Circumcision (General Discussion)

[quote=“miltownkid”][quote=“Rio Cruz on fathermag.com”]Well, like I said, Dr. Dean did get my attention. So I went on the web, dialed up 4skin.com/restore/niks4wen/, read what was needed and embarked on a year-and-a-half-long adventure to restore my amputated foreskin. And I must tell you boys and girls, if you knew what you were missing you would rise in arms against the [color=red]bureaucratic quacks and lame-brained medical establishment[/color] that keep the practice going. Sex for me now, with a restored foreskin, is much more pleasurable, more complex, more intense, satisfying, interesting and just plain fun than it ever was as a circumcised male! There are subtleties and nuances of sensation I never knew before. There is a whole array of sensations and stimuli that come into play. Waves of Technicolor sensuality and outlandish orgasms that take me to the brink of coma. It’s like the difference between black and white tv viewed on a Sony Watchman, and full-blown, full-size color with stereophonic sound. Color tv is just more interesting, fun and entertaining. So is uncircumcised sex.

Well, actually, naturally intact sex is like full-blown color tv. There are lots of guys who went under the knife as adults and know the difference. Restored sex is more like those early color sets that came out in the sixties. Not as good as the tv today, but a damn sight better than a black and white Philco.

Not long ago there was some study published on the difference between sex practices of the circumcised versus the naturally intact. The main thing the researchers found was that circumcised guys had more, and more varied sex than did their uncircumcised counterparts. To me, this study made complete sense. When I was circumcised, I had to do all kinds of things, get into all kinds of positions, use all kinds of special effects just to get off. Banging on a toboggan at 50 miles per, doing it in alleyways at rush hour, doing it in the “Downward Facing Dog” yoga posture while swinging from a chandelier, stuff like that. The sex act by itself was simply not stimulating enough to lead to orgasm. It wasn’t as satisfying, either. With all the recovered sensations, feelings, sensuality and complexity provided by my new restored foreskin, I have no need to go through all those machinations just to come. Intercourse… just plain old, missionary position, normal, slow-motion intercourse is interesting enough.[/quote][/quote]

:laughing: I don’t know, the guy talks about quacks and lame-brained doctors, but if you ask me, he seems like quite an odd-ball himself, not only for having tugged on his dick long enough to re-create his foreskin (if that really is possible and not just a big joke), but for having sex on a toboggan at 50 mph, doing "downward facing dog while swinging from a chandelier, doing it in alleys during rush hour. All kinds of people in this world.

In any event, I’m just happy I’ve got a girl, so I don’t have to make this decision. Talking to her about puberty/pregnancy will be a piece of cake by comparison.

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Pity you, you will never know the joys of a complete knob or what that dirty piece of skin can do for you.
HG[/quote]

If it makes you feel better HG, I’ve always thought you were a complete knob.

:laughing:[/quote]

I hate it when yanks get a handle on UK slang! :laughing:

BTW, I’m no disgruntled mutilateee, I’m carrying a full load of man meat in my underpants.

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][quote=“jdsmith”][quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Pity you, you will never know the joys of a complete knob or what that dirty piece of skin can do for you.
HG[/quote]

If it makes you feel better HG, I’ve always thought you were a complete knob.

:laughing:[/quote]

I hate it when yanks get a handle on UK slang! :laughing:

BTW, I’m no disgruntled mutilateee, I’m carrying a full load of man meat in my underpants.

HG[/quote]

Reminds me of a joke:

A: Have you been in the gym?
B: The last Jim I was in moved to Miami.

My willy isn’t smelly because I tend to wash it now and then. And I now know that Mother Theresa has noplace to store his Smarties, ha ha!

SandMan wrote [quote]My willy isn’t smelly.[/quote]
Even after using it on Irishstu?

There is nothing pesky about foreskin. It’s there for a purpose. I suppose if you had yours, you would also know that.

More attractive? That’s rather subjective.

And, the hygiene issue is bunk. Do some reading, you’ll see.

