originally posted by luthe: Yeah, cause that damn foreskin is always in the way.</sarcasm> [/QB]
*grin*
quote:Originally posted by Will B: My non-expert opinion is that * elective cosmetic surgery on babies is not a great idea * if he wants it done, he can do it when he's older; but he can't un-do it
To the point.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I am very firmly of the belief that irreversible procedures should not be inflicted on anyone without their consent. It is possible to get circumcised as an adult, and some men take advantage of that.
I have nothing more to add.
And a slam attack ! I have nothing else to add either. I find it unhealty to remove ones foreskin based on the "höh, I did it meself, so yuo shalt be cut as welleth" reasoning.
[Edit: circumcised some over the line portions of the post. --PJ]
[ December 08, 2005, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just wanted to say I am uncircumcised and live in the US. All of my friends are circumcised, some for religious reasons some not.
I have never had a girl express any confusions, disgust, horror, or even a little unease at my penis. It just hasn't come up.
I am very firmly of the belief that irreversible procedures should not be inflicted on anyone without their consent. It is possible to get circumcised as an adult, and some men take advantage of that.
I have nothing more to add.
Posted by BadGuy (Member # 8922) on :
End of a million words is:
You should not choose things for your childrens "assumed" wellness.
Remember a child is not yours to abuse and alter to your liking, you're just borrowing them, a beautiful gift from someone who cares.
THEY CAN DECIDE WHEN THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
BadGuy, it isn't necessary to use words like dick or cock. It also isn't necessary to yell, which is what bolded all caps look like.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by jennabean: I care. I don't think I'd tease, but I definitely have my preference.
Well, there's certainly nothing wrong with having a preference one way or another. I imagine that very few males have any way of objectively evaluating what their preference would be due to lack of experience one way or another, but I imagine that if one were to have the required experience, he would prefer it the natural way. Not to be crude, but I bet ya'd lose a lot of 'sensitivity' to be so unprotected while wearing anything but silk underwear for year after year.
I don't really think that many people who have the procedure as an infant have very many regrets about it. And I suppose only the rare person who contracts a UTI cares about it the other way... So probably more thought has gone into this issue than is necessary.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: It also isn't necessary to yell, which is what bolded all caps look like.
(Unless someone implies that Heinz is not the Only True Ketchup. Then you have every right to yell in all bolded caps.)
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
There can be only one (ketchup).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: the first time I'd ever seen an uncircumcised penis.
Wow! I guess you don't read as many . . . um, "medical journals", as I do. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*giggles*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just wanted to say I am uncircumcised and live in the US. All of my friends are circumcised, some for religious reasons some not.
Hmm. All of your friends are circumcised? You and your friends must be very close, or you only make friends with people you shower with.
I mean, I couldn't even say what percentage of my friends is circumcised and I imagine on average I'm way more curious to know than the next guy. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(As a point of intrest, my friends-- mostly male-- and I discussed circumcision as teenagers. Among them, about 2/3 were uncircumcised, excluding the 3 that were circumcised for religious reasons. But it was a very, very small sample group. )
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Quote from Badguy: "You should not choose things for your childrens "assumed" wellness."
(I hope I did this quote thing right...being a newbie and all) Edit to say that I didn't but now see the "" button...darn.
I was just wondering if you are a parent, Badguy, because in reality, be it right or wrong, this IS what parents do. Hopefully we're more often right than wrong!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
KQ, Unless you plan on your sons being home schooled and never visiting a gym, you might reconsider.
Just through years of locker rooms I've seen hundreds of penises.
Not trying to, just one of those things you can't help when everyone's getting naked together. Over the course of 10+ years. And of course, I don't think anything's more homophobic that changing while staring at the ceiling lest you catch another guy's junk in your peripherals.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
So kq should change her mind on the sole basis of how many guys might see her son's penis in a locker room?
Um, yeah, like that's the best reason.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I survived growing up, uncircumcised (while my dad was), without much of a problem. My wife does think it's a bit weird, but then, she thinks the concept of a penis is a bit weird, aesthetically.
She certainly has no problem, we, uh, get right down to it.
--- My children will be circumcised, since my wife is Jewish (it won't be a bris though, the thought grosses her out), and my only strong objections were that they wouldn't look like me. And that's just plain selfish. The health concerns aren't strong enough either way (IMO) to really be a factor... They can be used to rationalize your pre-existing wish, but it's best to come to grips with those pre-existing ideas, rather than throw statistics around.
-Bok
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It all comes down to the wishes of the parents. Even though my sons have been, I don't think it will matter much whether they were or not; since circumcision is becoming less common than it was generations ago, there will be both types in their groups of friends and it really won't matter. And their wives will get used to it.
I'm normally on the side of "don't mutilate your body unnecessarily," but in this case I don't think it's harmful, since I really do believe it was commanded by God at one time as a sign of a covenant. (Weird sign, huh?) Anyway I really doubt whether it will matter much to the child; it'll just be "the way things are."
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: My children will be circumcised, since my wife is Jewish (it won't be a bris though, the thought grosses her out), and my only strong objections were that they wouldn't look like me. And that's just plain selfish.
Too bad she doesn't want a bris. Having seen it done both ways, I much prefer a bris, which I think is much easier on the baby. She doesn't have to stand right there while it happens, you know. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
On the ladies side of the debate, I often see baby girls who have pierced ears. Way before the age of consent, with no health benefit or religious rationale. Are their parents baby mutilators?
I have yet to hear any woman complain, though, about having her ears pierced.
Come to think of it, I have yet to hear a man complain about being circumcised.
I'm sure that whatever you choose, it will be among the least important factors in the long-term effects of your child-rearing.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
twinky has, maybe not complained, but wishes he hadn't, I believe.
Ela, it's not just the act itself, it's the whole idea of a sortof party for an act of disfiguration (even if it is minor disfiguration, and a commandment/tradition).
-Bok
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Personally, I disagree with piercing a baby's ears. I would rather wait until the child is old enough to form her own decision.
Since you bring it up. And good point, Tante.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Ela, it's not just the act itself, it's the whole idea of a sortof party for an act of disfiguration (even if it is minor disfiguration, and a commandment/tradition).
