Circumcised or natural (foreskin)?

[Comrade_Ash]

hey just asking around:

Do you think boys should be circumcised or left natural at birth?

Most say cut of course


http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm

Thanks

 

[VelvetDarkness]

In the UK boys are generally not cut unless there are medical/religious reasons. There's really nothing wrong with uncut penises and they're perfectly hygienic if washed thoroughly and regularly. The foreskin is also able to perform its intended function, which is to reduce friction on a welcoming vagina. I know from experience that I am far less sore after sex with an uncut man.

I think any form of surgical procedure that is not medically necessary is a pointless risk.

I believe that, whereas in the USA boys were circumsized as a matter of course, now (if forums like this are anything to go by) popular opinion is leaning towards leaving boys as nature intended.

 

[shewantsmore]

my husband is cut but i think both look good

 

[Adakgirl]

Yes I believe (ther than for religious reasons) they began to do it to all the male babies long ago because the mothers were not using hygienic methods when caring for their infants penis. That caused a lot of unnecessary suffering for male infants and even amputations because of bad infections and other health care related issues. So the board of health or somebody made circumcision a standard medical procedure in order to stop those kinds of problems. If it was my infant I would probably choose not to have him circumcised.

 

[FurryFury]

My son is NOT cut. I'm so glad we made that decision. However, in all the years I worked pre-schools I never, ever, changed the diaper of a boy who was uncut, other than my son.

 

[00Syd]

Seb is the first guy I've ever been with who wasn't circumsised. At first it was a little weird just because I constantly wanted to poke and pull at it in a "oooh new toy" sort of a way, but now Im used it it. Honestly, I think cut looks better, but that's just an aesthetic thing. Either way, it's all good.

 

[Netzach]

This is SM related how?

 

[HarlotMinx]

This is kind of a odd thread on a bdsm thread. Umm I guess circumcised if only for sanitary reasons though I've always wanted to sew a foreskin shut with the head inside....

 

[midwestyankee]

This is SM related how?

Maybe the OP sees circumcision as an outlet for S/m?

 

[JMohegan]

For one reason or another, people here were more amenable to the topic when Shank brought it up a while ago.

To the OP - you may find this thread of interest. I thought it was a good one.

 

[JMohegan]

On the issue of health and circumcision, according to the CDC: "Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex."

More info here.

 

[Shalrath]

This is SM related how?

Exactly. Where's the "Stapled to the table whilst my dom brands me" option??

 

[Homburg]

So the board of health or somebody made circumcision a standard medical procedure in order to stop those kinds of problems.

My parents weren't even asked. The hospital just went ahead and did the procedure.

Neither of my sons were modified. We made it clear to the hospital that we did not want them cut.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

On the issue of health and circumcision, according to the CDC: "Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex."

More info here.

Thats a little misleading from the CDC.

They use studies from Africa, when Africa is estimated to have more than 60% of the AIDS-infected population.

The studies are all done with un/circumcised African men having unprotected sex.

And all they can say about it in the U.S. is:

Although data on HIV infection rates since the beginning of the epidemic are available, data on circumcision and risk for HIV infection in the United States are limited.

So, I don't really see being circumcised as a significant factor of lowering a guy's risk of getting HIV.

If you're having unprotected sex you are taking a big risk circumcised or not.

 

[JMohegan]

Thats really misleading from the CDC.

They use studies from Africa, when Africa is estimated to have more than 60% of the AIDS-infected population.

The studies are all done with un/circumcised African men having unprotected sex.

And all they can say about it in the U.S. is:


So, I don't really see being circumcised as a significant factor of lowering a guy's risk of getting HIV.

If you're having unprotected sex you are taking a big risk circumcised or not.

I don't think it's misleading at all. They've got a bigger sample size in Africa. How does that make the conclusion wrong?

Yes, of course use of a condom is preferable for disease prevention - whether you're cut or not.

But cut vs. uncut is a "significant factor" for many people because the Pope, in his infinite [insert whatever substitute for 'wisdom' you think best fits] has declared, and is still declaring, that condoms are off limits.

Actually, he has now taken things a step further, declaring AIDS to be "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." Adding: "It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality." Source.