Mine smells like a rose, and it has attractive petals. :laughing:

HG

For another 11 pages of enlightening debate, see the Circumcision in Taiwan thread:
http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?t=7070&highlight=circumcision

As for where to get it done, I imagine that most major hospitals can do it. Our doctor at the Adventist hospital gave us that option when our first son was born.

From my point of view, the issue basically comes down to a trade-off between the pain suffered by the boy, and the medical benefits to having the procedure done.

As others have mentioned, the hygiene point does appear to be something of a non-issue so long as one has decent hygiene habits generally.

The “it’s there for a purpose” idea is also beside the point. Of course it’s there for a purpose – it evolved millions of years ago to protect a sensitive part of the (naked) body from the elements. Most people today wear clothing for this purpose.

So it’s back to the trade-off, and a judgment about how you weigh the pain inflicted and the purported medical benefits derived. In the case of a measles vaccine, this trade-off is a no-brainer because the pain involved is smaller and the medical benefits FAR more well-established. In the case of circumcision, the pain is greater and the medical benefits far less conclusively proven/universally agreed. So you read up on the latest knowledge regarding the medical benefits (or lack thereof, if that’s what you conclude), weigh that against the pain of the procedure for the boy, and make the decision you think best. :idunno:

Says to me you don’t have one either.

It evolved there as a protective sheeth alone? Void of sensation and shall we call it human interchange? Manipulation? How utilitarian.

HG

HG,
Well, it’s difficult to argue with you seeing as you’re a Professor of Knobology from the University of Bruce.

Cut blokes, the new between m and o word.

[quote=“almas john”]HG,
Well, it’s difficult to argue with you seeing as you’re a Professor of Knobology from the University of Bruce.

Cut blokes, the new between m and o word.[/quote]

I think that should be blokes between b and c, which has a nice added ring to it. :laughing:

HG

Good for you Jive.

Personally i can’t see why this issue doesn’t get the same prominence and attract the same outrage as the North African penchant for cutting female genitals. Cultural acceptance, I suppose, which must make the North Africans wonder at our hypocricy. I mean, we accept some ethnic and religious groups slashing away at boys, but touch your daughter and we will lock you up.

HG

I think the degree of difference is in fact very significant and thus not at all disingenuous. The type of female circumcision that I think most people object to is the total removal of the clitoris in an attempt to make sex non-pleasurable for the female undergoing the procedure. I’ve read posts from men here who are not circumcized and they often assert that sex for them is more pleasurable with their foreskin intact. Not having a foreskin, I cannot argue against that assertion… although I wonder how those guys can assert that sex sans a foreskin is less pleasurable. I’ve always enjoyed sex very much. So, I think the comparison of female clitorectomy and male circumcision is not at all applicable to the argument re (male) circumcision.

I think the verdict is still out on whether circumcision is an “unnecessary” health risk. Yes, having a foreskin is certainly not the problem it was said to be in the past… and simple good hygiene seems to be adequate for the vast majority of men who have retained their wraps… but, even in the UK, the medical community is still debating the pros and cons of circumcision. There are health benefits to being circumcized, just as there are benefits to remaining intact. Are these benefits significant sufficient to cause you to decide to have your boy or yourself circumcized? That’s up to you (or him when he grows up).

That’s no good reason to do or not do anything.

I’m happy to let everyone make thier own decision on this matter. Like most men my age from the US, I was circumcized as an infant. I have no recollection of the procedure or the pain. I’ve always been quite happy with my willy, as have my sexual partners, both here and back in the US. I’m pleased to know that those of you who have retained your wraps are also apparently well pleased with your willies. That’s wonderful. But, I’m surprized that this is such a contentious topic of discussion.

Ah yes, but you see, there is certain mechanical advantages afforded a man with an intact penis that allows extra leverage. You poor mutilated soul, you will never know. What’s more, they tend to leave a tad too much on the erh, cutting room floor.

[quote]Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue. A report published in the British Journal of Urology assessed the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised penis by examining adult foreskins obtained at autopsy. Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.
Taylor, J. et al., “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision,” BJU 77 (1996): 291–295.[/quote]

I mean, you could be right, hell, you might even have more fun, but I somehow doubt it.

