Why was I circumsized?!?!

[Lucky]

<< That's what foreplay is all about my friend, you don't just bend the girl over and go plunging it in there without warming it up a little! If circumcision has 'caused' a need for more foreplay for the woman's benefit, I'm surely not hearing any complaints!

Sure foreplay is good but not all girls want to give you oral sex. >>





LOL! A real man doesnt need demand something in return for giving. Im perfectly happy giving to get a girl warmed up. Obviously you arent!

 

[roboninja]

<< Well since there's so much interest in the subject perhaps you would be interested in this tidbit from history. Majellan circumcised the globe with a forty foot cutter. >>



ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[Epsil0n00]

<< Though, I can see how an uncircumcized person could harbor such deep resentment and questionable confidence issues stemming from the shame and embarrassment of growing up with a weenie that didn't look like all the other kids', resulting in residual anger and bitterness as an adult that causes him to attack circumcision and describe it as 'mutilation'. After all, how else is he going to deal with those feelings, attack his own penis? >>


Ha! This is rediculous! I would feel much more "residual anger" and "bitterness" if my foreskin had been cut off than from growing up with a different looking penis than other guys. Furthermore I think that it is perfectly fair to describe circumcision as mutilation... and I certainly don't choose to do so because of resentment or confidence issues. The term mutilation is defined below from dictionary.com, and as you can see, that word could also be applied to removal of tonsils, wisdom teeth, toes, clitoris, testicles or foreskin. I suppose it relies on a human to decide what they condiser to be "an essential part." I consider my foreskin to be a very essential part of my penis and how it functions... if you are cool with having a missing foreskin, don't find it to be essential and are fine with having a mutilated penis, then hey, what ever floats your boat. However, it is a bit presumptuious for anyone to decide for another person if their foreskin is important... thus, no babies should be circumcised unless they can somehow decide for themselves.

mu·ti·late Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

Oh yeah, BTW, it is completely true that the reason circumcision is popular in the US is due to religious doctors (puritans) in the 19th century that wanted to stop masturbation.... it does not having anything to do with the Jewish tradition.:Q

 

[Lucky]

how the hell is a foreskin essential? There are hundreds of millions of people without a foreskin, and I've never heard of a foreskin being "essential".

Essential my ass.

 

[Squisher]

Boy, there's a whole lotta sharing going on here.

 

[tcsenter]

<< Sure foreplay is good but not all girls want to give you oral sex. >>

Oral sex is but one possible activity which falls under the umbrella of 'foreplay', there a few others. I understand there is a percentage of women who have 'dryness' problems, I've just never intimately encountered any. ;-)

often, at least what I've been told by a couple women, a woman is said to have 'dryness' problem, but the problem is really that their partner doesn't take the time to warm things up, in a manner of speaking. There are lots of guys who go about sex as if they were following a basic instruction manual: 1. kiss 2. pet 3. grope 4. shed clothing 5. spread legs 6. plunge in penis. Sorry guys, but if that's your idea of sex, no wonder your women have a 'dryness' problem.

<< To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple. >>

As I said, if that helps you rationalize those repressed feelings, then so be it. You're entitled to feel good about yourself, too. Its just that I think it would be more healthy and positive for you to deal with those feelings by celebrating being uncut instead of attacking other people's penises.

<< Oh yeah, BTW, it is completely true that the reason circumcision is popular in the US is due to religious doctors (puritans) in the 19th century that wanted to stop masturbation.... it does not having anything to do with the Jewish tradition. >>

Sure it was, just like a foreskin is so much an 'essential' part of a penis (ask any woman) that cut dinkies hardly function without them. lol!

C'mon, your anti-circumcision zealotry is undercutting (pun intended) the credibility of your whole position. I shouldn't have to be the one to inform you of this...it should be rather self-evident. Why would anyone who is uncircumsized be so zealously opposed to circumcision, to such a point that he cites bogus information from anti-circ activist groups? Typically people aren't motivated to such zealotry unless they have some emotional or personal stake in some issue. You weren't circumcized, so that's not it.