-Bok
Okay. Just saying I think a bris is a lot less stressful for the baby, if you are going to do it anyway, and the baby happens to be of Jewish parentage.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
You know, I never actually checked, but I'm pretty sure that in France most men are not circumsized. So let's say your boy has sex with a French girl who already saw one or more penises, she would find it weird if he was circumsized. You can't assume your children will stay in the same environment forever. So well, I say don't do it, because I don't see any real use for it.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
BTW, Tante, I could be wrong, but I heard the hole could close up if you stopped to wear earrings long enough. There is no way the foreskin can repear itself... Not trying to make a point here, just thinking aloud. I'm sure I won't have my childrens' ears pierced. I did it as an adult so I know it doesn't hurt that much, but I'd be more comfortable if they took their own decision when they are old enough.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I've heard the same thing, but it's not always true, and it depends on the person.
I have one hole in one ear, three in the other. I have, at various times, gone years between wearing earrings in any of the various holes, and mine have never closed up or come close to it.
I know others who, without earrings, will have the hole closed up in a matter of a couple of months.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Don't have it done, because one day he might bang a French girl.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
I don't put much stock in any arguments that depend on what a potential sexual partner might think. One would hope--and yes, I realize I'm going against the grain here--that a guy would only choose as a sexual partner a girl that already cares deeply about him, and thus wouldn't be shocked or horrified by such a trivial thing as whether or not he was circumcised. I've never known a girl to care one way or the other, but if I ever did get into that situation, I would be furious. Not with my parents for having had it done to me, but with myself for making the horrible miscalculation that this girl was actually worth my time.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:One would hope--and yes, I realize I'm going against the grain here--that a guy would only choose as a sexual partner a girl that already cares deeply about him, and thus wouldn't be shocked or horrified by such a trivial thing as whether or not he was circumcised. I've never known a girl to care one way or the other, but if I ever did get into that situation, I would be furious. Not with my parents for having had it done to me, but with myself for making the horrible miscalculation that this girl was actually worth my time.
Word.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:one day he might bang a French girl.
Is it me or does this statement lack respect? French are not the only ones who mostly prefer not to circumcize their boys, you know... The rest of your post makes sense though. It's just that the whole "a girl could reject him because he's not circumcised" is as true as "a girl could reject him because he's circumcised". So it's a pretty silly reason to do it, IMHO.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Absolutely. My experience with circumcised vs. uncircumcised men being about equal, I can say that, for me, it has never been an issue.
quote: It just hasn't come up.
That, on the other hand, would have been. Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Is it me or does this statement lack respect?
*Sigh* No actual disrepect was intended toward you or toward France in general. I just don't feel that the fact that a guy may or may not one day become intimately involved with someone from a culture where circumcision is not the usual thing should be a factor in the decision about whether or not to get it done.
I'm sorry if you thought my phrasing crude, but I was doing it deliberately in order to make a point.
Circumcision does not actually impair a man's ability to have sex, nor a woman's ability to enjoy it. So what does the fact that she's never seen one before have to do with anything? If she actually loves him, what difference would it make?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:On the ladies side of the debate, I often see baby girls who have pierced ears. Way before the age of consent, with no health benefit or religious rationale. Are their parents baby mutilators?
I think it dilutes the term to use it that way. I've also come to think that it's counterproductive to use such loaded language in the context of discussing circumcision.
I definitely think that parents who get their babies' ears piereced are wrong to so so, though... just as I think parents who get their babies circumcised (when it isn't medically necessary) are wrong to do so.
quote:Come to think of it, I have yet to hear a man complain about being circumcised.
...
twinky has, maybe not complained, but wishes he hadn't, I believe.
Indeed, I'd rather I wasn't circumcised. As I said, I don't blame my parents for not knowing better, but that doesn't mean I don't wish they had known better.
quote:Don't have it done, because one day he might bang a French girl.
That's not what Anna said, Verily. A number of people in this thread have stated that they prefer circumcised penises because they're "the norm" and uncircumcised penises "look weird." That's hardly a valid reason to circumcise a boy, but either way it isn't true outside America. In Canada, for example, circumcised males are a small minority.
Added:
quote:Circumcision does not actually impair a man's ability to have sex, nor a woman's ability to enjoy it.
Neither of these things is certain, actually. Added 2: Ela's link back on page one is very comprehensive.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The correct statement would be "one day he might bang a European girl."
I'm under the impression that it was mainly on continental europe were circumcision was uncommon.
But ya here's my two cents:
I do not know of any of the medical or technical details involved when it comes to circumsision, but I will give my opinion:
If you are of jewish or Muslim descent and tradition warrants it, circumsision for males isn't wrong and ultimately up to the parents.
However, generally for non jews/non muslims I find no point in circumsision since A) I think thats alot less pleasure nerves with circumsision.
B) I forget what B was...
While circumsised or not may not be a significant factor in sexual pleasure, I think that they're may be like a 5% difference maybe.
My 2 cents.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, I would bet most of Asia and Africa, and a fair bit of South America have a majority of uncircumcised males...
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:I'm not a girl, but every girl I've talked to about this said the first time they saw an uncircumcised penis they thought it was weird (several of my female friends still haven't seen one).
The first time I saw a mature circumcised penis I thought it looked weird. You can't win.
While I am far from experienced in uncircumcised mature penises, I have seen plenty of uncircumcised infants and young children (in a third world country where they go naked). I actually think it looks better, at that age.
I am due to give birth to a son in two months. We have three children already, a boy and two girls. We circumcised our boy (first child) and I was grateful that I didn't have to deal with it with the next two children. Now that I have to deal with it again, I have been thinking about it and yes, there was that big ol' discussion on sakeriver.
You see, my concerns were not *just* that my son wouldn't look like his father, but he won't even look like his brother if he goes uncircumcised. That honestly concerned me a great deal. I think I have pretty much decided that it is not reason enough to circumcise this one. If I could go back in time, I would not have our firstborn circumcised. Why make a wrong decision a second time just because I made it the first time?
Because of the discussion and the ensuing research, I am much more confident about what to expect, what the foreskin really is, the costs and benefits, etc. Because of that, I was able to reach a decision I felt most comfortable with.
I find it amusing that we are so concerned about boys keeping clean. Female genitals are full of creases and messy discharges, and women just have to deal with that. I imagine FGM might help keep that area more sanitary, but is it worth it?
