Parents circumsizing their sons.

[KaraBulut]

Stop spreading bullshit. There are studies that say cut males are less likely to infect with HIV. However those are still doubted, since guess what - on the african continent, the one with the most infections almost everbody is uncut. But even if they were a 100% precise .. so what? It still doesn't make you anywhere near immune, and circumsizing everybody still wouldn't stop HIV.

Actually, there were several studies and the result of the studies did show significant reduction in HIV transmission in circumcized males. However, the reduction would have been much more significant if the men would have used other options like condoms or partner reduction. So, you're correct that HIV risk reduction is a pretty bad reason to get circumcized.

Beyond that, it's a personal choice.

Unfortunately, these circumicision threads might as well be in the Religion forum because they quickly devolve into dogmatic back-and-forth flame wars that are no-win discussions.

 

[KaraBulut]

Actually, circumcision is extremely common throughout most of Africa, particularly among Muslims and Christians in West Africa. It is less common in Southern Africa (such as in Zimbabwe, Zambia, South Africa -- some of the countries with the highest prevalence of HIV).

Good point, too.

 

[xtc99992003]

And it doesn't make a difference to hygiene, and you do lose sensetivity and it does get all dry and horrible. I don't really like circumcised penis's at all.

I'm cut and I never have problems with dryness. At least not to my knowledge.

 

[Corny]

So guys, of all the people in this thread who are bantering back and forth saying that circumcision reduces feeling and sensation... THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW being myself, and freedbarton... both say it doesn't. I DO know what it was like before and after, and it's much better. No loss of sensation, no nothing.

So what? You are the only two totally upfront people trying to defend it as hard as possible as if anybody wants to take *YOUR* choice away - which nobody wants. There are other people with other experiences, you know? Just like millions of uncut males worldwide never have problems with uncleanliness.

 

[EvilForce]

So guys, of all the people in this thread who are bantering back and forth saying that circumcision reduces feeling and sensation... THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW being myself, and freedbarton... both say it doesn't. I DO know what it was like before and after, and it's much better. No loss of sensation, no nothing. Just a clean penis, and trust me, I was ADAMANT about cleaning it. But no matter what, just like Freedbarton says, there is ALWAYS a smell associated with it, and it is usually not pleasant. I guarantee you most people who are uncut aren't as obsessive about cleaning it as I was. Eww.

However, the argument that circumcised penises may be less prone to spread disease and HIV is valid, yet shouldn't be an issue because as Kara Balut has mentioned, people should be wearing condoms. Still goes to show that the foreskin is a great place to harbor bacteria and other nasty little things. Yuk!

Frankly you are in no superior position to comment seeing you have only been cut about a year. The keritinization process takes place over the ensuing years. Not few months.

However, you had a choice, and you made your choice, great. Good for you. Enforcing YOUR choice on anyone is disgusting. Those men who are cut at birth have no choice in the matter. If a parent leaves their baby boys intact then each boy/guy/man can choose which he would prefer.

Pretty simple really.

 

[sabot3ur]

I think circumcision should be mandatory! Eww.... I was uncut for 22 years, and HATED every minute of it. Life is so much better being cut, and there was NO sensitivity loss. If anything, it's better. Every boy should be circumcised. The world would be a better place. I only hope that if I ever find a guy to date and marry, he'll be cut. If he's not, I'll beg and plead and pay for him to get snipped.

you're forgetting how much more damage, complications, and scarring it causes when done very early on in life. I would never have my sons cut. who am I to claim ownership over their bodies, especially in such a fucked up way of cutting off part of their genitalia?

and I can't stress enough how terrible being in a relationship with you would be for a happily uncut man.

 

[Jeffs0418]

Point is, it's much simpler, cheaper, and has a better outcome if you do it at birth.

Kind of a catch 22. Isn't it? Cheaper and simpler at birth. Yet at birth someone else makes the choice that many of us would not have made as adults.

 

[EvilForce]

If parents left their children intact so they could make their own choice (which mine did, and I've always been furious about it), most of them would stay intact. I mean nobody that I know would like to have surgery if they could help it, especially on their penis

Every boy should be circumcised. The world would be a better place.