The only other logical explanation is that you harbor some resentment and bitterness, perhaps some lingering confidence or self-esteem issues, because when you were a child, your funny looking dinky didn't look like all the other kids', and therefore you're on a mission to ensure that no child go through what you had to, by attempting to have everyone's dinky look the same (like yours, of course).

It's okay, I understand, there's no shame in it. We're all here for you, buddy.

 

[Chaotic42]

People are getting offended because someone is telling them that being circumsized is disadvantageous. What's next? People with blue eyes getting mad because someone tells them that they are more sensitive to light? Grow up a bit.

Cleanliness is no problem. I assume that everyone washes everything when they bathe/shower, and it isn't any different for uncircumsized (hereafter uncut) people. The cleanliness argument, and my friend's nephew had this problem, is with young boys. Parents must keep the penis (as well as the whole kid) clean. My friend's nephew had terrible infections because his mother was a terrible (insert worst word possible here.).

Uncut people have more sensitivity, better lubrication, and it doesn't look as weird!

If it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't.

PS. I'm uncut *and* I have blue eyes.

 

[Jfur]

<< Is there going to be a vigina thread so all the males can go flapp, flapp, flapp all the day long? >>



are you implying that the ladies are stroking off to this discussion?

 

[Epsil0n00]

<< C'mon, your anti-circumcision zealotry is undercutting (pun intended) the credibility of your whole position. I shouldn't have to be the one to inform you of this...it should be rather self-evident. Why would anyone who is uncircumsized be so zealously opposed to circumcision, to such a point that he cites bogus information from anti-circ activist groups? Typically people aren't motivated to such zealotry unless they have some emotional or personal stake in some issue. You weren't circumcized, so that's not it.

The only other logical explanation is that you harbor some resentment and bitterness, perhaps some lingering confidence or self-esteem issues, because when you were a child, your funny looking dinky didn't look like all the other kids', and therefore you're on a mission to ensure that no child go through what you had to, by attempting to have everyone's dinky look the same (like yours, of course). >>



I have explained my motivations more than once, you can choose not to believe me if you wish. I do not intend to mislead anyone, nor is my reasoning related to "zealotry." I am opposed to circumcision because it is fvcked up to cut people's penises without their consent. I am happy with what I have. In fact, to be honest, I have had problems with my foreskin. I had a condition called "frenulum breve" where my frenulum was too tight and would tear during intercourse (VERY painful!). Well, I had to have surgery to have my frenulum snipped down the center, effectively allowing it to stretch further. In any case, the urologist recommended that I consider circumcision-- since we were going to be doing surgery down there, we might as well do that to if I wanted it. So, I began doing intensive research in some sexuality classes at Oberlin College on the history of circumcision as well as researching the effects of the actual proceedure, including speaking to people that had it done while they were adults. In the end I chose not to be circumcised... then a terrible thing happened... The day before the surgery the nurse called to confirm my appointment for my "circumcision." I was like, "What! It shoud be a simple frenoplasty (snipping of the frenulum), not circumcision!" She checked the records and it said circumcision next to my name. I called urologist and asked him what up. He told me that he thought a circumcision was the best option. I was so pissed off because I had gotten outside opinions that specifically told me that circumcision was NOT necessary. So it seemed like my doctor was trying to press it on me even after I had told him 'no'. I went back to his office for another visit and he told me that it wasn't necessary and I made him sign an agreement that he would not circumcise me, but only follow the outlined proceedure for a frenoplasty, while I was under anestheisa. In the end it all turned out well and I healed quickly and now things are working great. However, that experience made the issue very salient for me. Given all the evidence I read I can't see any good reasons to continue this practice.

Everything I have written above is true to the best extent I can guarentee, including the source of modern American circumcision (see more below). In fact, to prove I am not a anti-circ freak I have linked the two main circumcision websites out there--one is VERY pro-circ and the other is VERY anti-circ. Read them and make up your own mind.

http://www.cirp.org/ <-- this one is ANTI
http://www.circlist.org/ <-- this one is PRO

Also, just for you "tcsenter," here is a quote from a book called: The Destroying Angel : Sex, Fitness & Food in the Legacy of Degeneracy Theory, Graham Crackers, Kellogg's Corn Flakes & American Health History. By John Money. 213 pages (April 1985) Promethean Press; ISBN: 0879752777 Also, HERE is the link to this book on Amazon.

This quote is of Dr. John Kellogg, (of Kellogg's cereal, no joking!), a very religious doctor from the late 19th century. He was firmly against masturbation, and sex in general, and popularized circumcision as a method to curb this sinful "self-poluting" activity.


<< Treatments for Self-Abuse (masturbation) and its Effects:
"A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. " -- Dr. John Harvey Kellogg >>



On another note, here is a couple items from Kellogg's list of symptoms associated with masturbation or as he sometimes called it, "Solitary Vice or Self-Abuse." #7. Sleeplessnes, #11. Love of solitude, #12. Bashfulness and #13. Unnatural boldness, #14. Confusion of ideas, #24. Capricious appetite, #28. Use of tobacco, #30. Acne.
OMFG! This guy was freakin' crazy!

 

[Epsil0n00]

<< celebrating being uncut instead of attacking other people's penises. >>


Trust you me, I celebrate my penis frequently!

I am not attacking other people's penises. I am attacking the culturally accepted (and endorsed) practice or neonatal infact circumcision.

 

[BornStar]

<< I wish there was some way we cut males could sue the government or medical industry for the unconsented mutiliation of my penis. Once I read about the drawbacks of being circumsized and hearing things from some of my female friends who preferred uncut men, I really got pissed. It is a pile of crap that babies are still being mutiliated like it was Africa or something. I find it highly unethical to do such things to a person before they are even able to decide for themselves.

The medical industry owes me my dick skin. I will gladly take thousands of dollars to remedy this situation with plastic surgery. I think they owe us. I had no choice in this matter, and I don't appreciate getting my penis cut up.

The sad thing is, most parents were't/aren't educated about things like this, and in many cases aren't even informed about the circumcision until after it is performed. I don't know how exactly it is now, but when I was born the doctors took things into their own hands (literally, heh).

Fvck the corporate medicine machine. Circumcision = facist bullsh!t >>



Hi, Jesse! You're name is Jesse Jackson, right? It isn't the government's or medicine's fault that you're parents decided you should have your "penis cut up". Your parents made the decision themselves. Grow up and take some freaking responsibility. Do you sue McDonald's because the coffee they gave you was too hot? I have more thoughts, but I'll keep them to myself because I don't feel like being that mean right now. Suffice it to say that I'm really not happy with you and you're the reason America is so lawsuit happy.

 

[EMAN]

LOL! A real man doesnt need demand something in return for giving. Im perfectly happy giving to get a girl warmed up. Obviously you arent!

Haha, you guessed it. I don't like giving oral.

 

[tcsenter]

<< The Destroying Angel : Sex, Fitness & Food in the Legacy of Degeneracy Theory, Graham Crackers, Kellogg's Corn Flakes & American Health History. By John Money. >>

OMG, I can't figure out who the greater crackpot is: Dr. John Money or Dr. John Kellogg. John Money (aka Dr. Mengela) is now heavily discredited as a bona fide kook after convincing a Canadian family in their most vulnerable state to surgically castrate their son after he lost most of his penis in a botched circumcision, as an "experiment" to prove John Money's then controversial, now discredited, theory that gender identity is not determined at birth but by the way the child is raised. Money convinced the parents that since the boy could never really live the life of a 'male' now that is most of his penis was gone, they should raise him as a girl.

His experiment failed and the boy, after being raised as a girl for 15 years of his life, reverted back to his biologically male gender because he always believed he was supposed to be male. Even worse, Money and his supporters attempted to 'hide' that their experiment, and thus Money's theory, had failed. The boy reverting back to a male identity (Money's failure) didn't receive 1/100 of the press Money's 'experiment' received when it had been deemed a 'success'.