It makes me just a bit uncomfortable to know that we are perhaps the only nation, or one of the few (I am not sure--maybe someone who knows can clarify) that routinely circumcises *not* for religious reasons. The professionals are seriously reconsidering their past recommendations, perhaps the rest of us need to rethink as well.
We may be worried about our sons "fitting in", but as time goes by, less and less people in the US are circumcising their sons. What was "fitting in" in the past doesn't determine what is "fitting in" now. If the majority of Sneetches stop putting stars on their bellies, the ones without aren't going to feel like an ostracized minority.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Come to think of it, I have yet to hear a man complain about being circumcised.
I have heard plenty, but most of the complaining was on sakeriver. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:While circumsised or not may not be a significant factor in sexual pleasure, I think that they're may be like a 5% difference maybe.
How could you possibly come up with that figure? Or any kind of percentage for something like that?
Personally, I wish my parents hadn't had me circumcised, but it's waaaaaaaaaay low on the list of things I wish my parents had/hadn't done. As for sexual pleasure, in my experience there must be a thousand ways to make up the difference for whatever little was lost due to circumcision.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: My non-expert opinion is that * elective cosmetic surgery on babies is not a great idea * if he wants it done, he can do it when he's older; but he can't un-do it
Then again, Renee Richards is Jewish, so that's not necessarily the case.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Circumcision Humor:
Two little boys are sharing a semiprivate hospital room in the pediatric surgical unit.
The first boy asks the second, "What are you here for?"
The second boy replies that he is having his tonsils out.
"Oh, that's not so bad -- I had that a couple of years ago. I had a sore throat, but I got to miss a week of school and have all the ice cream I wanted."
The second boy asks the first why he is in the hospital
"Circumcision."
"Uh oh. I had that done when I was eight days old, and I couldn't walk for a year."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The cool thing about the United States is that with all these Christians circumsized, if anyone like the Nazis come around again it will be harder to tell the Jews a part.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<-- Doesn't find Nazi humor amusing.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The cool thing about the United States is that with all these Christians circumsized, if anyone like the Nazis come around again it will be harder to tell the Jews a part.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Now has anyone heard about lower rates of masterbation for circumcised boys? It came up and I'm wondering where it came from.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Absolutely. My experience with circumcised vs. uncircumcised men being about equal, I can say that, for me, it has never been an issue.
quote: It just hasn't come up.
That, on the other hand, would have been.
Ouch! I can't believe my word choice last night. That's terrible!
Well, I deserved it.
Also, to the person who wondered how I knew that all of my friends are circumcised... well, I meant my closer circle of friends. It's come up in conversation (about this very topic, no less; what to do with someone's baby), not to mention that some of them have gone on backpacking trips with me... it's not worth it to bring the extra weight of swimming trunks when you'll be swimming in absolute seclusion, so we do that naked. (gasp)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I find discussions about having children in general tend to bring up topics that would never be touched on otherwise. I guess this is no exception. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So kq should change her mind on the sole basis of how many guys might see her son's penis in a locker room?
Um, yeah, like that's the best reason.
I didn't suggest that. I just wanted to bring it to her attention. Although it actually turned out I'd misunderstood her post.
She wasn't worried that her son might feel weird about being different, she was responding that his future wife might.
But either way, your sarcasm is unnecessary. Even though it's clear you get much enjoyment out of purposely misreading my posts and then jumping on me for them. Congrats to you for scoring another point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Now has anyone heard about lower rates of masterbation for circumcised boys? It came up and I'm wondering where it came from.
... Looks at the post... *laughs histerically* I'm sorry but I think I just disproved that theory, rofl.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"*laughs histerically* I'm sorry but I think I just disproved that theory, rofl."
*laughs hysterically as well*
About the argument that you shouldn't do it because he should make the decision on his own, first of all it would take alot of guts to have a voluntary circumcision when your old enough to decide you want one. Guts that I think most guys don't have. So if you're going to wait until he's old enough to make the decision for himself, that's about the same as making sure he'll never get one. I was glad I was circumcised, but I don't think I'd go through with it now if I wanted one.
Second, I think the parents have a right to give a circumcision, if that's what the parents want, without having the kid's consent. How many of you think it's wrong to teach your kids about your religion when they're young? That would be basically the same as "forcing" your religion on the kid, since most of the time when kids are raised to be observant, they'll usually stay like that. And what if your child never wanted to be born? What if, as soon as he's old enough to make the decision for himself, that he wishes he was never born? That wasn't fair that you made that decision for him before he could decide for himself. Posted by Avadaru (Member # 3026) on :
I remember reading a Dave Barry article about this awhile back, so I looked it up: NORM (The National Organization of Restoring Men) is a group devoted to the restoration and recovery of the foreskin on circumcised males. So, apparently it can be done. I didn't look very far into the website, so I don't know the details of every procedure or the success rate, but there seem to be quite a few nonsurgical methods in use. Seems a lot less traumatic to reverse a circumcision during adulthood than to undergo one, IMO.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
The restoration can never be complete, in my understanding. It just stretches what is left over--which sounds pretty unpleasant. :/ Apparently it returns sensitivity to the surface of the glans by providing the intended cover and protection, but in several other ways just isn't the same.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Unless you plan on your sons being home schooled and never visiting a gym, you might reconsider.
Since I live in an area where a majority of infants are uncircumcised, I think it's odds-on it won't be a problem for my sons. And even if we move to a place where everyone is circumcised, I hope I'll have taught them a healthy enough body image that they won't care too much.
quote:On the ladies side of the debate, I often see baby girls who have pierced ears. Way before the age of consent, with no health benefit or religious rationale. Are their parents baby mutilators?
First of all, I'm not one of the ones who goes so far as to scream "mutilation". But I don't believe in piercing ears in infants, either. Both my husband and I were a little horrified when my sister- and brother-in-law did it to our niece (but we kept our opinions to ourselves.) In my family, growing up, the rule was "when you're 8, if you want, you can decide to have your ears pierced" (my mom having grown up Baptist and 8 being the "age of accountability", the age of being able to make your own decisions and be accountable for them and the consequences.) My husband and I agree that that's a good rule, and we'll follow it with our daughters as well (since as Mormons we also hold 8 as the age of accountability.) I suppose if, after our sons are older, they complain about being uncircumcised, we'll ask them if they want to be circumcised and let them make the choice, much as it's going to be much more traumatic at that age, they should be able to choose.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Yeah, as I said above, I misread your post on page one.
I doubt you'll have a problem.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
At least when a mature male is circumcised the foreskin doesn't have to be ripped off of the glans. >.< By then, they've separated.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
There is a Sex in the City episode in the first season where Carrie dates a man who is uncut. She seems a bit put off. I watched it with a guy who was currently dating an uncut guy who said that he had a similar reaction to Carrie's. Not that it should make any difference, but from my experience it does seem like many American women prefer circumcised men. That said, I am sure that even though women each have their own preference it should not really matter too much.
This thread has been making me think about what I would choose for my hypothetical son. I think if I end up marrying a man that wishes to do it for religious reasons, I would not object. I think if my husband had any strong preference I would go with that because he knows what it is like to have a penis and I don't. I am not sure what I would do if it were left up to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am an American woman and have had experience with both (about equal). It never occured to me to be "put off" either way.
If I ever have a son I would likely not have him circumcised unless his father had a firm opinion to the contrary.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd probably go with whatever my wife wanted on this; I can't really see an advantage to either.
Posted by MrMojoDriver (Member # 8852) on :
you want ignorant people to give you their opinion? go to www.thewolfweb.com Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I wouldn't worry for a moment about it. No offense to Avadaru and erosomniac, but I think their experience is very very rare. I've never heard of anybody being humiliated because of this particular decision that their parents made anyway. Maybe things are different in other parts of the country, but around here (PacNW) I've never heard of anybody caring either way.
The idea that circumcision is the norm is prolific throughout national popular media.
And I'm really curious now as to the differentiation of this standard depending on where you live. I had the standard locker room experience in middle/high school (meaning I saw a bunch of naked guys on a semi-regular basis), and I have yet, to this day, to see an uncircumcised penis except in pictures. Keep in mind that my high school had roughly 1800 students, half of which (or thereabouts) were male.
This question intrigued me so much that two of my friends and I went through as much free online porn as we could to see if we could discover anything.
We viewed 500 heterosexual pornographic websites and did not see a single uncircumcised penis.
To me, this says at least one of the following:
1) Circumcision is a social standard. 2) There is a hygenic/aesthetic benefit to circumcision.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: This question intrigued me so much that two of my friends and I went through as much free online porn as we could to see if we could discover anything.
Right...all in the name of research.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Oddly enough...yes, in the name of research.
Trust me, going through porn to look at penises wasn't something we wanted to linger on. We'd do a quick scan, add a tally to the circumcised list, and move on.
Which isn't to say that all of the websites aren't in IE's history o_O.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
That reminds me. Here at work there's a guy who keeps some 'questionable' material on his laptop. I knew about it and knew I had to do something about it. So I decided to replace his pictures of beautiful women in various stages of undress with pictures of guys in speedos. Then, when he had his buddies around his computer and decided to show them a "hot chick", well, he'd have some 'splainin' to do.
Google-imageing 'men speedo' was a tad disturbing. Seeing a guy in a speedo was one thing. See him pose and try to be provactive was another. Seeing...well lets just say, not all the guys were wearing speedos, nor are all the sites ones for selling men's swimwear. Got about 20 pictures (clothed) in 5 minutes and decided I just did not want to see anymore. I replace what was there and that was it.
Of course, he never looked in that folder, so it was all for nothing. I had to tell him about it a few weeks later, at which point he laughed.
Oh well. But your "research" reminded me of that.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Most men are cut, so that means there's a benefit to it? That's pretty flawed logic.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Jon Boy - re-read my post.
quote: To me, this says at least one of the following:
1) Circumcision is a social standard. 2) There is a hygenic/aesthetic benefit to circumcision.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I wouldn't say anytime most people do something there's a benefit to it, but it probably means that at least some of them do it for a good reason (not religion).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
ersomniac, how old are you? And where do you live? Both make a difference. Right now, a majority of boys born in my part of the country are uncircumcised. That doesn't mean the majority of my parents' generation are-- most of them were circumcised. But by my brother's birth in 1986, a majority of boys born in the hospital where he was born were not being circumcised.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Jon Boy - re-read my post.
quote: To me, this says at least one of the following:
1) Circumcision is a social standard. 2) There is a hygenic/aesthetic benefit to circumcision.
Number 2 still isn't a logical conclusion. Also, number 1 is simply circular.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Number 2 still isn't a logical conclusion. Also, number 1 is simply circular.
Logic isn't involved: it's pure speculation. These are conclusions I drew after my friends and I spent a few hours looking at porn.
It wasn't meant to be interpretted seriously. I apologize if there was confusion as to that matter.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:ersomniac, how old are you? And where do you live? Both make a difference. Right now, a majority of boys born in my part of the country are uncircumcised. That doesn't mean the majority of my parents' generation are-- most of them were circumcised. But by my brother's birth in 1986, a majority of boys born in the hospital where he was born were not being circumcised.
I'm 21 - born in 1984. That'd put me in the same generation as your brother, I think. I grew up (and my example referenced my time) in Hawaii - more specifically, on Oahu. I also lived a year in upstate New York (Rochester) and have lived for the past three years in Seattle.
Anyone in the Seattle area want to show me an uncircumcised penis?
(I'm kidding again - really, I promise).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, at the point you were born, the area where I live was far from the norm for the country (although in line with much of SoCal.)
I think the PacNorthwest is now leaning more and more toward less circumcision in most areas, though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Although I'm willing to bet that plenty of boys born in Seattle were uncircumcised, even back then, it's hard to find stats for that far back.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Further proof that circumcised is the norm:
Whenever people draw penises - on walls, in notebooks, on other people's faces - the penis is always circumcised.
This clearly points to circumcision being the standard.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(If you really want to see one, go around to parents of new baby boys and ask. But you may get thrown in jail. )
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
quote:I think it's ritual genital mutilation. I don't see how it can be called anything else. We only think it's okay in our culture because we're accustomed to thinking it's okay. In actuality it is no different from any other ritual mutliation practiced by any other culture, that is to say, pretty darned creepy, in my opinion.
My grandpa had to have it done when he was 81 due to multiple UTI's. As he got older, he just didn't keep himself as clean. In his opinion, getting circumcised at 81 is both painful and embarrassing.