So now let's put the shoe on the other foot. Assume for a moment that all male babies were born circumcised, and because of "tradition" or "beauty standards" you had an operation that made you uncut, and that decision couldn't be reversed once the parents chose to alter their babies penis. You would have had your uncut penis as you did the first 22 years of your life, and wouldn't be able to change it even now. You're stuck with your uncut penis.

 

[xtc99992003]

Really... I'm glad mine is cut. I didn't get to make the decision. And from what I've experienced a lot of people don't even know any different. Example: my sophomore year in high school my health teacher was talking about circumcision and a guy behind me quietly asked what it was... I turned around and filled him in. He seriously had no clue.
Again this is America... So it's normal.

But back to why I'm glad I was cut at birth. I don't have to make the choice. I mean like Comet says... it's expensive to have it done right. And that's a big choice... Whether or not to do something like that... there is no going back. At least this way I know no different.

Bottom line it's fine with me. I know no difference. It seems a lot easier than being uncut. I'm happy with the look of it.

 

[sabot3ur]

No question about it, I'd be very unhappy about it, but I'd live with it. I'd also ask, but not expect, for him to be circumcised.

having a partner dissatisfied and repulsed by your penis would certainly be the most effective way to make you feel like shit.

and yeah, where did you hear all this nonsense about infant circ being better?

Adult Circumcision vs. Infant Circumcision
A common misperception is that infant circumcision is preferable to adult circumcision because it spares a man pain and trauma. Many physicians however say the opposite and critics admit that most of their objections to infant circumcision cannot be applied to the adult procedure. Here's why:

More precise with better outcome. Circumcision of an adult can be more precise and less risky than for the infant. This is because the adult penis is fully formed. Many plastic surgeons operate on the penis in the erect state because this way it is clear to what extent the skin is stretched during erection. In the infant, this more precise method cannot be employed. Also, based on the knowledge of his own penis, the adult patient can specify how much tissue to remove, the infant cannot. In terms of how much tissue to remove, there is much more guess work involved in the infant and often too much skin is removed. In adult circumcision precise instruments are used. In the infant, usually more cumbersome and less precise instruments like the Gomco clamp are used. The results of operating on a fully formed penis, in the erect state, with precise instruments by a trained surgeon, benefit the adult and not the infant.


Reduced risk of injury. For the same reasons mentioned above, injury to the penis is less likely in adult circumcision than in infant circumcision. It is less likely that too much or too little tissue will be removed and the chances of lacerating the glans itself are also minimized. Scarring is also reduced in the adult.


Reduced loss of sensitivity. Because in the adult, the penis has had many years to develop with a foreskin covering, the glans is fully sensitive at the time of the circumcision. The glans has grown with its protective covering and the foreskin has already separated naturally from the glans. This spares the adult some of the sensitivity loss that occurs when circumcision is performed at birth. At birth, the foreskin must be torn away from the glans to which it is normally adhered. Then, the denuded glans of the infant spends much time exposed to caustic urine while in diapers. In adult circumcision this early damage to the glans is avoided.


Personal choice. With adult circumcision the patient is making a personal choice to have himself circumcised. He has the option of comparing the pros and cons and has had the opportunity to know what having a foreskin is like. This eliminates the "lack of choice" objection made by critics. With elected adult circumcision, critics see no violation of rights.


Reduced potential psychological effects. With adult circumcision potential psychological effects are reduced. This is because the patient understands the experience. He knows why it is happening and that he has chosen this. Anesthesia is used in the adult and is usually omitted or ineffective in the infant. In contrast, the infant has an experience of inexplicable pain and terror which he cannot rationalize as an adult. Some speculate that this intensely painful experience for the infant can lead to problems later on. Although on the surface it may seem that an infant is less sensitive to or unaware of the circumcision experience, he does experience it fully and because of his very formative and psychologically sensitive age, the experience is thought to be potentially more impacting than it is for the adult.
source: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/garcia/

ever see a penis with a large, discolored band around the top section? yeah, that's what my scar looks like. dicks grow quite a lot between the time of infancy and maturity, it's only logical to come to the conclusion that the scar will stretch and enlarge over time. so keep bitching about not being cut when you were young, it's too bad you don't have that awesome restricted mobility and dryness, isn't it? and don't tell me it's some kind of "art" or that I had a shit surgeon, it was done at johns fucking hopkins, what better than that?