 

[Scotsman69]

On a slightly different note, I can't help but think that logically, the head of a circumcised cock MUST be de-sensitised over time, just by friction with clothing, bedclothes etc.

However, I imagine any scientific data on this might be rather hard to obtain!

No woman has ever had a problem with my uncircumcised cock, and neither have I...

 

[Marquis]

Seb is the first guy I've ever been with who wasn't circumsised. At first it was a little weird just because I constantly wanted to poke and pull at it in a "oooh new toy" sort of a way, but now Im used it it. Honestly, I think cut looks better, but that's just an aesthetic thing. Either way, it's all good.

Whenever I see you mention your boyfriend Seb I can't help but get a weird image in my head. One of my best buddies in college (and to this day) is named Seb and I've never heard the name in any other context except from him and references to your boyfriend.

Henceforth, everytime you mention you boyfriend, I imagine a skinny, bug-eyed Eritrean kid with a huge nose, sweating profusely as he always did for some reason.

On the issue of health and circumcision, according to the CDC: "Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex."

More info here.

This is the first modern rationale for circumcision that I've ever heard and it does offer me some weird comfort.

I've often considered this very issue and it kinda tears me up to be honest. On the one hand, the progressive in me feels that what may be now a purposeless tradition that can actually have an overall negative effect on the males life should be done with. I mean honestly, there aren't a whole lot of body parts that need to be surgically removed by default.

On the other hand, I have so few traditions and was raised in SUCH an open-minded way that I sometimes wonder if it would be a bad thing to keep at least one or two. I know that besides it being something of a default in the US, I was circumcised because my dad is Jewish and this is an important tradition amongst Jews. I think I might want to include my son in that tradition, even if maybe just for the sake of the tradition.

Thats a little misleading from the CDC.

They use studies from Africa, when Africa is estimated to have more than 60% of the AIDS-infected population.

The studies are all done with un/circumcised African men having unprotected sex.

I don't see what the AIDS rate in Africa has to do with the difference in transmission rates between circumcised and non-circumcised men.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

I don't think it's misleading at all. They've got a bigger sample size in Africa. How does that make the conclusion wrong?

Yes, of course use of a condom is preferable for disease prevention - whether you're cut or not.

But cut vs. uncut is a "significant factor" for many people because the Pope, in his infinite [insert whatever substitute for 'wisdom' you think best fits] has declared, and is still declaring, that condoms are off limits.

Actually, he has now taken things a step further, declaring AIDS to be "a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems." Adding: "It is of great concern that the fabric of African life, its very source of hope and stability, is threatened by divorce, abortion, prostitution, human trafficking and a contraception mentality." Source.

I didn't say it was wrong.

I just think the risk of unprotected sex negates the benefit of circumcision preventing HIV.

Just like not wearing your seatbelt would negate the fact that your car has a 'very good' crash test rating.

And ugh. Don't get me started on religion and sex.

 

[wicked woman]

I think even the 'norm' in North America has changed from an automatic/don't ask circumcision, to more and more people thinking that such a surgery on a new born male, with no pain killer, for dubious medical benefit is unnecessary.

I say that having two sons in their 30s who are uncircumcised and have never had a problem. Also knowing some doctors that refuse to circumcise a new born male.

 

[00Syd]

Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sure I read an article recently that said that the idea that no painkillers are used during the circumcision is a myth. It used to be that no painkillers were used, but now the norm is to use a local, and the infant is still unaware of it's own body so it never even notices.

If I had a kid and it was a boy I would probably get it circumcised only because i've never heard of anything bad coming from it, only good things.

ETA:

Whenever I see you mention your boyfriend Seb I can't help but get a weird image in my head. One of my best buddies in college (and to this day) is named Seb and I've never heard the name in any other context except from him and references to your boyfriend.

Henceforth, everytime you mention you boyfriend, I imagine a skinny, bug-eyed Eritrean kid with a huge nose, sweating profusely as he always did for some reason.

Well, Seb is only his nick name.

And feel free to picture a profusely curly haired, Argentinian Jew with a normal sized nose instead of a skinny, bug-eyed Eritrean kid with a huge nose.

