I am, but would not have it done to a son. It's not necessary, and the only arguments for it (religious reasons, it's "cleaner" - yeah right, and the "like father, like son" thing) don't seem convincing reasons at all to remove a naturally occuring part of the body.
I am, and probably would just so my son doesnt get any sheit when in the showers or whips it out for the first time in front of a girl. I don't think teenagers take showers after gym anymore, so that maybe moot. My future wife will probably decide, as I get the impression that girls don't like them au natural. Well, girls in the US anyways, and thats probably where we'll live.
i learned a lot from reading this thread. i am uncircumsized and neither are my ancestors and neither will be my children.
Never! Why would anyone mutilate their son's penis soon after he has been born? Isn't he under enough stress adjusting to life outside the womb? Even if you did months or years later, it's his penis and he should decide if he would like to cut the foreskin off or not.
Isn't it odd that apart from religious reasons, only this country is still widely practicing routine infant circumcision? All other countries have had their rates in decline (well this country too, to some extent), but there are so many uninformed parents that just do it for the cleanliness/like father, like son argument, which in this day and age - has very little validity with the advent of showers in every modern home. Whatever happened to teaching boys how to clean their genitalia? We teach girls how to clean themselves after going to the bathroom and how to take care of a period. We teach both boys and girls how to clean after going to defecate. Taking care of a normal penis should technically be even easier.
If anyone is so inclined, there is an organization called Students for Genital Integrity. It promotes awareness of genital integrity for children of all sexes including children that are born intersexed. I was thinking about getting a chapter started at our medical school.
It's one thing if parents decide to circumcize their boys, but they at least should have the relevant medical information at hand before doing so. Usually elective surgery is performed with the consultation of a doctor, but in this country, it is likened to signing a form for something as trivial as "trimming a toenail." Also because it is an elective and usually non-medically necessary procedure, some doctors won't even advise you against it because it can be an out of pocket expense for the parents - i.e. a quick buck for physicians since it isn't covered by many insurance plans.
Isn't it odd that apart from religious reasons, only this country is still widely practicing routine infant circumcision? All other countries have had their rates in decline (well this country too, to some extent), but there are so many uninformed parents that just do it for the cleanliness/like father, like son argument, which in this day and age - has very little validity with the advent of showers in every modern home. Whatever happened to teaching boys how to clean their genitalia? We teach girls how to clean themselves after going to the bathroom and how to take care of a period. We teach both boys and girls how to clean after going to defecate. Taking care of a normal penis should technically be even easier.
If anyone is so inclined, there is an organization called Students for Genital Integrity. It promotes awareness of genital integrity for children of all sexes including children that are born intersexed. I was thinking about getting a chapter started at our medical school.
It's one thing if parents decide to circumcize their boys, but they at least should have the relevant medical information at hand before doing so. Usually elective surgery is performed with the consultation of a doctor, but in this country, it is likened to signing a form for something as trivial as "trimming a toenail." Also because it is an elective and usually non-medically necessary procedure, some doctors won't even advise you against it because it can be an out of pocket expense for the parents - i.e. a quick buck for physicians since it isn't covered by many insurance plans.
Cut the skin off the last inch of one of your fingers while having no pain killing agents in your body. Babies are not given any pain killer before this procedure.
I'm uncut and I won't cut my kids, I'd hate to image being less sensitive.
And I know you lose a lot of sensitivity.
I had a friend in high school that got cut when he was 14. He didn't need to be cut he just wanted it done because he felt self conscious about being uncut. He lied to his doctor and said his fore skin was restricting his erection so the doc gave him a circumcision. Anyways. He got cut and immediately after getting cut he said his sensitivity spiked up and it was greatest thing he ever did. He also had to switch from briefs to boxers because he said it hurt the head of penis rubbing against his underwear. So after about 2-3 months he said he regretted the hell out of doing it because he lost a lot of sensitivity also his head stopped hurting from rubbing against his underwear.
And for the argument of a girl being taken a back from the look of a uncut penis I say B/S. well maybe not complete b/s, if it's some girl who your one night standing it with maybe that could be deal breaker. But if it's girl who you a strong relationship with she won't care...Also I can pull back my foreskin behind my head and it looks just like a circumcised penis with just a bit of extra skin bunched behind the head.