as a little fun fact, I and many others still have open hole scars from the stitches. I can fit a ring in one, would you still like to chance your son's GENITALIA for such a silly vain reason after hearing all this? what about after looking at the following site, they have some great pictures I'd suggest you see if you plan on mutilating your child against his will.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

 

[EvilForce]

The percentage of complications from infantile circumcision is very low. Now look, I just woke up and I have a shit load of stuff to do, but I'm pretty sure all that writing is B/S. I didn't read it yet - but I will later.

"Low" eh? I guess the boys who's had complications, and their penis cut off for gender reassignment aren't upset at all either eh?

Thomas E. Wiswell, M.D., has written and studied the "post-neonatal complication rate from medicalized, non-ritual circumcision is 1.7%" SOURCE: Circumcision in Children Beyond the Neonatal Period. Pediatrics, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 791-793, December 1993.

So "only" 1.7% have complications. This means if the 2,000,000 baby boys born in the USA that were all circumcised under "your plan", that means that "only" 34,000 boys per year have complications.

 

[tmb1]

Actually I had the operation December of 2006.

If parents left their children intact so they could make their own choice (which mine did, and I've always been furious about it), most of them would stay intact. I mean nobody that I know would like to have surgery if they could help it, especially on their penis. I felt so strongly about it that I went ahead and did it. Not to mention that it costs very little (if anything I would think) to do it at birth. I paid almost $2,000 to have my surgery. You don't want the outcome looking like crap, so I went to the best. Neonatal circumcisions look far better than adult circumcisions (although mine looks very close, you can hardly tell it was done as an adult). Most people who wanted the surgery as an adult wouldn't have the money to pay for the best doctor as I did, or wouldn't even know he existed. They'd end up having some God awful hack job.

Point is, it's much simpler, cheaper, and has a better outcome if you do it at birth.

Dude, do you even understand that what you are saying is the perfect reason for why we SHOULD be left intact at birth. You have had a bad experience with your foreskin, but that is rare. Most men left with their foreskin would think you were crazy for suggesting that their's should have been cut off at birth. Thank God they have a choice(like all should, as you did).

 

[sabot3ur]

(comet)
so I guess you don't consider fucking ugly scars and taken away personal freedoms "complications," cooool...

and that was quite the response from you, I'll have to dedicate one hand clap for the idiot who didn't read it yet! you can't fully experience it without taking a gander at the pictures either, so umm... get on that.
from the second link I gave in my last post:

"The estimated 1% to 3% incidence of complications after newborn circumcision covers only the immediate postoperative period prior to the infant's discharge from the hospital. The reported risks are hemorrhage in 1%, infection - occasionally leading to sepsis - in 0.5%, meat[iti]s and meatal stenosis, u[r]ethrocutaneous fistula, adhesions between the glans and remaining prepuce, secondary phimosis, and cosmetically unsatisfactory results. The rate of subsequent repeat surgery to correct adhesions of the glans, meatal stenosis, fistula, and phimosis with buried penis is unknown, but our practice at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia includes about two such cases per month. While this is not a large percentage of the total number of circumcisions preformed, it is a significant number of children undergoing surgery for the complication of this operation. "

- Schwartz, et al. "Pediatric Primary Care: A Problem-solving Approach" pp 861-862.

(At 1.25 million circumcisions of newborns in the US per year, a 0.5% infection rate amounts to 6000 cases per year, and a 4% overall rate of complications requiring treatment represents 48,000 patients experiencing avoidable morbidity.)

doesn't that sound fucked up to you? that said 4% had complications requiring further treatment, how many others did not recieve any only to realize later in life what was neglected and regarded as "normal enough"? regardless, it's always a chance when done to infants. and what a vain, selfish, pointless procedure it is.