I thought your diatribes smacked of a familiar 'fruitloopiness', now I understand where that's coming from. You poor bastard...

<< "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." -- Dr. John Harvey Kellogg >>

Well, we all know that Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was probably the most influencial American physician of his time, much in the way that Dr. Joseph Mengela was the most influencial German physician of his time? So much in fact that the medical anthropology and medical history courses I've taken mention Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, right up there next to renowned pioneers like Joseph Lister, a whole...ZERO times.

Some religious crackpot, who also happens to become successful or well-known in his time, making a few crackpot statements does NOT equal or make a 'movement' within the medical community. Circumcision was an accepted practice long before Dr. Kellogg was even a physician, for religious or health reasons that are still accepted and being proven with research to this day. Dr. Kellogg viewed the circumcision as a procedure which ALSO could modify behavior (in addition to the reasons circumcision was already being practiced), a belief that was not adopted nor shared by the greater medical or religious establishment and never has been.

It would be no different if a physician today had some bizarre notion that electroconvulsive therapy would prove beneficial for things the medical community today does not endorse, then retroactively giving that physician credit for the acceptance of electroconvulsive therapy.

You've got your cart before the horse. But, then, had you spent as much effort doing "real" research as you do copy/pasting from anti-circ activists, you'd know that.

 

[tcsenter]

<< People are getting offended because someone is telling them that being circumsized is disadvantageous. What's next? >>

Haha, if it were only that simple. ;-)

What is actually going on, is that people are getting offended because someone is telling them that being circumsized is disadvantageous in spite of all available and accepted medical studies which prove them wrong. Indeed, it is the overwhelming consensus of the medical and religious communities that the disadvantage actually belongs to the uncircumsized, with more evidence coming available all the time that the health and social merits of circumcision far outweight any fickle emotional attachment to some little piece of skin which is completely non-essential for the penile functions of peeing, reproduction, or sexual gratification.

People are also getting offended at such preposterous claims like 'there is a trend away from circumcision' when there is no measurable decrease in the number of circumcision performed in the U.S. A "trend" is not a handful of crackpots and zealots.

They are the 'flat-earthers' who, in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, keep shouting "THE EARTH CAN'T BE ROUND" because they cannot bare to think of it any other way but flat.

They also invite or provoke anger when, in an attempt to compensate for the underwhelming and unconvincing merits of their position, they deliberately use inflammatory and prejudicial language like "mutilated penis" to describe a circumcized penis.

It is TEXTBOOK 'projection' of their own feelings. Everyone knows that. Hell, even the most inept psychologist would call that spade when she sees it.

By no 'objective' standard could a circumcized penis be considered 'mutilated', even by the definition of 'mutilate' provided by our Resident Anti-Circ Zealot, circumcision doesn't measure up to mutilation because there is nothing essential about the foreskin and thus nothing essential is lost by removing it.

Essential, perhaps, only in the respect that a male identifies with the way he has long become accustomed to seeing and viewing his own penis. So, in terms of self-image, I can completely understand what is being asked of an uncircumcized male to imagine his penis looking so different than he is accustomed to. Had I not been circumcized, I probably wouldn't want to part with that inconsequential piece of skin, either, even if it were medically advisable.

That's really the point, after all, and why circumcision is done at the earliest practical time because if, at some point in the future after that child has already developed an identity with the way he is accustomed to viewing his penis, he must have a circumcision for medically necessary reasons, it can not only be a traumatic experience, but this emotional attachment can actually cloud the judgement of the person and prevent him from seeing that circumcision is the best course.

For this reason, uncircumsized men cannot be expected to have objective and unbiased judgement on the matter. In order to get an objective view, you must go to the circumcized male who isn't being asked to part with an 'image' he has long since formed of himself.

The only essential thing about a foreskin is self-image and identity, purely emotional attachments which I agree are understandibly troubling to break. But that is the ONLY 'essential' thing about a foreskin.