And for the hygienic thing, I've never had a hygiene problem. I think the real reason people use this excuse is because they are well.... bad parents. The foreskin doesn't separate from the glands until a child 6-7(I'm not sure of the exact age) and a parent will have to sit down with their kid at that age and tell them to take a second or two to clean their penis. At that age it's not appropriate for son and dad to take a shower so dad can't just show his son what to do so you'll have to talk to your kid about it. IMHO people fear this talk because they think it'll lead to the sex talk too soon in their kid?s life. Most parents only talk to their kids about the child's genitals twice in the child?s life, first during potty training, and second with the sex talk. An uncut child leads to third talk, and I think cutting off the kids fore skin is a bit extreme to avoid a 5 min talk with the kid.
Just my opinion, don't do it.
And I know you lose a lot of sensitivity.
I had a friend in high school that got cut when he was 14. He didn't need to be cut he just wanted it done because he felt self conscious about being uncut. He lied to his doctor and said his fore skin was restricting his erection so the doc gave him a circumcision. Anyways. He got cut and immediately after getting cut he said his sensitivity spiked up and it was greatest thing he ever did. He also had to switch from briefs to boxers because he said it hurt the head of penis rubbing against his underwear. So after about 2-3 months he said he regretted the hell out of doing it because he lost a lot of sensitivity also his head stopped hurting from rubbing against his underwear.
And for the argument of a girl being taken a back from the look of a uncut penis I say B/S. well maybe not complete b/s, if it's some girl who your one night standing it with maybe that could be deal breaker. But if it's girl who you a strong relationship with she won't care...Also I can pull back my foreskin behind my head and it looks just like a circumcised penis with just a bit of extra skin bunched behind the head.
And for the hygienic thing, I've never had a hygiene problem. I think the real reason people use this excuse is because they are well.... bad parents. The foreskin doesn't separate from the glands until a child 6-7(I'm not sure of the exact age) and a parent will have to sit down with their kid at that age and tell them to take a second or two to clean their penis. At that age it's not appropriate for son and dad to take a shower so dad can't just show his son what to do so you'll have to talk to your kid about it. IMHO people fear this talk because they think it'll lead to the sex talk too soon in their kid?s life. Most parents only talk to their kids about the child's genitals twice in the child?s life, first during potty training, and second with the sex talk. An uncut child leads to third talk, and I think cutting off the kids fore skin is a bit extreme to avoid a 5 min talk with the kid.
Just my opinion, don't do it.
DannyBoy
Diamond Member
How the hell would you know that? :Q
If I ever had kids I would for the fact it is much, much more hygenic and there's a much lower chance of suffering from certain infections in that area without that un-needed piece of skin.
edit: Female circumcision is just cruel as it effects women later on in life, I think anyone capable of performing this operation should be shot.
To those saying "babies aren't given painkillers at birth", I don't know about anyone else here who was circumcised as a baby, but I certainly don't remember it in detail, however I lived in sweden at the time and I'm pretty sure I was put to sleep for it
I left the decision up to my circumsized husband.
Being the very intelligent man that he is, and that he doesn't really care what 'everyone else' does, nor do we want our children to be mindless sheep, he made the decision to leave our son intact.
I am very fortunate to be married to someone who is able to think beyond 'what has always been done'.
Being the very intelligent man that he is, and that he doesn't really care what 'everyone else' does, nor do we want our children to be mindless sheep, he made the decision to leave our son intact.
I am very fortunate to be married to someone who is able to think beyond 'what has always been done'.
Originally posted by: DannyBoy
How the hell would you know that? :Q
If I ever had kids I would for the fact it is much, much more hygenic and there's a much lower chance of suffering from certain infections in that area without that un-needed piece of skin.
edit: Female circumcision is just cruel as it effects women later on in life, I think anyone capable of performing this operation should be shot.
To those saying "babies aren't given painkillers at birth", I don't know about anyone else here who was circumcised as a baby, but I certainly don't remember it in detail, however I lived in sweden at the time and I'm pretty sure I was put to sleep for it
Yeah, i guess if you don't want to keep your kids clean it is a neccessity. I taught my son how foreskin works, it's not rocket science, you pull it back, soap and rinse.
I it was done in Sweden you were put to sleep for the surgery. If it was today your parents would have to go through a lot to have the procedure done, unneccessary surgery is frowned upon in Europe today.
