Circumcision

[Cattypuss]

well out of the rest of the world its not normal to circumsise ...

Wrong. Huge parts of the world are inhabited by Jews and Muslims.

 

[FurryFury]

I think any disfigurements such as piercings are also wrong to do to babies. I call that mutilation too.

Certainly female circumcision and religiously based circumcision in general are ritually based. And btw, some would say the skin removed from either are essential.

 

[Etoile]

Circumcision is not a ritual it is a medical procedure. Those words have very different meanings so don't confuse them like that

I have to disagree. In the Jewish tradition, circumcision is definitely a ritual - it even has a name, the bris. The actual snip-snip is performed by a religious man called a mohel, who is not a doctor and has no medical training other than cutting off foreskins. I don't know what percentage of circumcisions are performed in a hospital vs. out, but it is incorrect to state that circumcision as a whole is a medical procedure and not a ritual.

 

[MichaelWest]

It occurs to me that circumcision seems a rather benign form of "mutilation", compared to the practice of castration. It was common in several cultures and ages, and perhaps the most extreme example are the young boys castrated in order to produce a more lovely singing voice. And the most outrageous practice (to me) would be the various attempts to "mutilate" (or remove) the clitoris as practiced in several non-Western cultures. Perhaps as non-animals, humans are more "evolved" in our ability to think up, put into practise and justify so many rather gruesome things to do to our own repoductive organs?

 

[Myskaninen]

actually out of 3 billion men in the world only about 700 million are circumsised (and yes muslims are like 500 million of those)

 

[gregor2001us]

I was circumcised as an infant. I am restoring my foreskin. I have regrown a lot of it at this point. My experience is that the foreskin makes a huge difference in sexual function and feeling. For both me and my partner. The saying that best captures it for me is:

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper....it's the candy."

Unless you have experienced both, it is impossible to understand the difference. I didn't. And since there is some difference of opinion on whether sex is better with or without, or even the same, it seems to me that there is good reason to leave the decision to the man, when he is of legal age. Bottom line for me:

"His body, his choice."

Regards

 

[culloden]

I am restoring my foreskin.

How do you do that?

 

[Etoile]

I am restoring my foreskin.

How do you do that?

Google is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

 

[gregor2001us]

I am restoring my foreskin.

How do you do that?

It is simple in concept. You put the skin you have under tension. The tension induces more frequent than normal cell division. The cells divide, adding new cells. Over time, this grows your skin.

Many methods will work. Simply pulling on your skin is the simplest. Tape, O-Rings, various devices have all been used. Unfortunately, it is a long, tedious process. Foreskin is a lot more than simply skin that lays there. This highly mobile, double fold of skin also has abundant nerves and specialized muscles and connective tissue. Not as easy to grow as ear lobes and other body parts that piercers routinely stretch.

Cheers!

 

[culloden]

Good luck to you. May your foreskin grow ever longer.

 

[satindesire]

I've had both circumcised and natural partners and I don't really have a strong preference. I think it's much easier to give oral sex to a cut man, since I don't have to be extra-careful about the foreskin, but that's about it in difference to me.

Oh, and I've noticed that uncircumcised men I've been with seem to be more sexually sensitive, but that's not necessarily a good thing, you know?

Heck, to me, a penis is a penis is a penis. I'm more interested in the person attached to it rather than if it's got it's sweater on or not.

 

[FurryFury]

Great post IMO!

Thanks for sharing this.

I was circumcised as an infant. I am restoring my foreskin. I have regrown a lot of it at this point. My experience is that the foreskin makes a huge difference in sexual function and feeling. For both me and my partner. The saying that best captures it for me is:

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper....it's the candy."

Unless you have experienced both, it is impossible to understand the difference. I didn't. And since there is some difference of opinion on whether sex is better with or without, or even the same, it seems to me that there is good reason to leave the decision to the man, when he is of legal age. Bottom line for me:

"His body, his choice."

Regards

 

[jessymil1980]

The number one reason that little boys are circumcised is for religous reasons.
However there is a large amount of evidence that a male that has been "cut" has only a 43% chance of passing HIV, HPV, or other STDs. This is compared with an 81% for chance for the uncut.
Catching STDS may also have a lower chance but the studies are incomplete.
There are also studies that show there is a 70% increased chance of catching other infectious dieases if uncut compared to cut.
Two very important infections, that have a large decreased chance of occuring in cut males, are yeast infections and urinary tract infections (30% decrease and 43% decrease respectivly).

 

[gregor2001us]

The number one reason that little boys are circumcised is for religous reasons.
However there is a large amount of evidence that a male that has been "cut" has only a 43% chance of passing HIV, HPV, or other STDs. This is compared with an 81% for chance for the uncut.
Catching STDS may also have a lower chance but the studies are incomplete.
There are also studies that show there is a 70% increased chance of catching other infectious dieases if uncut compared to cut.
Two very important infections, that have a large decreased chance of occuring in cut males, are yeast infections and urinary tract infections (30% decrease and 43% decrease respectivly).

