Circumcision (General Discussion)

I didn’t feel a thing :sunglasses:

Using the same logic, a ripe appendix should be left to burst. A bleeding spleen should remain in its original place in the abdomen. A pre-cancerous mole should be left to take its course. We should all grow our hair and beards out, and let our finger and toenails chip off naturally. :laughing:

[quote=“monkey”]Seems pretty obvious to me that if genital mutilation is going to be done, it had better be at the behest of the person owning the genitalia, not at someone else’s.
The very idea of parents even considering putting their babies under the scalpel because they’d read on the Internet that it was a wise thing to do scares the shit out of me.
Was it the baby pearls cult that did this to you?[/quote]

Perhaps you should donate some karma to those men who go about “reclaiming” their foreskins. It involves heavy weights and so forth. I’m sure there’s a how-to video out there somewhere. :laughing:

This must be an American / Aussie thing. I am surprised to see the percentages in the poll above. Mind you, having said that, I haven’t seen a great number of men’s willies and am probably not qualified to comment.

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything that recommends it, and I agree about the reading, especially on the internet. I think we all know we shouldn’t believe everything we read, or hear.

No such cult, Monkey :unamused: (This is about the MLM thing right? I’m not even in MLM!!! Give it up already.)

J.

Okay, I’m surprised someone hasn’t said this yet, but there are some parents who say that they believe their sons would never forgive them later in life for cutting off a part of their bodies without their consent. So I’m wondering how many of our circumcised men here on Segue have issues with their parents over their missing foreskins.

J.

[quote]Okay, I’m surprised someone hasn’t said this yet, but there are some parents who say that they believe their sons would never forgive them later in life for cutting off a part of their bodies without their consent. So I’m wondering how many of our circumcised men here on Segue have issues with their parents over their missing foreskins.[/quote]You need to be careful here, as I could easily see this developing into another school yard scrap. There’s plenty of kids on this block that’d easily take the bait. But I’d say the above quote is utter rubbish, and holds as much scope and kids resenting their parents for being not as rich as their neighbours, or the ugly hair cut they had in their school photos.

There are several anti-circumcision and “un-circumcision” / “foreskin restoration” activist groups on the internet.

According to their sites, circumcising causes the skin of the penis to unnaturally toughen, especially with age. Penile skin should be a mucous membrane with a thickness of about 2 cells, as opposed to 20 or so (and dry) after circumcision. The changes also alter somewhat the natural rhythms of sexual intercourse. For many women, these effects make sex less enjoyable. (This obviously varies a lot, but there you go.)

Circumcision in America, apart from Jews and the occasional Muslim, got its start as a 19th-century health fad. The expressed purpose back then was to discourage masturbation. (Anybody seen “The Road to Wellville”? Same milieu as that.) When it became obvious that this didn’t work, “hygiene” was invoked.

These days, the main forces seeking to perpetuate circumcision are (1) Jews, who fear that human rights advances will make it illegal to circumcise babies or children, and so wish to keep as many people doing it as possible, (2) doctors’ groups, who fear being made the target of lawsuits in the future, and (3) fathers who want their sons to look like them.

Since someone asked about early Christianity, the New Testament records how that religion gradually included more and more non-Jews, who were therefore uncircumcised. An important question was, Should Christians first accept Judaism, complete with circumcision, and then Christianity? (Many non-Jews would have frankly preferred martyrdom!) Or to put it another way, which of the 613 commandments would non-Jewish Christians be held to? The answer was that circumcision would not be required, and other commandments were considered on a case-by-case basis. (Dietary restrictions were out, but sexual ones were still in.)

After the first century AD there ceased to be a major Jewish-Christian community, so no more non-Jewish circumcision period in this region…until Islam.

To summarize:

Lack of circumcision:

• Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.

• Carries a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).

• One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer never occurs or is infinitesimally rare in men circumcised at birth). (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).

• Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years of age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.

• Means problems that may result in a need for circumcision later in life. Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.

• Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.

• Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.

Getting circumcised will result in:

• Having to go through a very minor surgical procedure that carries with it small risks.

• Improved hygiene.

• Lower risk of urinary tract infections.

• Less chance of aquiring AIDS heterosexually.

• Almost complete elimination of the risk of penile cancer.

• More favourable hygiene for the man and his sexual partner.

• Better sexual function on average.

• A penis that is regarded by most as being more attractive.

Conclusion

The information that appears in this review should prove informative to medical practitioners and health workers and thereby enhance the quality of information that is conveyed to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others, especially the parents of boys, but also adult men, whether circumcised or not. It is hoped that as a result of reading the information presented here the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of male infants, is much more informed. Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the child. Issues of

Good advice Amos. I appreciate the last two posts by Vincent and yourself… providing information without judgment.