Both my boys were circumsised using the bell method. I had always assumed that I would circumsise them because it was all I had ever seen. When I was pregnant and actually thought about what to do with the boys, I had two considerations 1) Their father was circumsized 2)Given the possibility of them *maybe* having to have the procedure later in life when they would have not only physical, but emotional trauma associated with it, it was better to have it done as an infant.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
erso, it *has* been the standard in *this* country for generations. But it is on it's way *out*.
The practice will fall before those social perceptions change, but I am confident they *will* change. If people aren't circumcising their children, it isn't going to be a big asthetic or social deal. (Or see my Star-bellied Sneetches comment.)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Your know, I don't actually know what an uncircumsized one looks like, in fact I don't even know if mine is circumsized or not.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:So kq should change her mind on the sole basis of how many guys might see her son's penis in a locker room?
Um, yeah, like that's the best reason.
I didn't suggest that. I just wanted to bring it to her attention. Although it actually turned out I'd misunderstood her post.
She wasn't worried that her son might feel weird about being different, she was responding that his future wife might.
But either way, your sarcasm is unnecessary. Even though it's clear you get much enjoyment out of purposely misreading my posts and then jumping on me for them. Congrats to you for scoring another point.
I have never purposely misread your posts. If I have misread them, then isn't it possible you didn't communicate your intent very well? In any case, I'm sorry you were offended.
I also don't go out for scoring points. Besides the fact that I wouldn't know how, I can't be bothered.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
quote: Your know, I don't actually know what an uncircumsized one looks like, in fact I don't even know if mine is circumsized or not.
Ummm... well if the end is shaped like a mushroom... Your not... Like a spear and you are...
If your still unsure, as dangerous as it is, Google it...
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I would have thought mushroom would be circumsized, rather than not.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
I agree with imogen, never seen a penis that looks like a spear myself.
Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
ok... bad analogy... just google it...
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
Circumsized looks like a mushroom. Uncircumsized looks like... a sea cucumber?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
When we adopted Sasha we were considering this question as well. In Russia many consider circumcision a sign of Jewishness, which many still hold dangerous prejudices against.
However we did not have to worry about that decision. Medical neccesity required a circumcision followed by, well, a re-routing of the plumbing for more accurate aiming.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Not mushroom.
Helmet.
[Hides face in shame for posting this.]
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
And I can understand the embarrassment if we’re talking goblin.
[ December 09, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
Oh, the turn this thread has taken. Posted by divaesefani (Member # 3763) on :
My nephew didn't get cut because of a medical emergency after he was born. Talking with my sister-in-law, she really hates the fact that it wasn't done because it's causing problems. They can't afford to have it done now, either. When my son was born, she and my brother joked about switching the boys so my nephew could get circumcised, but decided the doctors would probably notice a difference between a new born and a three year old.
My husband wanted him circumcised. I believe that the father should have the majority of the say, because they are both male, and I'm female. I don't know what it's like. He does.
Taking my sister-in-law's opinion and my husband's preference, it was a no-brainer for me. My son was circumcised. No regrets.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
LadyDove! Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I have never purposely misread your posts. If I have misread them, then isn't it possible you didn't communicate your intent very well? In any case, I'm sorry you were offended.
That's what you've suggested the other two times you've been called on your behavior, too (the latest of which was just last week). No one else seems to misinterpret my posts, or if they do, they ask for clarification instead assuming the worst and responding in kind. Which leads me to believe the problem is in the reading, not the writing. Although I could be wrong.
quote:I also don't go out for scoring points. Besides the fact that I wouldn't know how, I can't be bothered.
When your only response to someone is a sarcastic comment, you've left discussion behind, and are firmly in the realm of point-scoring. So, like I told my brother when he claimed he didn't know how to sweep, you do know how, even if you don't know you know.
But I'm willing to suggest a truce. I don't expect you to stop overreacting to everything I say you don't agree with, and we certainly aren't gonna start agreeing. My only goal was to bring your sniping to your attention, so maybe you can restrain yourself. Or at least be conscious of it.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Whatever.
Since you say I've suggested this before, I'm evidently repeating myself. I honestly don't recall such, but hey, I've got a lousy memory.
I don't purposely misread your posts. But then, I don't purposely misread posts. I don't go out for scoring points. Not on you. Not on anyone.
I'll feel free to ignore you completely if that will make you feel better.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
For the record, an aroused uncircumcised male penis is often indistiguishable from a circumcised one. Through the wonders of biology, the skin retracts on its own!
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Also, I'd like to add, any husband doesn't know what it's like. They only know what its like the way they are. How is a circumcised male any more of an authority on decided whether to circumcise or not, than the opposite, or their wife? The answer is that none of them are, and moms and dads should both do research about it.
-Bok
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
The helmet links were especially helpful. Major swing votes there.
No one has anything to say about masterbation? I was told that that was one of the main things that doctors and "society" claimed would decrease with circumcision back in the early part of last century, and became the "WMD" argument that convinced many parents to have the procedure done on their sons.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Didn't they say the same thing about graham crackers?
The only possible way I can think of for circumcision to reduce masturbation would be if it actually decreased the pleasurable sensation of penile stimulation. And it doesn't, or at least not to any significant degree. Circumcised men feel just as much pleasure--or darn close to it--as uncircumcised men. So none of the potential rewards of masturbation are taken away, and no potential drawbacks added. So I can't imagine it would make a difference one way or the other.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote: Circumcised men feel just as much pleasure--or darn close to it--as uncircumcised men.
That's the second time you've stated this as though it was an indisputable fact. It isn't.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Ignore me or don't, I could care less.
Just don't use me as your whipping boy and we'll be fine.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote: Circumcised men feel just as much pleasure--or darn close to it--as uncircumcised men.
That's the second time you've stated this as though it was an indisputable fact. It isn't.
On the other hand, there's no way to prove it conclusively, one way or the other. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's a very different statement, though.
There is certainly some nerve damage simply by virtue of there being scar tissue left by the procedure, and the outer side of the head of the penis will necessarily be less sensitive. Whether that affects sexual pleasure significantly is open for debate. As you say, it's difficult or impossible to support either claim with evidence.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Yes, I agree. I don't know that there's very significant nerve damage - according to what I've read, that's not really the issue - but there is supposed to be a difference in sensation.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: Anyone in the Seattle area want to show me an uncircumcised penis?
Well, I'm not actually willing to show you my kid's privates, but I can tell you fewer baby boys born in our county are circ'ed every year.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Circumcised men feel just as much pleasure--or darn close to it--as uncircumcised men. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the second time you've stated this as though it was an indisputable fact. It isn't. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, there's no way to prove it conclusively, one way or the other.
Never use the phrase "On The Other Hand" when seriously discussing this issue.
It leads the immature to giggle.
[giggle] [/giggle] So many comments, so little time, so many threats from Janitor Moose if I say any of them.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
You know,the title makes me giggle.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
About one way or another seeming weird:
I think penises look weird either way.
Except that I think I've only seen a circumsized one.
But it was still weird-looking to me.
-pH
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
My wife is seriously considering circumcision after watching Oprah yesterday. Apparently, a dermatologist on the show revealed that they use baby boys' foreskins to make collagen-enhancing creams for women who want to defy the aging process. We could be great philanthropists at our son's expense.
I can imagine the talk at the makeup counter, "Now the immediate sensation you feel from this cream is how firm it comes on. It will immediately tighten and lift your skin tissues. That soothing feeling is the aloe and menthol. Really it is the essence of infant's foreskin that is adding all the extra nutrients you need there."
Lather up ladies!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Apparently, a dermatologist on the show revealed that they use baby boys' foreskins to make collagen-enhancing creams for women who want to defy the aging process.
I need baby foreskin on my face.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
erosomniac, allow me to take this moment to declare my undying love to you.
-pH
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
... Wouldn't that be an arguement for NOT circumsizing?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
To deprive woman of collagen-enhancing creams for women who want to defy the aging process? Yeah, I guess so. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
For the record, any forskins I have removed went to the general hospital human body products disposal, which means they were incinerated.
I would strongly object to adding additional financial incentive to the procedure of circumcision.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I would strongly object to adding additional squick factor to the procedure of circumcision.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, there's that, too.
*grin
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Some people use the circumcised foreskins to make wallets.
If you stroke the wallet gently, it turns into suitcase.
<-- knows lots of circumcision jokes
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:That's the second time you've stated this as though it was an indisputable fact. It isn't.
Fine. There's an x% chance that circumcision removes enough sensation to significantly affect the pleasures of sex, where x is a very low number. But unless some uncircumcised fellow here is willing to have sex, undergo the procedure, and then have sex again after recovery and report to us how it felt each time. . . .
Of course, memory is fallible, and a sample size of one is unreliable. We'll have to get a whole bunch of guys to volunteer.
The fact that the United States, with its historically high percentage of circumcised men, does not seem to, as a nation, enjoy sex any less than nations where circumcision is not customary could be taken as circumstantial evidence that this "dulled sensation" does not exist. If circumcised men got less pleasure out of sex, wouldn't they try less to get it?
[ December 10, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
This is perhaps going to be a gross post. You have been warned. I will be as delicate as possible.
I have had experience with perhaps nine penises. Six circumcised, three not. The un-cut ones always had a distinct smell, which I didn't feel was deeply revolting or anything, but which I found not-pleasant. These were clean people, with presumably clean genitals, but from a scent-aesthetic, I found the circumcised ones more to my liking. Perhaps people are designed to have scented genitals, just as people are designed to have scented arm-pits. However, health issues all being equal, I'd rather have unscented.
Which is not to say that I would mock/refuse to be involved with an uncircumsized boy, but that my inclanation right now is towards circumcision, if I ever have a son. Unnecessary, sure. But nicening.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:If circumcised men got less pleasure out of sex, wouldn't they try less to get it?
People with type II diabetes are demonstrably less sensitive to sweetness. Do they eat less sweets? On the contrary, they tend to eat more because they don't detect the sweetness as much and are left wanting more.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:On the contrary, they tend to eat more because they don't detect the sweetness as much and are left wanting more.
That's a point. Do we find, then, that American men try to get sex more than men in other cultures? More than, say, French men? I'm inclined to doubt it, though I don't know that anyone has any numbers that are relevant.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I was talking to someone about circumcision (I can't remember who now) and the person was talking about a number of uncircumcised men in their group of family/friends who felt quite confident that they experience more pleasure in their uncircumcised state than they would circumcised--that the sensation was distinct and would be greatly missed. (This referring specifically to the sliding function of the foreskin during sex.)
Not that that means *anything* at all, but I thought I would throw that out there.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger:
quote:That's the second time you've stated this as though it was an indisputable fact. It isn't.
Fine. There's an x% chance that circumcision removes enough sensation to significantly affect the pleasures of sex, where x is a very low number. But unless some uncircumcised fellow here is willing to have sex, undergo the procedure, and then have sex again after recovery and report to us how it felt each time. . . .
From a study conducted on 150 men who were circumcized for benign medical reasons, 61% were satisfied. 38% reported increased sensetivity, 18% reported less. 44% reported no change.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Verily the Younger: That's a point. Do we find, then, that American men try to get sex more than men in other cultures? More than, say, French men? I'm inclined to doubt it, though I don't know that anyone has any numbers that are relevant.
I could tell you a story about the creepy molester men I met in France...
-pH
EDIT: teh speeling!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:From a study conducted on 150 men who were circumcized for benign medical reasons, 61% were satisfied. 38% reported increased sensetivity, 18% reported less. 44% reported no change.
After how long, though? They don't specify. You would certainly notice an immediate increase in sensitivity, since skin that was normally protected would be exposed.
It's a complete no-brainer to me that the top side of the head of a circumcised penis is necessarily less sensitive than the top side of the head of an uncircumcised penis, and also that the ring of scar tissue is less sensitive than what was there before. Since there are plenty of other sensitive bits of penises that are not affected by circumcision, it's arguable as to whether it has any significant impact on overall sexual pleasure. I can certainly say that I derive lots of pleasure from sex. Nonetheless, a circumcised penis like mine is unquestionably "damaged goods," so to speak.
It's also a decision a male should be able to make for himself, not something that should be decided for him by his parents as an infant.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: [QUOTE]It's a complete no-brainer to me that the top side of the head of a circumcised penis is necessarily less sensitive than the top side of the head of an uncircumcised penis, and also that the ring of scar tissue is less sensitive than what was there before. Since there are plenty of other sensitive bits of penises that are not affected by circumcision, it's arguable as to whether it has any significant impact on overall sexual pleasure. I can certainly say that I derive lots of pleasure from sex. Nonetheless, a circumcised penis like mine is unquestionably "damaged goods," so to speak.
It's also a decision a male should be able to make for himself, not something that should be decided for him by his parents as an infant.
"Damaged goods." Dude, whatever problems you have in your life, and I suspect you have some with this self-image, they are NOT due to having a square inch or less flap of skin cut off of you however many years ago. Let it go.
As for the sensitivity, are your hands desensitized from enjoying holding hands? Are your lips desensitized from enjoying kissing? Sensitivity is not a binary all or nothing function.
Masters and Johnson did not find any difference between snipped or unsnipped men's sensations when evaluated by involuntary responses to stimulii.
There is a strong correlation between circumcision and UTI's. There is a stong correlation between circumcision and HPV, cervical cancer, and penile cancer. There is a mild link, when other environmental and genetic issues are accounted for, between circumcision and prostate cancer.
Also, whenever I have had sex, I almost always worried more about getting too much sensation too quickly than about getting too little sensation and lasting too long. If being clipped gives me an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get my partner where she needs to go, or to get there more than once, then that's just a bonus in my books. Then again, I also don't think selfishness in bed is a high-quality trait, personally. Some guys seem to have other views in that regard. However, all of the medical research that has so far been done does not support that assertion at all, and the delay of male orgasm -- if it exists at all -- is only a matter of seconds.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Actually, I believe that the foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 x 5 card. That's 15 square inches. Also, the risk factor for all those diseases is pretty small. As I understand it, we're talking about a risk rate of 1 percent in uncircumcised men and .5 percent in circumcised men.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Actually, I believe that the foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 x 5 card. That's 15 square inches. Also, the risk factor for all those diseases is pretty small. As I understand it, we're talking about a risk rate of 1 percent in uncircumcised men and .5 percent in circumcised men.
Since he has previously indicated he got the snip as an infant, I assumed he had not yet at that time achieved a size equivilent to that of a grown man. If he actually had, then color me very impressed.
And actually, the risk for some conditions (that I hadn't listed) is 0 with circumcision, since some are conditions that affect only the foreskin in the first place.
Yes, there are risks with circumcision, but there are also risks without. Decreased sexual performance or response (outside of any other factor such as infection) is not significant among those risks on either side of the equation from the data I have looked at online.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Not that I want to get back into this, but I just got an email update from Jim Gaffigan, one of my favorite comedians.
The first line read as such:
My wife and recently had a son so we were forced to deal with that difficult circumcision question. Do we put our newborn son under a severe amount of unnecessary pain or do we have a child with an ugly penis? We went with the pain, cause we are Christians Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:"Damaged goods." Dude, whatever problems you have in your life, and I suspect you have some with this self-image, they are NOT due to having a square inch or less flap of skin cut off of you however many years ago. Let it go.
Do I sound worked up? 'cause I'm not. Look, I've got a scar on my left arm. My left arm is therefore unquestionably damaged goods. I've got one on the back of one knee, too. Is the damage in those cases significant? Nope. Does it affect my quality of life? Nope. Is it damage? Yup. I'm just calling a spade a spade, that's all. Like getting a tattoo or an ear piercing or -- as some people do -- custom scar or burn patterns.
quote:As for the sensitivity, are your hands desensitized from enjoying holding hands? Are your lips desensitized from enjoying kissing? Sensitivity is not a binary all or nothing function.
I never implied that it was. The fingertips on my left hand are certainly less sensitive because I play the guitar, but I chose to learn and I choose to keep playing. I didn't choose to be circumcised. Am I hung up on it? Well, no. But I'll certainly feel free to share my opinion when someone else brings the subject up. Why shouldn't I?
quote:Masters and Johnson did not find any difference between snipped or unsnipped men's sensations when evaluated by involuntary responses to stimulii.
Where did they test? How long had the snipped men been snipped? All of these factors are important.
quote:There is a strong correlation between circumcision and UTI's. There is a stong correlation between circumcision and HPV, cervical cancer, and penile cancer. There is a mild link, when other environmental and genetic issues are accounted for, between circumcision and prostate cancer.
Are there causal links in any of those cases? Certainly in the first few cases, the risk is incredibly low, as Jon Boy noted. By no means would I oppose a medically necessary circumcision.
quote:Also, whenever I have had sex, I almost always worried more about getting too much sensation too quickly than about getting too little sensation and lasting too long. If being clipped gives me an extra 5 or 10 minutes to get my partner where she needs to go, or to get there more than once, then that's just a bonus in my books.
Let me put this as delicately as I can, since this is a PG-13 forum: I don't have that problem.
quote: Then again, I also don't think selfishness in bed is a high-quality trait, personally.
Then we agree. It's give and take.
quote:Some guys seem to have other views in that regard.
Also, there's no particular need to be passive-aggressive about your insults.
quote:However, all of the medical research that has so far been done does not support that assertion at all, and the delay of male orgasm -- if it exists at all -- is only a matter of seconds.
I haven't said anything about orgasm. All I've said is that the top side of the head of a circumcised penis must be at least marginally less sensitive than that of an uncircumcised one, and that the scar tissue must also be less sensitive. That's it. If that weren't the case, I would be in constant pain as a circumcised male, every time my penis touched my underwear.
Does it mean there's a change in sexual pleasure experienced? I sure hope not, but it's by no means absolutely certain, as Verily stated it was.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
The Masters and Johnson tests were done in the 60's, and the cut guys had apparently always been cut, and the uncut guys, obviously, had always been uncut.
And though I've had a sometimes rough and tumble life, there's no part of me that's damaged goods....it's all distinctively and finely aged.
Like wine, or whiskey.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
By the way, here is something I'm glad I'll never have to worry about (taken from an anti 'genital mutilation' site): Frenulum breve. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, I haven't heard of any problem that goes to zero due to circumcision. Do you have anything to back that up? Preferably with some links to references?
-Bok
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:And though I've had a sometimes rough and tumble life, there's no part of me that's damaged goods....it's all distinctively and finely aged.
That's a nice turn of phrase, there. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It really annoys me when people compare circumcision to FGM. It's not the same at all. FGM is much more involved and painful, and generally the purpose of it is to ensure that the woman doesn't enjoy sex so that she won't cheat on her husband. And since I understand that a lot of women can't experience orgasm without clitoral stimulation, it seems to me that it succeeds.