These statistcs do not match the ones I have seen. But many statistics are taken out of context too. Do you have any references you could point me to to see how these numbers were calculated?

For instance, in the HIV argument, the news media take the numbers out of context. They commonly report that a circ'd man has a 50% reduction in aquiring AIDS. This sounds huge...until you realize that if it is actually put in context it is more accurately stated as:

circ’d men had a 1.6% chance of contracting aids, while the normal men had a 3.4% chance. Or if you were circ’d you had an incidence of 16 men out of a 1,000, while normal men had an incidence of 34 men out of 1,000.

This doesn’t sound as compelling. On top of all this, in the details they point out that, in reality, the circ'd person still has to do all the other more effective things, like use condoms, that someone with a foreskin has to do to be safe. So in effect, all they get for their circ is a 50 50 chance of being safe when they fail to do the other stuff reliably or their condom breaks.

Also not stated frequently is that circ simply means you need to have more encounters to get HIV. It doesn't stop it, it simply reduces the chance of infection. Have enough encounters and you still get it.

Regards

 

[FurryFury]

Another great informative post! Thanks!

These statistcs do not match the ones I have seen. But many statistics are taken out of context too. Do you have any references you could point me to to see how these numbers were calculated?

For instance, in the HIV argument, the news media take the numbers out of context. They commonly report that a circ'd man has a 50% reduction in aquiring AIDS. This sounds huge...until you realize that if it is actually put in context it is more accurately stated as:

circ’d men had a 1.6% chance of contracting aids, while the normal men had a 3.4% chance. Or if you were circ’d you had an incidence of 16 men out of a 1,000, while normal men had an incidence of 34 men out of 1,000.

This doesn’t sound as compelling. On top of all this, in the details they point out that, in reality, the circ'd person still has to do all the other more effective things, like use condoms, that someone with a foreskin has to do to be safe. So in effect, all they get for their circ is a 50 50 chance of being safe when they fail to do the other stuff reliably or their condom breaks.

Also not stated frequently is that circ simply means you need to have more encounters to get HIV. It doesn't stop it, it simply reduces the chance of infection. Have enough encounters and you still get it.

Regards

 

[gregor2001us]

Another great informative post! Thanks!

Thank you!

 

[jessymil1980]

The number one reason that little boys are circumcised is for religous reasons.
However there is a large amount of evidence that a male that has been "cut" has only a 43% chance of passing HIV, HPV, or other STDs. This is compared with an 81% for chance for the uncut.
Catching STDS may also have a lower chance but the studies are incomplete.
There are also studies that show there is a 70% increased chance of catching other infectious dieases if uncut compared to cut.
Two very important infections, that have a large decreased chance of occuring in cut males, are yeast infections and urinary tract infections (30% decrease and 43% decrease respectivly).

Ok this is a sum up of info on IMRnet, a medical information net between med schools and hospitals. I will find where they are post for the gen pop and get that out here.

 

[gregor2001us]

In case it helps, here is a good read with lots of references:

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement0.html

Cheers!

 

[shy slave]

As a Brit I was surprised at Myskaninen post, but they are right.


Non-religious circumcision began in England inthe late 1800s and it became extremely popular in English-speaking countriesbetween 1920 and 1950. England introduced the practice to the U.S. At the time, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of differentillnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many children,both male and female, have been circumcised throught the years because parentsdiscovered them "in the act." To this day, who doesn't remember thethreat associated with masturbation that "you'll go blind?"

It was known even in the late 1800s that the removalof the foreskin (the only moveable part of the penis) would reduce sexualsensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/history.htm


Personally, as a lover of oral servitude, I don't mind whether it is cut or not; But prefer cut, not all men are clean.

 

[radepor]

100% agreement. Non-human animals also do not have religion, different languages within the same species, or control of electricity. Non-human animals do not knit, read books, or put pictures of each other on the walls of their dwellings. So...


...this is just absurd.

I get that you're angry, radepor. I'm not sure why, given that you're not cut, but I do see you're angry. Have you looked into the many, many anti-circumcision websites out there? For that matter, have you looked into the pro-circumcision websites? Or the sites that respond to anti-circumcision ideas?

I don't mean to throw so many links at you, but you did say that you're ignorant about the subject, so I figured you might want to educate yourself so your anger can be well-thought-out and communicated more readily.

Sorry Etoile, didn't realize I was being absurd.

Overall, I have a better understanding of the subject and I'm quite gratified that so many responses to my thread have been thoughtful and restrained.

I have a much greater appreciation for the differences we have and the similarities were share. Don't misunderstand, my opinion of circumcism hasn't changed; but I respect those with different opinions.

 

[radepor]

100% agreement. Non-human animals also do not have religion, different languages within the same species, or control of electricity. Non-human animals do not knit, read books, or put pictures of each other on the walls of their dwellings. So...


...this is just absurd.

I get that you're angry, radepor. I'm not sure why, given that you're not cut, but I do see you're angry. Have you looked into the many, many anti-circumcision websites out there? For that matter, have you looked into the pro-circumcision websites? Or the sites that respond to anti-circumcision ideas?

I don't mean to throw so many links at you, but you did say that you're ignorant about the subject, so I figured you might want to educate yourself so your anger can be well-thought-out and communicated more readily.

Sorry Etoile, didn't realize I was being absurd.

Overall, I have a better understanding of the subject and I'm quite gratified that so many responses to my thread have been thoughtful and restrained.

I have a much greater appreciation for the differences we have and the similarities were share. Don't misunderstand, my opinion of circumcism hasn't changed; but I respect those with different opinions.

 

[radepor]

Sorry about the double post

I apologize for the double post, don't know what I did wrong. If anyone has an explanation to help me prevent it in future please send me a private message.

Sorry Etoile, didn't realize I was being absurd.

Overall, I have a better understanding of the subject and I'm quite gratified that so many responses to my thread have been thoughtful and restrained.

I have a much greater appreciation for the differences we have and the similarities were share. Don't misunderstand, my opinion of circumcism hasn't changed; but I respect those with different opinions.

 

[Calabama]

I'm a circumcised male and have never had a problem with my state. If I ever have a male child I would push to have him cut as well. It makes hygiene easier and it reduces susceptibility to STDs.

So does being educated on using condoms and limiting partners. And it hurts a lot less than having pieces of your body hacked off.



I am the proud mother of two little boys. One is cut, the other (younger) is uncut. With my first son, I was ignorant, and did what I figured everyone else was doing. The doctor who did it screwed it up, so when my poor little guy was 18 months old, he had to go under a general to have it done over again. It was incredibly painful for him. I decided then and there that never again would I put a child through something like that.

Loads of people say loads of things about HIV transmission, STD's, infections, cleanliness, etc, etc, etc. My cut son has been through far more infections, issues, and pain as a direct result of his circumcision. My youngest who is intact, has never had a single issue. No bad odor, no discomfort, no infections, nothing. If one day HE makes the decision to get it taken off, he's more than welcome to, but it has to be his own decision, since it's his body.

As a parent, I will make sure to educate him on proper hygiene and safe sex, to mitigate the fear of that (although I believe a lot of that is total crap that is used to defend and antiquated practice that gets doctors more money).

 

[radepor]

Wow!

WOW. I think this thread touched a nerve and I'm not sure if I'm happy about doing it.

I sincerely hope it hasn't caused pain for those who, for whatever reason, may have chosen circumcism in the past.

I do hope it causes us to think about what we do (before we do it). Once we think, then make a choice, fine. I despise those who do simply because "it's always been done that way".

So does being educated on using condoms and limiting partners. And it hurts a lot less than having pieces of your body hacked off.



I am the proud mother of two little boys. One is cut, the other (younger) is uncut. With my first son, I was ignorant, and did what I figured everyone else was doing. The doctor who did it screwed it up, so when my poor little guy was 18 months old, he had to go under a general to have it done over again. It was incredibly painful for him. I decided then and there that never again would I put a child through something like that.

Loads of people say loads of things about HIV transmission, STD's, infections, cleanliness, etc, etc, etc. My cut son has been through far more infections, issues, and pain as a direct result of his circumcision. My youngest who is intact, has never had a single issue. No bad odor, no discomfort, no infections, nothing. If one day HE makes the decision to get it taken off, he's more than welcome to, but it has to be his own decision, since it's his body.

As a parent, I will make sure to educate him on proper hygiene and safe sex, to mitigate the fear of that (although I believe a lot of that is total crap that is used to defend and antiquated practice that gets doctors more money).

 

[Daddys_Touch]

Here in the UK it's fairly unusual to be circumcised if you're under a certain age. Back in the late 40s when we got the NHS (abandoned all sense and threw ourselves into the abyss of socialized medicine) they did not offer circumcision for free as there is no medical reason for it. The NHS obviously increased the price of private treatments and thus circumcision became less common and eventually unfashionable.

The only people my age who are circumcised are Jews, Muslims and those who had excessively tight foreskins at birth or developed the problem later and needed it removed.

I'm not myself... And I don't understand the cleanliness thing. I think it's made up to be honest. I don't pay any special attention to my cock in the shower and there's nothing growing under there I assure you

I'm sure most men who were circumcised at birth without a medical reason don't mind that they were one bit. However, I suspect this is purely because of social convention. If their parents had removed their lips at birth or cut off their nose I'm sure they'd feel differently. The fact is it is physically, drastically and essentially irreversibly altering the body of a child who is incapable of giving his consent for, with the exception of a few children with conditions, no medical reason. It is no different to giving a baby a tattoo or slicing off its ear lobes. I don't think religious reasons are any kind of reason at all. 'My religion told me to do it' is not an excuse for anything that is otherwise reprehensible and criminal.