 

[tmb1]

I DO consider 1.7% a low number of complications. Who says scars are ugly? They are not! Most of them are blended in and look natural.

Look people, I have been researching this since I was 12 alright. I am fully aware of the complications of circumcision and the complications of being left intact. I've seen hundreds of photos of penises that have botched circumcisions, and I've seen plenty of photos of hack jobs done as adults. I've also seen a ton of NASTY uncircumcised penises that are non-retractile, filled with smegma and other bacteria. I'd say out of the people I have met in life that are uncircumcised, we'll call that number 10, 7 probably have issues with their foreskin. Those issues being uncleanliness, smegma, urinary tract infections, phimosis and balanitis. The MAIN issue is cosmetic for most people. EVERYONE I have met that is uncircumcised that knows my story always ask me all sorts of questions because they too would love to be cut. I've never met anyone that was happy about being uncircumcised. Indifferent sure, but happy, no. Just a quick thought as well. Penile cancer is EXTREMELY uncommon in Jewish and Muslim religions, which practice circumcision at infancy or around 12 years of age. It is common and proved knowledge that circumcision decreases infection, penile cancer and the spread of HIV and other STDs.

Again, I have been researching this topic for 12 years now, because I sought to find a way to have myself circumcised when I was in middle school. I know a lot about it, and one of my good friends is a world renowned urologist that is known as being the best "circumciser" in the world. We talk about this all the time, I trust his medical knowledge and opinions, and I believe circumcision is the right thing to do.

The question is to do it at birth, or later in life? Obviously at birth would be easier for the person so that you don't have to go through the pain, hassle and money later in life.

Wow! Obsessed and all-knowing(about what's good for OTHER people). I'm happy for you, but you and your friend know nothing about what mother nature intended. Sounds like your issues were/are more psychological than with the actual function of the foreskin and the penis. Just cuz you got some idiot calling himself a doctor to back you means nothing. Seriously, are you second guessing god on his natural protection of the vital organ that helps create life. Not saying we can't get along without the foreskin, but it does have a definite function, not to mention thousands of pleasurable nerve endings(maybe god isn't a prude about sex as the church would have us believe.)

 

[tmb1]

What is its definite function?

If you need to ask then you would probably ask the same of the clit.

Anyhow, here are the many functions of the foreskin.

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

And as for Comet2404's "idiot" doctor friend. Maybe he was out this day in school. And you stated above that, "I've never met anyone that was happy about being uncircumcised." THAT would be way more absurd than calling your doctor friend an idiot!

You lost all credibility win you stated earlier, "I think circumcision should be mandatory!" WOW! Talk about absurd!!!

 

[Jaime]

i was circumcised at birth, and i'm not really thrilled about it. there's some pretty bad scarring, the cut is really uneven, and i have varicose veins along the shaft. compared to some of the other potential complications, i don't have much to complain about, but i would have been happier if my parents hadn't made the decision for me.

 

[tmb1]

Those are all speculative functions.
No "definite" functions as far as I can tell in that list.

I might also point out that there is a difference between "function" and "purpose."

LOL! Speculative functions? Now thats funny(and sad)

 

[EvilForce]

CumSlave, your endeavors will be an exercise in futility. Why? There are too many of those who won't agree with you. Besides this, you will fuel one helluva flame war; is it really worth it?

It seems like no one ever wins a cut/uncut war.

The debate is whether parents should chose for their son whether or not to hack a piece of flesh off his penis.

To me I don't care one way or the other if someone is cut or uncut. I like both.

What I, and most others here have an issue with, is not having the choice to choose for ourselves. I find it remarkable that those two or three who HAD A CHOICE, and decided to get cut, want to deny everyone else's ability to choose. Unfuckingreal.

 

[release2]

I think it's incredible they don't even anesthetize the babies they do it to. That's fucking barbaric.

People who have this done to their newborn sons are mindless drones who never bothered to research it themselves.

 

[Corny]

The debate is whether parents should chose for their son whether or not to hack a piece of flesh off his penis.

good (and needed) point here. everybody has his preference, if anything - we got that from this thread. but you should be able to make up your mind for yourself.