-pH
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
As a circumcized male, I'm glad my parents did it when I was an infant. If I had to make the choice today for myself, I'd choose to not do it. But that is because I would not want to go through it as an adult. I would probably always wish it had been done for me as an infant.
My vote is to have it done.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
Bokonon, if you look in the post right above yours, there's a link to an article regarding what amounts to a torn forskin. You can't tear what you ain't got, so I'd say the occurrance of that in circumsized fellas would be pretty solidly pegged at the zero mark.
There are other complications that can be caused by the presence of the foreskin, as well. Again, if there is no foreskin, these problems cannot be manifested.
And as for guys choosing to do it later in life, one issue regarding adult circumcision is that it is more traumatic and can require a month of recuperation. Infant boys don't have all of the functional uses for their man-junk, and thus it isn't nearly the same imposition. Not to mention the increased cost for an inpatient procedure. And, last but certainly not least, there is a much higher rate of erectile dysfunction for adults who are circumcized compared to men who were snipped as infants. The tallywacker (advanced medical term, that) undergoes significant changes during puberty, you see, so mucking around with the old fella after that is always a much riskier proposition than doing so before puberty.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:And though I've had a sometimes rough and tumble life, there's no part of me that's damaged goods....it's all distinctively and finely aged.
That's a nice turn of phrase, there.
It's alll in how you look at it, I reckon.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:I sure hope not, but it's by no means absolutely certain, as Verily stated it was.
I then revised my statement to say that it was not an absoulte certainly, but that there is a very low probability that this decreased sensitivty exists. So I'm not sure why you're still arguing with me, unless you are somehow convinced that there is a high probability that it exists, in which case, I demand evidence.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Doesn't the fact that some people, when they grow up, wish they hadn't had it done as an infant pose enough reason, all by itself, to wait and let each guy decide for himself?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem Tatiana is that the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy whose grown up and has to decide for himself.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Doesn't the fact that some people, when they grow up, wish they hadn't had it done as an infant pose enough reason, all by itself, to wait and let each guy decide for himself?
I think not, because it is a much riskier and painful procedure that has a longer recovery time than is the case for infants.
The thingamabob has only one function in young children, to excrete urine. That's it. After puberty the main function of that organ is to do most of a guy's thinking and cause almost all of the problems that he'll have to deal with the rest of his life. You're talking about two almost completely different organs. I'd probably suggest against getting it done as an adult for purely cosmetic reasons. If it's going to be done, best do it before puberty. Though obviously, a situation where it would have to go, it would have to go. That's a call for a real doctor to make, not some internet-junkie such as myself.
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
quote: the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy
I can't agree with this statement. Just because an adult would remember it more DOES NOT mean that the infant feels it less. the-Somalian remembers his circumcision and that it
quote: hurts terribly
and he remembers that from when he was five. How would an 8 day old infant feel pain differently?
My husband is not circumcised and our children will not be. I do not believe the possible benefits outweigh the costs. For a more comprehensive discussion of this subject (an admittedly biased discussion) I suggest you visit http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44 . It is a whole forum on cirumcision.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I don't think we can assume that an infant actually suffers less pain from it.
But the fact that a newborn baby would not remember the pain should count for a lot.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rien:
quote: the pain felt by the infant is much less severe than the pain felt by a guy
I can't agree with this statement. Just because an adult would remember it more DOES NOT mean that the infant feels it less. the-Somalian remembers his circumcision and that it
quote: hurts terribly
and he remembers that from when he was five. How would an 8 day old infant feel pain differently?
Because the Somolian procedure did not include a local anesthetic. The procedure nowadays usually includes a local anesthetic. Also, to this day I can recall things from when I was 5. I have never met anyone who can recall anything from their first year.
Posted by Rien (Member # 1941) on :
So it is ok to inflict pain as long as you don't remember it? I think that the memory of pain is not the issue, but that the pain is felt. IF you could make someone forget would it be ok to torture them? Is is ok to abuse children under a year of age because they won't remember the pain?
I am not saying that circumcision is child abuse or torture, but it is painful, less when anesthetic is used, but it will wear off before the baby is healed and the baby WILL feel pain, most likely the exact same severe pain that an adult would feel.
The pain issue is not the only reason not to circumcise a child. I merely feel that people sometimes forget that infants are people with the same nerve endings and feelings as you and me. What hurts as an adult will hurt an infant and it's something to remember.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Actually, I believe that the foreskin of a grown man is about the size of a 3 x 5 card. That's 15 square inches.
I've seen lots, and that measurement seems exaggerated.
(Um, I'm a nurse. Not a slut)
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chreese Sroup: Medically there isn't any benefit to cut from my understanding.
Sorry if this got dealt with.... But there definetly ARE increased rates of infection, and the possible need for a PAINFUL circumsicion in later childhood or early adulthood. A friend had one, and I can tell you his parents regreted their decision not to have it done at birth
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It just seems to me as though there's the possibility of it causing complications and maybe a more painful procedure later in life, it would be more worth it just to have it done.
But my father also had my sealants removed (i.e. scary ground off with a drill or something, while I was conscious) because a small percentage of them can leak and MAY POSSIBLY cause breast cancer.
So..I guess it depends on priorities?
-pH
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I've seen lots, and that measurement seems exaggerated.
(Um, I'm a nurse. Not a slut)
Can't you be both?
(you, in general, not you, Tante)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't know what pain my son felt, but I do know that he was gone from me less than 20 minutes, and brought back and placed in my arms sleeping peacefully and never seemed to have any trouble after that. I mean, yes I had to keep the area clean and put on antibiotic ointment, but it couldn't have been very traumatic or painful for him because he was comfortably sleeping minutes after it happened.
That was five years ago, if it matters, and the procedure was done in a hospital with anesthetic by my doctor.
The amount of pain he must have felt had to be insignificant, he cried and fussed more 20 minutes after receiving a shot as an infant than he did after his cirumcision. I would have to say that even on urinary tract infection would be more painful than what he endured that day so even if it only accomplishes that one thing - lowering the risk of a UTI it would be worth it in my book.
[ December 16, 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
). I'm not Jewish so it isn't a religious issue. I've heard that wives of circumcised men have lower rates of cervical cancer. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
). When our second son came along we didn't do it either. We haven't really had any problems with either of them.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)