 

[JMohegan]

This is the first modern rationale for circumcision that I've ever heard and it does offer me some weird comfort.

I've often considered this very issue and it kinda tears me up to be honest. On the one hand, the progressive in me feels that what may be now a purposeless tradition that can actually have an overall negative effect on the males life should be done with. I mean honestly, there aren't a whole lot of body parts that need to be surgically removed by default.

On the other hand, I have so few traditions and was raised in SUCH an open-minded way that I sometimes wonder if it would be a bad thing to keep at least one or two. I know that besides it being something of a default in the US, I was circumcised because my dad is Jewish and this is an important tradition amongst Jews. I think I might want to include my son in that tradition, even if maybe just for the sake of the tradition.

In an age when so many kids with crooked teeth get braces, and Miss California gets a boob job paid for by pageant organizers and nobody considers this disqualifying, and so many aging women's faces seem to resemble bizarre castoffs from a wax museum, and so on..... I find the general societal push for penile purity in the US to be somewhat ironic. Of course, I understand the point that an infant is permanently robbed of the choice if cut, but still I find the dichotomy of perspectives amusing.

Because so many adult males are being circumcised in Africa, in an effort to curb the spread of AIDS, new research is now possible - and proving quite interesting. Consider this:

"A new study has found that adult circumcisions do not lead to sexual difficulties among men who were already sexually active. The study appears in the November 2008 issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine the official journal of the International Society for Sexual Medicine.

The study group consisted of 2,684 men in Kisumu, Kenya between 2002 and 2005. Both groups underwent six detailed evaluations between one month and 24 months after circumcision. 'More than 99 percent of the men studied reported that they were satisfied with their circumcision, and the majority of men reported both greater penile sensitivity, and easier use of condoms,' said lead author John N. Krieger, M.D., of the University of Washington.

The results also showed no significant difference in the frequency of erectile dysfunction, inability to ejaculate, pain during intercourse or lack of pleasure during intercourse. Circumcised men also had progressively higher rates of sexual satisfaction over time."

 

[JMohegan]

On a slightly different note, I can't help but think that logically, the head of a circumcised cock MUST be de-sensitised over time, just by friction with clothing, bedclothes etc.

However, I imagine any scientific data on this might be rather hard to obtain!

No woman has ever had a problem with my uncircumcised cock, and neither have I...

I'm cut, have been sexually active for more than 35 years, and do not believe your "logic" applies.

 

[Marquis]

Greater penile sensitivity?

I had always heard the opposite was true.

 

[JMohegan]

Greater penile sensitivity?

I had always heard the opposite was true.

I've heard that, too, but it seems to me that in the absence of a sizable group of males cut as adults, any theories on that score were just guessing.

I was cut at birth. How the hell could I possibly know if I would have been more, or less, sensitive left natural?

Same question applies to those who've never been cut. Unless you've experienced both states, as an adult, how could you ever know?

 

[Homburg]

Of course, I understand the point that an infant is permanently robbed of the choice if cut, but still I find the dichotomy of perspectives amusing.

In my case, it had nothing to do with purity. I just figured I'd let my sons decide when they were of age. I was likewise unwilling to do any sort of baptism or christening or anything like that as infants. If they want to go that route, they can do so under their own auspices.

--

I've heard that, too, but it seems to me that in the absence of a sizable group of males cut as adults, any theories on that score were just guessing.

I was cut at birth. How the hell could I possibly know if I would have been more, or less, sensitive left natural?

Same question applies to those who've never been cut. Unless you've experienced both states, as an adult, how could you ever know?

This is largely why I don't go for any sort of purity or sensitivity arguments. Been cut my whole life, and don't know any different.

I don't even think that adult men getting circumsized could give good impressions of the consequences either. Any change like that is going to bring about a shift in felt sensation. On top of that, who knows how they will be twenty years from now? The desensitisation may take a decade or two of unprotected contact between glans and clothing, etc.

But, in the end, how can it really be quantified anyway? What I feel may be utterly different from what you feel and we've absolutely no way of objectively communicating the sensation or comparative levels.