Does that help clear things up for you?

 

[csiro]

Here are some circumcision statistics for the US taken from the National Center for Health Statistics website.



<< "In 1999, 65.3 percent of all male newborns born in hospitals were circumcised. While the overall percentages of circumcised infants have remained relatively unchanged throughout the past two decades, ranging from a low of 60.7 percent in 1988 to 67.8 percent in 1995, different patterns emerge when these estimates are further examined by race and geographic region.

For most of the past 20 years, proportionately more white newborns received circumcisions than did black infants. Between 1980 and 1990, white infants, on average, were 13 percent more likely than black infants to be circumcised. By 1995, this percentage difference declined to about 7 percent- 68.6 percent of white infants compared to 63.9 percent of black infants. Now, circumcision rates for black and white infants are about the same. In 1999, the latest year these data are available, 65.5 percent of white newborns and 64.4 percent of black newborns were circumcised.

Newborn circumcision rates, however, have continued to vary greatly by geographic region. Over the past 20 years, proportionately more babies in the Midwest received circumcisions than did newborns in any other region- 76 percent of infants born in 1980 and 81 percent of those born during 1999. In the South, circumcisions also increased, from about 56 percent in 1980 to 64 percent in 1999. However, the most notable change occurred in the West where newborn circumcisions dropped from 62 percent in 1980 to 37 percent in 1999. This latest available figure for the West represents over a two-fold difference (2.2) when compared with circumcision estimates for the Midwest. This dramatic decline, in part, reflects the increased birth rate among Hispanics who have been shown in several other studies to be less likely to receive circumcisions than other white and black infants. In the Northeast, the circumcision rates in 1980 compared to 1999 were about the same - 67 percent and 66 percent, respectively.

Neonatal circumcision continues to be a controversial subject. The American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its earlier policy, stating that newborn circumcision has potential benefits as well as risks and emphasizing the need to explain these issues to parents considering the procedure so that an informed decision can be made." >>



According to the stats, circumcision is still quite popular then in the US, about a 65/35 ratio of cut to uncut.

 

[tcsenter]

<< In 1999, 65.3 percent of all male newborns born in hospitals were circumcised. >>

Remember, this is an accounting of only those newborns who were circumcized while in the hospital. It does not account for religious circumcision practitioners, primarily found in the Jewish community, who perform the procedure outside of the hospital. So, the actual number of circumcized newborns is undoubtedly higher.

 

[outoftheblue]

<< This quote is of Dr. John Kellogg, (of Kellogg's cereal, no joking!), a very religious doctor from the late 19th century. He was firmly against masturbation, and sex in general, and popularized circumcision as a method to curb this sinful "self-poluting" activity. >>





<< OMFG! This guy was freakin' crazy! >>



You should watch the movie 'Road to Wellville' or something like that.... pretty funny and features a portrayal of Kellogg and one of his 'health retreats'.

 

[kendogg]

got smegma?

I was circumsized in the 8th grade.. horrible experience.. but I am happy my parents got me to do it ..

 

[Fritzo]

<< I am proud to say that I still have all my peripherals with me: foreskin, tonsil, appendix, wisdom teeth.

Man, there are such thing as clean water and soap. If you are still dirtier down there than those damn mud-bathed elephants, I wonder what kind of wench would lie with you. >>



I don't like the appendix. I don't trust any organ whose sole purpose is the burst at a random time and kill you :Q

 

[Fritzo]

<< often, at least what I've been told by a couple women, a woman is said to have 'dryness' problem, but the problem is really that their partner doesn't take the time to warm things up, in a manner of speaking. There are lots of guys who go about sex as if they were following a basic instruction manual: 1. kiss 2. pet 3. grope 4. shed clothing 5. spread legs 6. plunge in penis. Sorry guys, but if that's your idea of sex, no wonder your women have a 'dryness' problem. >>




That's just wrong. My ex-wife had a dryness problem when we were dating due to low hormone levels (she would also go some months with a very light/no period...which would scare the hell out of me ). Anyway, they put her on birth control pills and the juices started a flowin a couple of weeks after that. They took her off of them a year later and everything was normal once again. Now, she doesn't have periods, she has EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! (Hence the ex-wife status heheheh)

 

[Platypus]

<< got smegma?

I was circumsized in the 8th grade.. horrible experience.. but I am happy my parents got me to do it .. >>



Not if you wash properly.. it's like brushing your teeth really, if you don't it builds up. I don't see why people make that such a huge issue. Looking for something to fault it?

 

[Chaotic42]

<< Indeed, it is the overwhelming consensus of the medical and religious communities that the disadvantage actually belongs to the uncircumsized, with more evidence coming available all the time that the health and social merits of circumcision far outweight any fickle emotional attachment to some little piece of skin which is completely non-essential for the penile functions of peeing, reproduction, or sexual gratification. >>



Since I'm not a doctor, and I don't have access to a lot of medical information, my post comes only from personal expirence and talking with other people (men and women).

I have no cleanliness issues. I take at least 2 showers per day, and I keep my enitre body clean. I shouldn't be at any health risks, since the skin down there is just as clean as the rest of my skin. As for social merits, I don't feel any different because I wasn't cut. No women have said anything negative, and no guys seem to think any different of me.



<<
It is TEXTBOOK 'projection' of their own feelings. Everyone knows that. Hell, even the most inept psychologist would call that spade when she sees it. >>



It seems pointless to get worked up about *either* side of this debate.




<<
By no 'objective' standard could a circumcized penis be considered 'mutilated', even by the definition of 'mutilate' provided by our Resident Anti-Circ Zealot, circumcision doesn't measure up to mutilation because there is nothing essential about the foreskin and thus nothing essential is lost by removing it.
>>



Essential, perhaps not. However, and keep in mind this is based only on my experience, I've seen no reason to remove it. It seems like a waste of $200.



<<
Essential, perhaps, only in the respect that a male identifies with the way he has long become accustomed to seeing and viewing his own penis. So, in terms of self-image, I can completely understand what is being asked of an uncircumcized male to imagine his penis looking so different than he is accustomed to. Had I not been circumcized, I probably wouldn't want to part with that inconsequential piece of skin, either, even if it were medically advisable.
>>



This is a good point that I haven't seen brought up before your post.



<<
For this reason, uncircumsized men cannot be expected to have objective and unbiased judgement on the matter. In order to get an objective view, you must go to the circumcized male who isn't being asked to part with an 'image' he has long since formed of himself.
>>



An uncircumsized penis is as foreign to the circumsized male as a circumsized penis is to an uncircumsized male. Seems like it would work both ways.

Since I have none of the problems with cleanliness or social inadequacy, and since I've no desire to lose the sensitivity provided by the foreskin, I see no reason to remove it. You argue your point with intelligence, and I appreciate that.

FWIW, the first time I saw a circumsized penis was in health class. I freaked out and thought the guy had some *terrible* STD.

 

[Fritzo]

<< I take at least 2 showers per day, >>



Man...you must be a prune!

 

[Conflict]

<< People are getting offended because someone is telling them that being circumsized is disadvantageous. What's next? People with blue eyes getting mad because someone tells them that they are more sensitive to light? Grow up a bit.

Cleanliness is no problem. I assume that everyone washes everything when they bathe/shower, and it isn't any different for uncircumsized (hereafter uncut) people. The cleanliness argument, and my friend's nephew had this problem, is with young boys. Parents must keep the penis (as well as the whole kid) clean. My friend's nephew had terrible infections because his mother was a terrible (insert worst word possible here.).

Uncut people have more sensitivity, better lubrication, and it doesn't look as weird!

If it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't.

PS. I'm uncut *and* I have blue eyes. >>



You shouldn't assume that. A while back, there was a thread with people asking for how they should wash them selves!!

 

[Platypus]

I remember that thread, this uncircumsized guy didn't know about washing, I was totally shocked..