[quote]Anatomy and Function of the Foreskin Documented. A new article describes the foreskin (prepuce) as an integral, normal part of the genitals of mammals. It is specialized, protective, erogenous tissue. A description of the complex nerve structure of the penis explains why anesthetics provide incomplete pain relief during circumcision. Cutting off the foreskin removes many fine-touch receptors from the penis and results in thickening and desensitization of the glans outer layer. The complex anatomy and function of the foreskin dictate that circumcision should be avoided or deferred until the person can make an informed decision as an adult.
Cold, C. and Taylor, J., “The Prepuce,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 34–44.[/quote]

Hey, but it’s okay, right? I mean woman love the sleaker shape . . .

[quote]Male Circumcision Affects Female Sexual Enjoyment. A survey of women who have had sexual experience with circumcised and anatomically complete partners showed that the anatomically complete penis was preferred over the circumcised penis. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in female discomfort from increased friction, abrasion, and loss of natural secretions. Respondents overwhelmingly concurred that the mechanics of coitus were different for the two groups of men. Unaltered men tended to thrust more gently with shorter strokes.
O’Hara, K. and O’Hara, J., “The Effect of Male Circumcision on the Sexual Enjoyment of the Female Partner,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 79–84 [/quote]

But I’m sure that’s just a once off . . . oops, hang on, well not by that, obviously.

[quote]Survey Finds Circumcision Contributes to Vaginal Dryness. The impact of male circumcision on vaginal dryness during coitus was investigated. We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men.
Bensley, G. and Boyle, G., “Effects of Male Circumcision on Female Arousal and Orgasm,” N Z Med J 116 (2003): 595-596. [/quote]

Oh you may have been a wee little infant when they wheeled you into that horror house, but deep down, there is quite possibly a very deep and logical distrust of a society that would dare to slice your unprotected manhood. Could that be why you moved to Taiwan, for example? Why you are in essence a free wheeling hippy, yet in substance a Republican? We will never really know.

[quote]Psychological Effects of Circumcision Studied. An article titled “The Psychological Impact of Circumcision” reports that circumcision results in behavioral changes in infants and long-term unrecognized psychological effects on men. The piece reviews the medical literature on infants’ responses to circumcision and concludes, “there is strong evidence that circumcision is overwhelmingly painful and traumatic.” The article notes that infants exhibit behavioral changes after circumcision, and some men have strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust, and grief about having been circumcised. In addition, circumcision has been shown to disrupt the mother-infant bond, and some mothers report significant distress after allowing their son to be circumcised. Psychological factors perpetuate circumcision. According to the author, “defending circumcision requires minimizing or dismissing the harm and producing overstated medical claims about protection from future harm. The ongoing denial requires the acceptance of false beliefs and misunderstanding of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups, and parents involved in the practice.”

Expressions from circumcised men are generally lacking because most circumcised men do not understand what circumcision is, emotional repression keeps feelings from awareness, or men may be aware of these feelings but afraid of disclosure.

Goldman, R., “The Psychological Impact of Circumcision,” BJU 83 (1999): suppl. 1: 93–102[/quote]

[quote]Researchers Demonstrate Traumatic Effects of Circumcision. The authors believe that “neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli.” They also write that “the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination.”
Taddio, A. et al., “Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination,” The Lancet 349 (1997): 599–603. [/quote]

But hey, but it must be good health policy, right?

[quote]Circumcision is Not Good Health Policy. A cost-utility analysis, based on published data from multiple observational studies, comparing boys circumcised at birth and those not circumcised was undertaken using the Quality of Well-being Scale, a Markov analysis, the standard reference case, and a societal perspective. Neonatal circumcision increased incremental costs by $828.42 per patient and resulted in an incremental 15.30 well-years lost per 1000 males. If neonatal circumcision was cost-free, pain-free, and had no immediate complications, it was still more costly than not circumcising. Using sensitivity analysis, it was impossible to arrange a scenario that made neonatal circumcision cost-effective. Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.
Van Howe, R., “A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,” Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.[/quote]

BTW, the muslims have gotten a bad wrap on this one. The majority of their “mutilations” are perfunctory nips, not wanton slashes.

[quote]There are several distinct practices that are all usually referred to by this name. In particular, while female genital cutting is generally thought of in the West as involving the complete destruction of the female sexual organs in an effort to eliminate the female’s sexual pleasure, in some forms female circumcision is claimed to be analogous to male circumcision, in that both procedures can involve the removal of the prepuce and the frenulum.

In other cases, the procedure has no tissue removal at all, but is simulated with a knife as part of a ceremony, or with a symbolic drop of blood released with a needle. Those that involve tissue removal are usually divided into three major types.[/quote]

Well aside from the obvious links to a near stone-age past, I think the whole circumcision thing is a hangover to the sort of mad health obsessions of the Victorian era, the focus on bowels and neat and hidden genitals. Genitals that are not to be touched, mind you. It really has no place in the modern world. I’m actually suprised you’d be so blase about it Tigerman. Then I suppose to accept it was wrong is to accept you were mutilated with your parent’s approval. Tough call.

HG

I’m not at all blase about the matter. I am circumcised… but mine was a partial circ. My boy too has a partial circ.

My old man is an MD, and he too was very concerned with the issue, for both myself and my boy. The fact is, circumcision is desirable in some cases, and unnecessary in others, and while you can cite arguments against circumcision, others can cite arguments for.

Here is an excerpt from a good article:

[url=The circumcision taboos. Anti. Pro. Debate. Phimosis frenulum foreskin conditions and male initiation]Bryk (1931) wrote (p. 92 )
“The problem of circumcision is stated and answered according to the subjective attitude of the author or the peoples in question, … on the one side, it is praised as something well-nigh divine, and on the other, rejected as being somewhat barbaric.”

The question: should all boys be circumcised or not, is an extraordinarily misleading question. (Its not the answers - its getting the questions right which is the tricky bit!)

The debate for and against circumcision is not new to the world, it has probably been going on since the operation was first introduced. Modern times and Internet has merely exaggerated the fronts, so that nowadays instead of partial circumcision being debated, the pro circs. want full circumcision, and the anti circs. want nothing at all.

Both sides are so sure they know the truth, and both sides feel so right in their assumptions that they feel justified in ignoring contrary eveidence. Then when you put the blinkers on, contrary evidence appears unjustified.[/url]

Maate! I’ll take my slurry of modern medical journals over your 1930s ethicist any day!

Any evidence of upside is diminishing rapidly. It was once deemed essential for hygiene, but the case for that has gone. Indeed, as shown above, the latest research highlights the trauma and loss of sensation. Lose your errogenous bits and you do lose pleasure. For what, exactly? Because that’s what dad had? “I come from a long line of legless men, so please remove these offensive stumps.”

If your son happened to be a North African girl in Europe or Australia that had a piece of her external genitalia removed (and no, clitorectomy is an extreme case, far more usual is a trim and tidy up, exactly the same as for a boy), you would, in all likelihood, find yourself in prison for condoning it. Why is there this hypocricy in the west?

HG

The article I posted was written in the 90s and updated in 2005.

Dunno, but on a hasty glance I can’t see any argument:

But what I didn’t see, and it was a quick scan, was his opinion on elective circumcision for normal healthy foreskins, which is the issue I am debating. I got no problem whatsoever in lopping off a problematic lump of skin, albeit one enriched with previously unrealised levels of nervous potential and function (they are making vast inroads in urolgy via improving technology, see the G spot and the increased awareness of the role of the clitoris and even female ejaculation, for example). .

HG

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”][quote]Circumcision Results in Significant Loss of Erogenous Tissue. A report published in the British Journal of Urology assessed the type and amount of tissue missing from the adult circumcised penis by examining adult foreskins obtained at autopsy. Investigators found that circumcision removes about one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The foreskin, according to the study, protects the head of the penis and is comprised of unique zones with several kinds of specialized nerves that are important to optimum sexual sensitivity.
Taylor, J. et al., “The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision,” BJU 77 (1996): 291–295.[/quote][/quote]

Dunno.

Is that the same Taylor? I dunno?