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
a) "hygienic reasons":
Makes as much sense as argueing to amputate the feet because its more 'hygienic' because it would prevent dirt between the toes.
(Or removing eye-lids and/or especially labias. Funny, in western cultures removing labias out of hygienic reasons - i NEVER heard THAT argument for females, but at the same time *females* bringing the 'hygiene argument' up for GUYS.)
b) Infections.
Which ones ? Except, say, if you have some nasty STDs or decide not to shower for a few months. But then you would probaby also get infections anywhere else on your body. NOT that a cut one would PREVENT you from getting STDs anyway...nor prevent you from being disgusting and un-hygieic if you dont shower.
c) doing it on an infant is especially 'mean' since a baby acn not decide for itself. Especially, if the 'decision' (like in the majority of cases) comes from parents who dont know it different either. Eg. i am, so will be my son.
d) BIGGEST reason against (in my opinion)
People argue with the 'procedure' itself (its not that bad, which MIGHT be the case). Or: "Its only a piece of skin, so it doesnt matter".
This is totally wrong because actually (depending on the actual procedure) then there WILL be *very* sensitive parts removed and therefore you WILL lose a big amount of sensitivity. Actually, you would perform surgery/removal of the most sensitive part of the male body.
Cut people do not know that (they dont know better because they never had 100% sensitivity) - but at the same come up with the argument "its only a piece of worthless skin" and, even worse, carry their ignorance on to the next generation and dont even give their kids a chance to decide on their own.
I dont think that every mentally normal guy would volunteer to lose 2/3th of its sensitivy for [insert bizarre, ilogical reason here] reasons...or how many guys scream murder and demand a surgery ('because it looks disgusting') comes a long a female with, say, a bit oversized labias Instead, females have the self-esteem to be proud of their differences - while guys rather tend to be all 'the same' because its supposed to be better
Makes as much sense as argueing to amputate the feet because its more 'hygienic' because it would prevent dirt between the toes.
(Or removing eye-lids and/or especially labias. Funny, in western cultures removing labias out of hygienic reasons - i NEVER heard THAT argument for females, but at the same time *females* bringing the 'hygiene argument' up for GUYS.)
b) Infections.
Which ones ? Except, say, if you have some nasty STDs or decide not to shower for a few months. But then you would probaby also get infections anywhere else on your body. NOT that a cut one would PREVENT you from getting STDs anyway...nor prevent you from being disgusting and un-hygieic if you dont shower.
c) doing it on an infant is especially 'mean' since a baby acn not decide for itself. Especially, if the 'decision' (like in the majority of cases) comes from parents who dont know it different either. Eg. i am, so will be my son.
d) BIGGEST reason against (in my opinion)
People argue with the 'procedure' itself (its not that bad, which MIGHT be the case). Or: "Its only a piece of skin, so it doesnt matter".
This is totally wrong because actually (depending on the actual procedure) then there WILL be *very* sensitive parts removed and therefore you WILL lose a big amount of sensitivity. Actually, you would perform surgery/removal of the most sensitive part of the male body.
Cut people do not know that (they dont know better because they never had 100% sensitivity) - but at the same come up with the argument "its only a piece of worthless skin" and, even worse, carry their ignorance on to the next generation and dont even give their kids a chance to decide on their own.
I dont think that every mentally normal guy would volunteer to lose 2/3th of its sensitivy for [insert bizarre, ilogical reason here] reasons...or how many guys scream murder and demand a surgery ('because it looks disgusting') comes a long a female with, say, a bit oversized labias
Instead, females have the self-esteem to be proud of their differences - while guys rather tend to be all 'the same' because its supposed to be better Originally posted by: flexy
a) "hygienic reasons":
Makes as much sense as argueing to amputate the feet because its more 'hygienic' because it would prevent dirt between the toes.
(Or removing eye-lids and/or especially labias. Funny, in western cultures removing labias out of hygienic reasons - i NEVER heard THAT argument for females, but at the same time *females* bringing the 'hygiene argument' up for GUYS.)
b) Infections.