J.

Hehehehe - no judgements there. Just “information”… :laughing:

Maoman, but that wasn’t Amos’s judgment–he just copied and pasted! (Actually, I chuckled at that one too).

J.

If your husband and other sons are cut, then I would recommend lopping it off to save your youngest son from feeling different from the other male members of the household.

Also, intact cocks look silly. They provoke laughter more than lust.
Stupid little cowl hanging around the boy like a dark cloak.

[quote]Also, intact cocks look silly. They provoke laughter more than lust.
[/quote]

Mine doesn’t. And the only laughter provoked tends to be because of the way I wield it.

You’ll only take my foreskin when you prise it from my cold dead fingers … er, no… that’s not quite what I mean. I mean, you’ll only take my old boy’s hat when … oh forget it.

Personally… I’m glad I’m circumcized. And I’m very glad that my parents made the decision to do so when I was an infant so that I have no recollection of the event… as I do believe it hurt.

Now, just as those who are not circumcized cannot say whether being circumcized would be preferable, I, having been circumcized at birth, cannot comment as to whether being uncircumcized would be better. But I can comment that I have never experienced any problems as a result of being circumcized.

Let’s ask the gals… no need to be shy… we’re all adults. Gals. do you prefer them circumcized or au natural?

I’m glad I’m circumcized. And I’m very glad… that I have no recollection of the event… as I do believe it hurt.

Now, just as those who are not circumcized cannot say whether being circumcized would be preferable, I, having been circumcized at birth, cannot comment as to whether being uncircumcized would be better. But I can comment that I have never experienced any problems as a result of being circumcized.[/quote]

Of course, another advantage of being uncircumcized is that one has the luxury of choice - a luxury that circumcized men don’t have. And you men that have had their willies doctored - aren’t you a little curious what sex would have felt like with all of those nerve endings intact?

Here’s a nice little abstract reviewing the pros and cons. One point they made was to be sure the doc doing the cutting is very experienced…

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer … t=Abstract

Here’s the 1999 npolicy statement from the American Association of Pediatrics, which doesn’t make a clear recommendation for or against.

aap.org/policy/re9850.html

Huh? :? Do girls like that?

Here are a couple of “anti” sites. (The first one’s better.)

mothersagainstcirc.org

noharmm.org

There are others which explain (or sell) methods of reversing circumcision, for those who are interested.

One frequent claim made by pro-circumcisers is that babies don’t feel pain. (No anaesthetic is used.) This claim appears to be bogus. Although we can never really know what’s going on in someone else’s mind, the babies do often scream in pain. There may be lingering trauma years later, similar to the effects of torture.

One doctor, after performing many thousands of circumcisions, wrote a book condemning the practice.

healthcentral.com/drdean/Dea … fm?id=9985

Data on cancer etc. is by no means as clear-cut as pro-circumcisers would have us believe. The same is true for health drawbacks for the practice, against which any supposed benefits must be weighed. After all, breast cancer and lip/tongue cancer are highly prevalent, but we don’t go around lopping them off as a routine measure.

Think about it–if lack of a foreskin were really a beneficial adaptation, then why aren’t we born that way already?

As far as I know, boys don’t usually engage in that intimate a comparison between their own dicks and those of their friends. There is bound to be a wide variety of shapes and sizes in any case. As for what women prefer…well, this varies a lot, among those who care one way or another, and is often based on what they are used to.

Remember, most of the world gets along just fine without cutting off a part of their sons’ penes. I personally find it deeply suspicious that people would be so resistant to simply waiting until the boy is an adult, and capable of deciding for himself. Of course they realize that he would probably decide in the negative. That to me is deeply disturbing.

Doctors and Jews (except for the few of each that have protested)–their motivations I can understand, many of them have a personal stake in continuing the practice. But ordinary parents? I guess it boils down to inherited tradition, and blindly accepting the authority of clueless doctors. I think we have to look at this as a form of child abuse–another traditional practice which we are just now waking up to.

Oh, and Dr. Morris…?

Well, as long as it’s cheaper, better whack it off right now then!

[quote]Getting circumcised will result in:

• Improved hygiene. [/quote]

Just wash the damn thing.

Your other medical claims are mostly refuted on these sites, but this is a new one to me. Where did you get this idea?

Most of who? I’m trying in vain to figure out where information like this could possibly have come from–one of those Cosmo surveys, perhaps?

Again, I’m highly suspicious of the motivations of those who are so intent on perpetuating such a practice, especially with bullshit arguments like this.