Which ones ? Except, say, if you have some nasty STDs or decide not to shower for a few months. But then you would probaby also get infections anywhere else on your body. NOT that a cut one would PREVENT you from getting STDs anyway...nor prevent you from being disgusting and un-hygieic if you dont shower.
c) doing it on an infant is especially 'mean' since a baby acn not decide for itself. Especially, if the 'decision' (like in the majority of cases) comes from parents who dont know it different either. Eg. i am, so will be my son.
d) BIGGEST reason against (in my opinion)
People argue with the 'procedure' itself (its not that bad, which MIGHT be the case). Or: "Its only a piece of skin, so it doesnt matter".
This is totally wrong because actually (depending on the actual procedure) then there WILL be *very* sensitive parts removed and therefore you WILL lose a big amount of sensitivity. Actually, you would perform surgery/removal of the most sensitive part of the male body.
Cut people do not know that (they dont know better because they never had 100% sensitivity) - but at the same come up with the argument "its only a piece of worthless skin" and, even worse, carry their ignorance on to the next generation and dont even give their kids a chance to decide on their own.
I dont think that every mentally normal guy would volunteer to lose 2/3th of its sensitivy for [insert bizarre, ilogical reason here] reasons...or how many guys scream murder and demand a surgery ('because it looks disgusting') comes a long a female with, say, a bit oversized labias
Don't be so sure, fixing their labia is something that is on the rise in the surgery industry. Stupid? yeah.
Fvcked up society where you adjust to it instead of accepting everyones differences.
Why would the kids at school ever know if he was circumsized or not? None of my friends growing up ever asked or saw if I had an anteater or not.
Most of the unshowering masses here would get stuck at "pull it back" and just repeat that step over and over.
There is no plausible reason to cut off a chunk of wang.
- M4H
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Don't cut, just CLEAN YOUR COCK PROPERLY.
Really a no-brainer...
I'm having my cheeks removed next week, so I don't need to brush my teeth. I lose a little taste sensation, but the Girls like the way it looks. :roll:
Really a no-brainer...
I'm having my cheeks removed next week, so I don't need to brush my teeth. I lose a little taste sensation, but the Girls like the way it looks. :roll:
I am uncut.
There are definitely pros and cons to circumcision. The biggest reason (pro) to get circumcised is esthetic. Having a smooth rocket is more appealing to the eye and you are less likely to get a negative reaction from the girl giving oral. How many male pornstars are uncircumcised btw?
The best reason to remain uncut is for increased sexual pleasure. You have more options being uncircumcised. You can decide to leave your foreskin unrolled or roll it back during sex. The last time I had oral performed on me I decided to roll my foreskin back and had to remind the girl to be extremely gentle because the head of my penis is more sensitive than the average circumcised penis which I knew she is more use to. The sensation is incredible to say the least. If she had been any rougher I would be in pain.
There are definitely pros and cons to circumcision. The biggest reason (pro) to get circumcised is esthetic. Having a smooth rocket is more appealing to the eye and you are less likely to get a negative reaction from the girl giving oral. How many male pornstars are uncircumcised btw?
The best reason to remain uncut is for increased sexual pleasure. You have more options being uncircumcised. You can decide to leave your foreskin unrolled or roll it back during sex. The last time I had oral performed on me I decided to roll my foreskin back and had to remind the girl to be extremely gentle because the head of my penis is more sensitive than the average circumcised penis which I knew she is more use to. The sensation is incredible to say the least. If she had been any rougher I would be in pain.
I'm uncut and have had only one girl ENJOY it (I don't mean not mind, but like it) and she was fairly sheltered... and ended up being a b!tch.
so..
I'm glad I'm uncut and wouldn't change it. My son will be uncut as well.
so..
I'm glad I'm uncut and wouldn't change it. My son will be uncut as well.
As weird as this sounds, a few years back I noticed that most male porn stars were circumcised. If you take a look at the male actors these days, it's almost about a 50% ratio of cut males to uncut. You also have to take into account where the actors were photographed. There is a good majority of porn that is shot both in America and in Europe, however in Europe, the trend is to be natural. I am not sure if the natural stars that you see these days are mostly from Europe, but I would find it pretty common these days for one to be accepted as a male porn actor regardless of circumcision status in America.
Just an odd thought at a late hour. Sorry if that didn't make sense.
I think most American male porn stars would be uncut for the simple fact that when they were probably born most American males had a circumcision. However now it's about 50-50 uncut vs. cut.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter