DVD Talk
YACT: Circumcise baby boy? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : YACT: Circumcise baby boy?


Pages : [1] 2

mbs
03-23-12, 11:18 AM
My wife is pregnant with our first kid and we found out a few weeks ago that it's a boy. I've been reading up on taking care of a baby and I think I'm becoming convinced that I don't want the kid circumcised.

I'm circumcised and I think most babies these days are (is that true?). I know at one time it was thought to be more hygienic, however, I'm not sure that is still the case. I'm leaning against it because of the pain (and possibility of infection) to the baby when there is no substantial benefit.

So, here are my questions:

(a) Did you circumcise your child (assuming you have had a male child)?
(b) Is there any advantage/disadvantage to circumcision that you have actually seen (with yourself or your child)?
(c) If you are uncircumcised: were you ever made fun of or felt odd in the school gym showers? :lol:

I've been debating this in my head (spending much more time worrying about it than it's worth) and figured this would get some interesting replies...

RunBandoRun
03-23-12, 11:26 AM
I believe the save-the-foreskin villagers are presently lighting the torches and will be joining us momentarily. :D

Maxflier
03-23-12, 11:28 AM
Do the kid a favor and make the cut.

chino77
03-23-12, 11:29 AM
do you want your kid growing up with a dick that looks like a mutant worm and most women will find repulsive? if so then dont circumcise him.

ben12
03-23-12, 11:33 AM
Yeah, you should definitely mutilate your son's penis because some people on the internet said it would look weird if you don't.

Groucho
03-23-12, 11:35 AM
1. DON'T read this thread
2. DO discuss it with your pediatrician

SuperJim88
03-23-12, 11:40 AM
Do you want your child to enjoy sex? Uncircumcised head is like a woman PMSing. It's fucking sensitive as hell and enjoy so much pleasure ramming anybody down who cross her path.

TGM
03-23-12, 11:43 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, unless there is a REAL religious reason not to, PLEASE circumcise the boy. I was circumcised, and I don't remember any pain and/or trauma. But I guarantee that I would have remembered the experience if I needed to have it done for some reason in my teens, 20s, 30s, or beyond.

Tracer Bullet
03-23-12, 11:43 AM
1. DON'T read this thread
2. DO discuss it with your pediatrician

:thumbsup:

Rockmjd23
03-23-12, 11:45 AM
Not to hijack but I have a few questions as well:

How much should the doctor be tipped after a circumcision?

How long after I declaw my outdoor cat should I circumcise him?

When should I indoctrinate my child into my religion (or lackthereof, which is still a belief system)?

Tracer Bullet
03-23-12, 11:45 AM
There's no real reason to circumcise. About the only credible reason is that not doing it may make contracting some sexually transmitted diseases a bit easier, but that's like saying you should chop off your hands because a lot of people get colds by touching their face.

Deftones
03-23-12, 11:48 AM
there have been studies to show that HPV transmission from men to women is much is higher when having sex with uncircumcised men. not that it should be a deciding factor, but it is what it is.

i had my son circumcised in the hospital as a newborn. i'm pretty sure he doesn't remember it. be prepared that some hospitals won't even do it anymore (if you choose to go that route) and your pediatrician may do it on your first appointment with them.

Groucho
03-23-12, 11:50 AM
How much should the doctor be tipped after a circumcision?The tip is included.

Rockmjd23
03-23-12, 11:53 AM
The tip is included.
I was thinking $40.00

10 dollars a skin.

mbs
03-23-12, 11:56 AM
1. DON'T read this thread
2. DO discuss it with your pediatrician

That's a lot less fun.

mbs
03-23-12, 12:06 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, unless there is a REAL religious reason not to, PLEASE circumcise the boy. I was circumcised, and I don't remember any pain and/or trauma. But I guarantee that I would have remembered the experience if I needed to have it done for some reason in my teens, 20s, 30s, or beyond.

Why would you need it done later (I'm not doubting you, I really have no idea why or if this might be necessary)?

I was also circumcised and I don't remember the pain either. But I probably wouldn't remember getting a black eye as a baby and I sure as hell wouldn't do that to my kid.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 12:09 PM
NO.

People who take an unnecessary health risk with their children because of fashion should not be allowed to have children.

This includes piercing the ears of baby girls.

cungar
03-23-12, 12:10 PM
Yeah, you should definitely mutilate your son's penis because some people on the internet said it would look weird if you don't.

Using the word mutilate just makes you sound like a fanatic.

mbs
03-23-12, 12:11 PM
I need mhg83's opinion. Without question (and without talking to a pediatrician), I will do the opposite.

Xander
03-23-12, 12:11 PM
After doing a lot of research and not finding conclusive evidence that being circumcised has any medical benefit, I decided that cosmetic reasons were not enough to justify mutilating my son.

Using the word mutilate just makes you sound like a fanatic.

Sorry, but cutting off a piece of my child's body for asthetic purposes does definitely fall into the category of mutilation for me. :shrug:

Nefarious
03-23-12, 12:12 PM
(a) Did you circumcise your child (assuming you have had a male child)?



Yes, we had him circumcised. It was supposed to be via the method where they attach a plastibell or similar type clamp. Despite the notes on the form, a different pediatrician performed it and did the traditional cutting method. Irregardless there have been no nightmare inducing recollections on his part.

Another thing to consider is to ensure that your health insurance covers it. Some of stopped covering it on the basis that it is not "medically necessary". If not covered then you could end up paying $700-$1000 to have it done.

Nefarious
03-23-12, 12:17 PM
NO.

People who take an unnecessary health risk with their children because of fashion should not be allowed to have children.

This includes vajazzaling baby girls.

That is over the line.

kvrdave
03-23-12, 12:18 PM
Do you want your child to enjoy sex? Uncircumcised head is like a woman PMSing. It's fucking sensitive as hell and enjoy so much pleasure ramming anybody down who cross her path.

Plus, uncircumsized sex has less sensitivity. Oh the many times I've complained, "Dammit, I am lasting too long. I wish this were just over."

Curse my lack of foreskin. :(

Mabuse
03-23-12, 12:24 PM
I've notice a big shift in people’s attitude toward circumcision over the last ten years. I attribute it to a trend where people began referring to female ritual genital mutilation as "female circumcision". Use of the term "female circumcision" and all the hoopla surrounding banning it, ridding the world of it, etc has gestated in people's minds that ALL circumcision is bad.

The truth is that the two things have nothing to do with each other. Female genital mutilation is nothing like male circumcision. FGM is done to completely deprive the female of all sexual pleasure and to even make intercourse impossible. Circumcision on the other hand is done to enhance the appearance of the penis, make the penis look semi-erect at all times, and reduce the sensitivity of the penis to a small degree.

I also think that people equate circumcision with religious practices within the Jewish and Christian faith and as people are moving away from the church they don't see any reason to practice something that has to do with religion. The truth is men have been cutting the foreskin off long before any of today's modern religions existed. We did it when we were primitive tribes. When religious faiths were created they embraced circumcision and made it a part of religious practice because it was all ready such a big part of human life.

All the relatively new justification for circumcision (over the last 3000 years approximately) is a bunch of subterfuge about "cleanliness" or "denial of pleasure" that has been used so long by religions that people still believe it today and spout bullshit about infinitesimal degrees of HPV risk.

It's this simple but no one ever wants to say it: Primitive man cut the foreskin off so the glans would show, just like it does when the penis is hard. Primitive man wanted their dicks to look bigger and more like they were erect all the time. Ready to fuck. And they wanted the sensitivity reduced to a degree so they could fuck harder and longer. It's a fundamental intimidation factor that is built into us. Don't deny 50,000 years of evolution. Cut the foreskin off.

Lastly you need to take current class issues into account. In America there is almost no class distinction made between men regarding circumcised vs. uncircumcised but in many countries only the middle and upper class get circumcisions. If you don’t circumcise your son and he meets a rich Mexican rancher’s daughter in college, she’s going to think he’s a fucking peasant.

TGM
03-23-12, 12:33 PM
Statistically, uncircumcised men are more exposed to infectious diseases such as:


Thrush
Human papilloma virus
Syphilis
HIV
Urinary tract infections
Other inflammatory conditions of the skin
Phimosis, a narrowing of the opening the foreskin that prevents it being retracted and makes sex painful
Higher chance of penile cancer
Meanwhile, their female partners are more prone to:

Genital herpes
Chlamydia
Pelvic inflammatory disease
Infertility
Higher chance of cervix cancer


There is a one-in-three chance of an uncircumcised man developing one or more of these conditions over his lifetime.

Larry C.
03-23-12, 12:35 PM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, unless there is a REAL religious reason not to, PLEASE circumcise the boy. I was circumcised, and I don't remember any pain and/or trauma. But I guarantee that I would have remembered the experience if I needed to have it done for some reason in my teens, 20s, 30s, or beyond.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

If you don't clean well he could have an infection and have to do this later in life and I heard its quite painful.

On a less medical side. Most women hate an uncut weiner.

davidh777
03-23-12, 12:35 PM
We did some research and would not have circumcised if we'd had a boy

Th0r S1mpson
03-23-12, 12:36 PM
I can only think of 2 people who I knew were uncircumcised growing up. One of them hated it so much he had it done when he was 18. Needless to say, that wasn't too pleasant an experience. So there must still be some pretty heavy social pressures about the issue. I'm not sure what else led to his decision.

We had our son circumcised when he was born and I had the displeasure of witnessing it. Man, it was brutal. But fascinating. Much more complex than I'd imagined. I'd say it was neat if it wasn't a penis being sliced by a blade followed by horrific screaming, which by definition cannot be particularly neat.

But... no regrets and he certainly doesn't remember the procedure as well as I do. :D

Mabuse
03-23-12, 12:37 PM
I also came across this that I wrote back in May (the last time we had this discussiton):

I've also been considering a feminist/anti-male reading of all of this as well as a historical perspecitve on a much longer timeline.

With the rise of feminism over the last 40 years and the advent of so called third wave feminism in the last 15 years there's been a trend of increasing provocativeness and flamboyance on behalf of women; it's "empowering to show your body". Over the same period there's been a vilification of the male body with fashion trends, especially among young men, gravitating toward baggy, body-hiding fashion. There's been a softening of men and what is considered manly. The brief "metrosexual" hype has died down, but it is nevertheless more acceptable for men to use beauty products, get body treatments, manicures, etc.

I've noticed a generally increasing attitude among the population (men and women) that men's bodies are gross and that penises are "disgusting". I wonder if this recent trend against circumcision (again over the last 15 years) is being driven by mothers who want their boys to have a "kinder gentler penis".

At this point I guess it should be noted that the whole point of circumcision is to cut away the skin to reveal the glans the way it appears when erect, so that the penis has an appearance of being erect and ready for sex even when it's at rest. All the bullshit about hygiene and preventing boys from touching themselves is just 20th century happenstance. People who want to ban it today are really rebelling against the 20th century excuses that were used to popularize the practice (stopping masturbation and hygiene) and they’re ignoring that historically humans have been doing circumcision for thousands of years and it was always to make their dicks look bigger, more threatening, and ready for action. A movement away from presenting and perceiving the penis this way probably reflect the further feminization of men.

Furthermore, we westerners seem to always be trying to beat the heathen and the primitive out of ourselves. All the surviving primitive tribes of the world still perform circumcision the same way our primitive ancestors did: Bloodletting, purification rituals, the removal of the feminine, the "rite of passage" rituals of manhood. These are the things that gave humans strength; the unity and endurance to get to where we are today. Let's not be pussies and forget all that. Let's not put it away entirely and say, "I'm going to wear a shirt and tie and sit on my couch and watch Tivo and eat a diet of processed food." We're not as different from our ancestors as we pretend to be.

covenant
03-23-12, 12:38 PM
a pic to help your decision:

http://sunskier.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/geoduck5.jpg

Mabuse
03-23-12, 12:47 PM
I also wrote this hysterical comment:
You're putting a kid at a disadvantage by not circumcising. It's just like giving your kid a weird name, it might make him stronger (like A Boy Named Sue) but most likely it will make him the victim of a very judgmental society known as “girls between the ages of 15 and 30”. Take the path of least resistance. It's hard enough to get laid. Sure he might meet a girl that's into uncut dicks, but why take your chances. Don't say stuff like, "My son would have a winning personality and the girl would overlook something as petty as his foreskin." Twenty year old guys don't have winning personalities and it's the petty stuff in particular that turns off judgmental, insecure young women. "I wouldn't want my friends to know I suck off an uncut guy, they'll know he's low class." or "they'll know his family is one of 'those people' who were making headlines back in 2011."
Better just check out the whole thread: http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/590980-circumcision-ban-san-fran-tastic.html

RocShemp
03-23-12, 12:51 PM
Plus, uncircumsized sex has less sensitivity. Oh the many times I've complained, "Dammit, I am lasting too long. I wish this were just over."

Curse my lack of foreskin. :(

Interesting. Years ago I'd been told that those of us who are circumcised are the ones who have less sensitivity. At least that's what my girlfriend at the time told me.

Not that I ever got to test that theory. :sad:

cungar
03-23-12, 12:53 PM
At this point I guess it should be noted that the whole point of circumcision is to cut away the skin to reveal the glans the way it appears when erect, so that the penis has an appearance of being erect and ready for sex even when it's at rest.

Really? Who thinks a flacid, dangling circumcized penis look erect and ready for sex?

SterlingBen
03-23-12, 12:55 PM
This thread needs a pole.

Also yeah, uncircumcised means reduced risks of stds. And aside from that, there is pretty much no one who turns down circumcised while there is (in America at least, quite a few who would turn down uncircumcised).

Do the right thing.

Ky-Fi
03-23-12, 12:58 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sH2Jg5soZig" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mabuse
03-23-12, 01:07 PM
Really? Who think a flacid, dangling circumcized penis look erect and ready for sex?

Uncircumcised penises hide the glans when they are limp. When a circumcised penis is limp the glans is still revealed like it would be when erect. It's not a one for one similarity, but circumcision has been historically done in an attempt to make the penis look bigger and to make the at rest penis resemble an erect penis.

suziq999
03-23-12, 01:13 PM
I prefer uncut men. There. We do exist.

RocShemp
03-23-12, 01:17 PM
I prefer uncut men.

Dammit! :(

suziq999
03-23-12, 01:20 PM
Dammit! :(

My spouse is cut, I love him just the same. :)

SuperJim88
03-23-12, 01:25 PM
This thread needs a pole.


Does it come with strippers? If not, why bother?

kvrdave
03-23-12, 01:25 PM
Interesting. Years ago I'd been told that those of us who are circumcised are the ones who have less sensitivity. At least that's what my girlfriend at the time told me.

Not that I ever got to test that theory. :sad:

Typo on my part. Circumcized men have less sensitivity. And it makes me go all night long...just pleasing my woman when I really just want to get back to sportscenter. :(

TomOpus
03-23-12, 01:26 PM
I prefer uncut men. There. We do exist.

My spouse is cut, I love him just the same. :)So you love him but don't prefer him.

Women are so confusing :hairpull::confused:

;)

RocShemp
03-23-12, 01:27 PM
Typo on my part. Circumcized men have less sensitivity. And it makes me go all night long...just pleasing my woman when I really just want to get back to sportscenter. :(

Can't you do both? Just sit on the couch and let her bounce on your tallywhacker until she tires herself out. Win win.

Does it come with strippers? If not, why bother?

Given the reduced sensitivity, it might not come at all.

mbs
03-23-12, 01:31 PM
If you don't clean well he could have an infection and have to do this later in life and I heard its quite painful.

My plan is to teach him to clean himself properly (whether circumcised or not).

On a less medical side. Most women hate an uncut weiner.

But isn't uncut more rare? He actually might get more tail if women want to try out an uncut one... I don't want to cock block him.

--

I knew this was a hot button issue (which is why I thought posting it would be fun) and there are some crazy theories out there. Myself being a scientist, I don't subscribe to many theories that get the crazies going (I'm very pro vaccine) but I have a hard time seeing any concrete reasons to cause my future child intense pain (and possible infection).

Then again, the most staunch supporter here is a medical doctor (I think TGM is a doctor?), so that does make me think.

orangecrush
03-23-12, 01:37 PM
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

If you don't clean well he could have an infection and have to do this later in life and I heard its quite painful.

On a less medical side. Most women hate an uncut weiner.Less than half of the boys in America being born today are circumcised. The chicks of tomorrow won't care as much as the chicks of today.

Jaymole
03-23-12, 01:41 PM
I'm Jewish, so we celebrate the circumcision in a ceremony called a Briss....friends and family are invited, the food is catered and it is a joyful and happy occasion...except for the baby of course.

Regrettably, my parents thought it was a yearly ceremony up until I was 18 :(

Mabuse
03-23-12, 01:41 PM
But isn't uncut more rare? He actually might get more tail if women want to try out an uncut one... I don't want to cock block himDid you read my post? 99% of Chicks are shallow. Especially during the prime "dating and mating" age. They don't want novelty or uniqueness. They spend most of their life in fear of what the other chicks their age think of them.

You can't shrug it off and say, "I want my son to meet that cool 1% chick who is not petty like that." He won't.

Mabuse
03-23-12, 01:43 PM
I'm Jewish, so we celebrate the circumcision in a ceremony called a Briss....friends and family are invited, the food is catered and it is a joyful and happy occasion...except for the baby of course.

Regrettably, my parents thought it was a yearly ceremony up until I was 18 :(Jaymoil

Pharoh
03-23-12, 01:46 PM
My plan is to teach him to clean himself properly (whether circumcised or not).



But isn't uncut more rare? He actually might get more tail if women want to try out an uncut one... I don't want to cock block him.

--

I knew this was a hot button issue (which is why I thought posting it would be fun) and there are some crazy theories out there. Myself being a scientist, I don't subscribe to many theories that get the crazies going (I'm very pro vaccine) but I have a hard time seeing any concrete reasons to cause my future child intense pain (and possible infection).

Then again, the most staunch supporter here is a medical doctor (I think TGM is a doctor?), so that does make me think.

What future pain?

And don't vaccines cause intense pain? Don't they traumatise some children? Just asking.

TomOpus
03-23-12, 01:47 PM
Another thing to consider is to ensure that your health insurance covers it. Some of stopped covering it on the basis that it is not "medically necessary". If not covered then you could end up paying $700-$1000 to have it done.

Less than half of the boys in America being born today are circumcised. The chicks of tomorrow won't care as much as the chicks of today.Maybe in today's world it's more of a financial decision?

Pharoh
03-23-12, 01:50 PM
Less than half of the boys in America being born today are circumcised. The chicks of tomorrow won't care as much as the chicks of today.

I don't believe this to be true. The only study I've seen reference that does not include any procedures not paid for by insurance companies.

I don't know what the number is.

cungar
03-23-12, 01:56 PM
Less than half of the boys in America being born today are circumcised. The chicks of tomorrow won't care as much as the chicks of today.

From Wikipedia

The CDC reported in 2011 that, following an earlier increase in neonatal circumcision rates, rates decreased in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM).[14]

Pharoh
03-23-12, 01:57 PM
From Wikipedia

The CDC reported in 2011 that, following an earlier increase in neonatal circumcision rates, rates decreased in the period 1999 to 2010. Citing three different data sources, most recent rates were 56.9% in 2008 (NHDS) 56.3% in 2008 (NIS), and 54.7% in 2010 (CDM).[14]

And even these only represent those coded for insurance reasons. The real rate is probably north of 75%.

SterlingBen
03-23-12, 01:58 PM
Did you read my post? 99% of Chicks are shallow. Especially during the prime "dating and mating" age. They don't want novelty or uniqueness. They spend most of their life in fear of what the other chicks their age think of them.

You can't shrug it off and say, "I want my son to meet that cool 1% chick who is not petty like that." He won't.

This.

Actually, on second thought, don't do it. It will give my kids an advantage in the future if you torpedo yours.

mbs
03-23-12, 01:59 PM
What future pain?

Future child (unborn). Pain of circumcision.

And don't vaccines cause intense pain? Don't they traumatise some children? Just asking.

I don't know that having one's foreskin cut and getting a shot are the same level of pain. However, I think there are benefits to vaccines to greatly outweigh any pain.

I'm not saying "if it hurts, don't do it". However, if it hurts and there is no well-established benefit, then why do it? Appearance (vanity, not getting mocked) is one reason (and somewhat compelling to me).

mbs
03-23-12, 02:05 PM
Did you read my post?

I did. But admittedly I stopped when you said it was "hard enough to get laid." Maybe things have changed (I graduated from college 13 years ago) but it was never hard to get laid. Not at all. Hard to find love, yes.

Pharoh
03-23-12, 02:05 PM
Future child (unborn). Pain of circumcision.

Got it. Wasn't sure if there were some future ghost pains I was unaware of.


I don't know that having one's foreskin cut and getting a shot are the same level of pain. However, I think there are benefits to vaccines to greatly outweigh any pain.

I'm not saying "if it hurts, don't do it". However, if it hurts and there is no well-established benefit, then why do it? Appearance (vanity, not getting mocked) is one reason (and somewhat compelling to me).

But there appear to be some benefits, albeit small, and as you note the appearance issue is an issue. I personally feel the pain is worth it, but then my sons are both somewhat spoiled and moody teenagers so perhaps I feel different due to hindsight.
:shrug:
:)

CRM114
03-23-12, 02:12 PM
I never had to consider this question seriously since we had one child and she was a girl. :)

However, I think I'd do it. I certainly wouldn't NOT do it because of the pain the baby may fee for 24 hours. I'm sure the baby feels a lot of stuff in those first few days and pain is just one of them. I'd rather the baby have a bit of short term pain than potentially a lot of embarrassment growing up. And I'm not endorsing the societal pressure to have a circumcision. But it just is.

arminius
03-23-12, 02:13 PM
Silly rituals are silly, unless they are my silly rituals. Then they are vital, vital I tell you.

CRM114
03-23-12, 02:18 PM
I don't know that having one's foreskin cut and getting a shot are the same level of pain.

A baby's penis is probably the size of your pinky so I don't think we're talking a huge amount of skin here.

cpgator
03-23-12, 02:22 PM
A baby's penis is probably the size of your pinky so I don't think we're talking a huge amount of skin here.

:lol: A pinky finger? That baby would be hung!

TomOpus
03-23-12, 02:28 PM
I think the barometer you should use is pr0n. While I'm far from an expert, I can't say I've seen an uncut pr0n guy.

So, there's that.

Larry C.
03-23-12, 02:32 PM
My plan is to teach him to clean himself properly (whether circumcised or not).

--
.


:lol: This must be your first kid....


My ex wife always taught my kid to put the toilet seat back down after he pee'd.

This is how she died:
http://splitsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/1331566827-e1331824443446.jpg


Just cause you teach them doesn't mean they're going to do it.

I was sold when I did some reading up and read that when they are cut they are much less likely to get an STD.

CRM114
03-23-12, 02:38 PM
:lol: A pinky finger? That baby would be hung!

:lol: I was thinking the tip of the pinky but what do I know?

Tracer Bullet
03-23-12, 02:53 PM
Got it. Wasn't sure if there were some future ghost pains I was unaware of.




But there appear to be some benefits, albeit small, and as you note the appearance issue is an issue. I personally feel the pain is worth it, but then my sons are both somewhat spoiled and moody teenagers so perhaps I feel different due to hindsight.
:shrug:
:)

Well the first is your fault, the second is just... being a teenager.

Maxflier
03-23-12, 03:00 PM
I have a hard time seeing any concrete reasons to cause my future child intense pain (and possible infection).



But isn't that exactly what you are doing if you don't cut him? Everyone says uncircumcised = greater chance of STD's.

draven31
03-23-12, 03:12 PM
I think the barometer you should use is pr0n. While I'm far from an expert, I can't say I've seen an uncut pr0n guy.

So, there's that.


I see pr0n pop up on tumblr.. straight might not have too many uncut "stars" but gay pr0n ? I see several uncut there. does uncut lead to gay pr0n?

orangecrush
03-23-12, 03:18 PM
I think the barometer you should use is pr0n. While I'm far from an expert, I can't say I've seen an uncut pr0n guy.

So, there's that.You need to watch more European porn.

mbs
03-23-12, 03:19 PM
I think the barometer you should use is pr0n. While I'm far from an expert, I can't say I've seen an uncut pr0n guy.

So, there's that.

I'll do some research on this tonight. I hope my wife understands. It's all done for our child.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 03:19 PM
Statistically, uncircumcised men are more exposed to infectious diseases such as:


Thrush
Human papilloma virus
Syphilis
HIV
Urinary tract infections
Other inflammatory conditions of the skin
Phimosis, a narrowing of the opening the foreskin that prevents it being retracted and makes sex painful
Higher chance of penile cancer
Meanwhile, their female partners are more prone to:

Genital herpes
Chlamydia
Pelvic inflammatory disease
Infertility
Higher chance of cervix cancer


There is a one-in-three chance of an uncircumcised man developing one or more of these conditions over his lifetime.

Well, yeah. If you have your tonsils out early, you won't every have to worry about getting tonsillitis. Might as well have your appendix out, too. And, that colon. There's a one in ten chance of getting colon cancer over your lifetime, best to have it out.

What's the chance of a circumcised man for developing one or more ot these conditions? Any better?

orangecrush
03-23-12, 03:21 PM
But isn't that exactly what you are doing if you don't cut him? Everyone says uncircumcised = greater chance of STD's.Is it that much greater for people who use condoms correctly? By getting circumcised, you increase the chance of your kid having too much skin cut off or even loosing their penis all together due to complications. That risk is extremely low, but if I just say the risk exists without the actual number it doesn't really mean anything.

mbs
03-23-12, 03:24 PM
I think the barometer you should use is pr0n. While I'm far from an expert, I can't say I've seen an uncut pr0n guy.

So, there's that.

After giving this some thought... this might sound dumb, but is there a difference in appearance of an erect penis? I'm not sure I have seen an image of one (and I'm not google searching for it at work).

Tracer Bullet
03-23-12, 03:28 PM
You need to watch more European porn.

That's good advice for everybody.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 03:34 PM
A little additional data. I once (before marrying Nick) encountered a guy who had no head to his penis. His mother had him circumcised at birth, and an infection developed. He wound up with a penis that ended in a flat stump.

Now THAT was freaky looking. Think about that possibility before making this decision on aesthetic grounds.

kvrdave
03-23-12, 03:52 PM
Less than half of the boys in America being born today are circumcised. The chicks of tomorrow won't care as much as the chicks of today.

I can fuck the chicks of tomorrow yet. They are still underage.

One of the biggest problems I see in not doing it is that if your child decides they prefer to be cut, the procedure would suck when you are old enough to remember. I don't hear dudes complain about getting cut. I hear people talking about how horrible it is, etc. that it is done, but I just don't see many people who are cut upset about it.

kvrdave
03-23-12, 03:55 PM
One the other hand, I once knew a gal on a message board who knew a guy who didn't have the head of his penis due to infection. So it's likely to happen to your kid.

Th0r S1mpson
03-23-12, 04:03 PM
:lol: I was thinking the tip of the pinky but what do I know?

CRM114 has a small pinky! CRM114 has a small pinky!

Rockmjd23
03-23-12, 04:21 PM
If there's no reason to have a foreskin, then it should evolve itself away.

cpgator
03-23-12, 04:24 PM
CRM114 has a small pinky! CRM114 has a small pinky!

I wonder how he carries milk jugs.

Norm de Plume
03-23-12, 04:29 PM
I would lean heavily toward yes, given what the medical community says about the health risks and hygiene issues of uncut penises. A purely cosmetic argument is more difficult to rationalize. I promise you though, no man who was circed as a newborn has the faintest memory of it.
Beware of being taken in by the "anti" militants. There is no one on the "pro" side who is as vociferous as the diehard antis.

Deftones
03-23-12, 04:31 PM
I can fuck the chicks of tomorrow yet.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that was a Freudian slip, right?

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 04:43 PM
http://www.noharmm.org/reversal.htm

http://www.webring.org/hub/4skin

Pharoh
03-23-12, 04:57 PM
Well the first is your fault, the second is just... being a teenager.

The results have been quite good, so I can forgive myself for the first. And because of the second, I don't mind then if they might have suffered a bit.

namrfumot
03-23-12, 05:31 PM
My wife said she wouldn't have slept with me when we met if I wasn't cut....

Spottedfeather
03-23-12, 05:41 PM
I hate when people say they don't want to do it because it's painful. I don't know about them, but I can't remember anything from the day I was born.

Giantrobo
03-23-12, 05:52 PM
One the other hand, I once knew a gal on a message board who knew a guy who didn't have the head of his penis due to infection. So it's likely to happen to your kid.


A buddy of mine's Mother was a Nurse and he told me about a lawsuit that was going on at her Hospital where a Doctor cut off the head of a baby's penis during a circumcision.

Ky-Fi
03-23-12, 06:05 PM
Although I can certainly appreciate the desire to have a penis that doesn't scare women off, I can't imagine going through circumcision as an adult. My penis reduction surgery was bad enough.

Navinabob
03-23-12, 06:09 PM
I went 20 years "with", and then 15 years "without"... I can honestly say it is not much a difference either way. I'm more impacted in my daily life by how long I let my hair grow out.

"Penn & Teller: Bullshit" has a great episode on this topic if you want to track down that episode.

Here is a good article on the debate, pros and cons are listed.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/circumcision-what-does-science-say/

arminius
03-23-12, 06:14 PM
I would lean heavily toward yes, given what the medical community says about the health risks and hygiene issues of uncut penises. A purely cosmetic argument is more difficult to rationalize. I promise you though, no man who was circed as a newborn has the faintest memory of it.
Beware of being taken in by the "anti" militants. There is no one on the "pro" side who is as vociferous as the diehard antis.

More orgs and Drs are on the side of there is no medical reason to do it. Pretty much only the US started doing it due to late 19th century quackery, like it stopping masturbation. The only reason other than religious, which is inane anyway, to do it is because misery loves company. "They cut off bits of my penis now everybody must get cut". Why stop there, remove fingernails, hair, appendix and since most of it is not used much anyway, a chunk of the brain. This way if you get a head trauma there is less brain to get injured.

From wackypedia:

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally.[135] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[135] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[136] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[137] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produceparalysis).[135] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.[135]


Nice article Navinabob.

kgrogers1979
03-23-12, 06:23 PM
I hate when people say they don't want to do it because it's painful. I don't know about them, but I can't remember anything from the day I was born.


Hell, I don't remember anything at all from my first four years of life. Even the fifth and sixth years are very vague memories.

kvrdave
03-23-12, 06:33 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that was a Freudian slip, right?

Yes, let's go with that.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 06:35 PM
Hell, I don't remember anything at all from my first four years of life. Even the fifth and sixth years are very vague memories.

Oooh... you have repressed memories! Something really awful must have happened to you.

Like... surgery without anesthetic.

cungar
03-23-12, 06:37 PM
Would I be right in saying every guy that's commenting on this thread is advocating for the way his dick is?

Mabuse
03-23-12, 06:40 PM
In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbationThis one has always baffeled me. It defies logic. Sure we all look back with 100 years of hindsight and say "what a bunch of quacks" but even without hindsight, right then and there in 1830 people would have quickly disproven this claim. If you had your kid circumcised and then you catch him jacking off 15 years latter it pretty much debunks it and since 100% of 15 year olds jack off you'd think the whole enterprise would have been sunk pretty fast.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 06:43 PM
If it saves just one child...

Mabuse
03-23-12, 06:47 PM
Here is a good article on the debate, pros and cons are listed.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/circumcision-what-does-science-say/Interesting quote in that article: I used to live in Spain, where you could tell girl babies from boy babies just by looking at their ears: all the baby girls had their ears pierced in the delivery room. That was a “mutilating” procedure with no conceivable medical benefit and a small risk of infection, deformity, or ingestion of earring parts. It was nowhere near as controversial as circumcision. I wonder why.I've never heard of ear piercing in the hospital. Mexicans here in CA get their babies ears pierced but I've never heard of it happening in the hosptial. Anyone?

Rockmjd23
03-23-12, 06:48 PM
Would I be right in saying every guy that's commenting on this thread is advocating for the way his dick is?
Not me. I would say no don't do it because it's pointless, and I'm circumcised.

kvrdave
03-23-12, 07:03 PM
If it saves just one child...

That's why we don't legalize marijuana isn't it?

TomOpus
03-23-12, 07:19 PM
You need to watch more European porn.Like I said, I'm not much of an expert. I would imagine most girls see their first penis through online pr0n nowadays. I would imagine most of those they would see would be cut. And with that, there's a level of expectations that real ones would be cut. If she saw an uncut one for the first time she might think something is wrong with it.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 07:32 PM
Most guys see their first boobies in online porn, too. so... should babies have boob jobs?

arminius
03-23-12, 07:44 PM
Like I said, I'm not much of an expert. I would imagine most girls see their first penis through online pr0n nowadays. I would imagine most of those they would see would be cut. And with that, there's a level of expectations that real ones would be cut. If she saw an uncut one for the first time she might think something is wrong with it.

I think this is why it's ok in the US to show people being ripped to pieces in movies but anything to do with sex is just too much to handle.

Mrs. Danger
03-23-12, 08:08 PM
I think this is why it's ok in the US to show people being ripped to pieces in movies but anything to do with sex is just too much to handle.

So that American women will think nothing is wrong with the mutilated penises of American men?

Foreskins are fun!

Osiris3657
03-23-12, 08:12 PM
Apparently I am the only uncut guy here. and yes I am white and born in the US :lol:

mbs, all the guys in here who are telling you to have your son cut are middle age dudes, back when it was more common to get circumcised. I'm 25 and have no issues. No girl I've been with has ever had a problem with it or even mentioned it.
In regards to your "does it look like an uncircumcised penis when it's erect", yes, of course.
I've read that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for a woman during sex as well.

TomOpus
03-23-12, 08:18 PM
I've read that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for a woman during sex as well.That would've been an interesting testing program.

Osiris3657
03-23-12, 08:24 PM
I think I read that in a survey in Maxim, 1000 women interviewed or something :lol:

TomOpus
03-23-12, 08:31 PM
Darn. Was hoping it was like some kind of blind taste-test.

kgrogers1979
03-23-12, 08:55 PM
Apparently I am the only uncut guy here. and yes I am white and born in the US :lol:

mbs, all the guys in here who are telling you to have your son cut are middle age dudes, back when it was more common to get circumcised. I'm 25 and have no issues. No girl I've been with has ever had a problem with it or even mentioned it.
In regards to your "does it look like an uncircumcised penis when it's erect", yes, of course.
I've read that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for a woman during sex as well.

You can't trick us. You are still a virgin, and its all because of your uncircumcised penis. Every time a girl sees you naked she sees that foreskin and runs away screaming in terror, "Good god what is that thing?!"

Tracer Bullet
03-23-12, 09:54 PM
Would I be right in saying every guy that's commenting on this thread is advocating for the way his dick is?

Nope.

NORML54601
03-23-12, 10:28 PM
I've read that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for a woman during sex as well.

Who cares?


I'm 31, cut, and would vote don't do it.

Deftones
03-23-12, 11:07 PM
No girl I've been with has ever had a problem with it or even mentioned it. That's like telling a girl she has a smelly vag. You just don't do it out of common courtesy.

Giantrobo
03-23-12, 11:30 PM
That's like telling a girl she has a smelly vag. You just don't do it out of common courtesy.


Yep. She doesn't hear about it until AFTER he has told all his buddies

SterlingBen
03-24-12, 12:15 AM
After giving this some thought... this might sound dumb, but is there a difference in appearance of an erect penis? I'm not sure I have seen an image of one (and I'm not google searching for it at work).

According to mel brooks it looks bigger after the snip. I have no desire to google before and after pics but some probably exist.

SterlingBen
03-24-12, 12:17 AM
mbs, all the guys in here who are telling you to have your son cut are middle age dudes, back when it was more common to get circumcised. I'm 25 and have no issues.

I am 27

GMan2819
03-24-12, 12:19 AM
Apparently I am the only uncut guy here. and yes I am white and born in the US :lol:
.
.
.
I've read that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for a woman during sex as well.

You're uncut and you read that from somewhere? So none of your girls ever told you that, huh? Kinda speaks volumes if you ask me...

Osiris3657
03-24-12, 12:33 AM
Who the hell would ask "so do you prefer my uncut dick to the circumcised dicks you've fucked?" :lol:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't talk about the sex and analyze it afterwards with a girl.

Hugh7
03-24-12, 12:35 AM
The "medical benefits" of circumcision are like the benefit of wearing garlic to keep away vampires. It works, but so would not doing it. (TallGuyMe's "one-in-three" figure is lifted from the rantings of an Australian circumcision fanatic who has never seen a reasons for cutting a boy's genitals he didn't like, and spins his statistics shamelessly, taking the upper outlier of every wild estimate.)

The medical claims are exaggerated when they are not actually bogus - slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other (non-surgical) means or treated when they arise. The latest, prostate cancer for example would take scores of circumcisions to prevent one case - which is usually treated by watchful waiting, because it is diagnosed in men so old they die with it more often than of it: the life expectancy of men who die of prostate cancer is greater than that of those who don't! And that's assuming the study is correct, when it was only marginally statistically signficant. They had to massage the statistics to make it seem protective at all.

Circumcision is not without risk:
aesthetic damage
- skin-bridges
- skin-tags
- scarring
- unevenness
- excessive skin removed
phimosis
hairy shaft
haemorrhage
meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urinary opening, very common)
meatal ulcer
de-gloving
urethrocutaneous fistula
infection
- MRSA
- hepatitis
- tetanus
- bladder infections
– septic arthritis
neuroma
blockage of the urethra
buried penis
penoscrotal webbing
deformity
necrotising fasciitis (galloping gangrene - very rare)
priapism
gastric rupture
oxygen deprivation
clamp injuries/plastibell ring injuries
loss of glans
ablation (removal) of the penis
death – from
- haemorrhage
- infection
- anaesthesia

Though most of those are rare, at 1.2 million circumcisions in the USA a year, one every 26 seconds, that's still a substantial number. A Richmond VA pediatrician reports having to surgically revise 1600 circumcisions by other doctors in three years, suggesting a 13% complication rate,

The scandal is that we don't even have a good figure for the number of circumcision deaths.

@Mabuse: You really think all those are reasons FOR cutting off (the best) part of a man's penis? The fact is that people cut male and female genitals (differently of course) for much the same wild variety of bad reasons. (I can't post links so goggle "circumcstitions")

Sex? If a uniquely mobile, highly innervated part was not put just where it is without it having the function of enhancing sex, what was God/evolution thinking? And it's not just "more sensitive" it's better sensitive. Getting circumcised in adulthood has been compared to going colourblind, or having your accelerator pedal cut out and just an on-off switch left behind. You can still get there (and circumcised men seem to think that "getting there" is all-important) but you don't enjoy the journey so much. If women don't like it, well a foreskin is a good airhead replellent.

As for being teased, now that the circumcision rate is about 50:50, he's sure to be differnt from some of his peers, so which would you rather have to tell him - "They're different because their parents all had part cut off of theirs, but we didn't"? Or "You're different because we had part of yours cut off so that you wouldn't be different - but theirs didn't, so you are."?

Osiris3657
03-24-12, 12:39 AM
I am 27

Ok.

Osiris3657
03-24-12, 12:46 AM
Hell of a first post, well done

NORML54601
03-24-12, 01:06 AM
Damn new guy, nice post. And here's a warning about skin bridges, it not a pic, just a long read.

I once chopped pieces of foreskin off my penis with
a pair of cuticle scissors.


Now that I've got your attention, I'll go back and
tell the whole story. Apologies if it gets a little lengthy,
but this yarn deserves to be spun well.


BACKGROUND


After I was circumcised as an infant, the wound was
not taken care of with sufficient diligence, and it healed
incorrectly. Portions of the raw edge of the remaining
foreskin bonded to the glans, a little bit above the lower
edge of the glans. This left a series of "skin bridges",
basically sections of foreskin which can't be retracted,
because they are fused to the glans at one end and the shaft
at the other. These varied in width from about 1/16" to
1/4", and were attached off and on over about 2/3 of the
circumference.


This was never a major problem. It was a long
time before I even realized it was abnormal. Everything
functioned properly, but there were a few minor problems
with it which made me wish I could fix it. Mainly,


1. It was a cosmetic defect -- it didn't look good.


2. It was tough to keep clean under the bridges -- I had to
swab it with a Q-tip now and then to knock down smegma
buildup.


3. Some of the most sensitive parts of the glans were
hidden under relatively insensitive chunks of foreskin,
robbing me of the proper stimulation which was mine and
every man's birthright.


Over the past few years, I'd been thinking of getting
it corrected, but there were problems. Doctors cost
money, and I didn't have it, and student insurance sure
wasn't gonna cover it. Plus, the thought of some strange
doctor chopping at my peepeehead gives me chills.


Now, all a doctor would do it sterilize it, numb it,
cut it and bandage it. "Hell, maybe I can do that!", I
thought. The problem was how to kill the pain. I
experimented with cutting myself (with an x-acto knife),
but seeing as it always hurt like hell before I even cut
anything, I never went through with it.


Recently, I came back and studied the situation.
Again, the problem with the self-surgery approach was
dealing with pain. There had to be some way of numbing
the area, but how? One winter day, it hit me. If cold can
make fingers go numb, then cold can also make a
ManTool[tm] go numb. With this in mind, I pioneered a
the "home penile self-surgery procedure".


SURGERY KIT


Cuticle scissors (1 pair)
Rubbing alcohol (1 bottle)
Antibiotic ointment (1 tube)
Anti-bacterial soap (1 bottle)
Gauze pads (lots, various sizes)
Ice cubes (iodine added to water for sterility)
Clean Washcloth (freshly laundered with lots'o bleach)
Well-lit work area (the kitchen table)


PROCEDURE


Wipe down work area with alcohol. Clean penis with soap
and water, then with alcohol. Wash hands thoroughly.
Soak scissors in alcohol.


Holding the ice cube with the washcloth (to prevent your
fingers from going numb), apply the ice cube to the target
area. Hold for 5 to 10 minutes, until area is numb.


Using the cuticle scissors, sever the skin bridge as closely
as possible to its connection with the glans. Then sever the
foreskin end of the bridge in such a location as to leave an even
edge on the foreskin.


Use gauze pads and direct pressure to stop the bleeding, then
apply antibiotic ointment and bandage.


THE OPERATIONS


Though the operations are not painful if done
correctly, the healing process is a real pain in the ass. It
also takes a certain state of mind to be able to cut your
own flesh. I would kind of put myself into robo-man
zombie mode for the operations, in that I never dwelled on
what I was doing, I just mechanically plodded through all
the steps without thinking about how totally gross it was.


Since the ice cube could only numb a small portion
of the penis, and since I could only tolerate so much
trauma to my dick in one session, it took 6 separate
operations, spread out over a two week period, to
cut/remove all of the skin bridges.


Operation #1 (Day 1)
The test cut. I chose a small thin skin bridge, about
1/16" across. I held the ice cube on for 5 minutes. The
ice caused a peculiar kind of "cold ache", but it wasn't that
bad. I gingerly made the cuts, and sliced through with no
pain at all. There was some minor bleeding, but because
of the speed at which I worked, I had finished and had the
gauze on it before the wound had any chance to bleed
significantly. After about 10 minutes the bleeding was
stopped and I bandaged it up, no problem at all. Only a
tiny little speck of flesh had been removed, rather
unimpressive looking.


Operation #2 (Day 3)
Operation #1 turned out so well, I decided to go for
big game this time. The target was the mother of all skin
bridges, about 1/4" across and very thick and meaty.
Again, I made the preparations and applied ice for 5
minutes.


I made the first cut along the glans, and was
surprised at how much I had to bear down on the scissors.
This skin was surprisingly tough. I finished that cut, and
then turned my attention to the cut on the foreskin side.
Wanting to get it done quickly, I decided that two large,
powerful snips should do the job. I bore down and made
the first cut, and realized with a shock that IT HURT LIKE
HELL.


Well, it turns out that due to the thickness of the
skin bridge on that end, the cold hadn't penetrated deeply
enough, and it hadn't gone numb. So, I was left with a
problem. I had a half severed bit of foreskin hanging off
me, and no anesthetic. My only recourse was to finish the
cut. I thought, "Shit. This will hurt.". So I lined up the
scissors, closed my eyes, and as quickly and powerfully as
I could, I made the snip. My prediction was correct; it did
hurt (don't you hate when you're right about things like
that?). I managed to avoid shouting out, instead opting for
a few simple gasps and whimpers.


I resolved to hold the ice on for much longer in
future operations.


Being that this was a bigger cut than the first, it
bled much more profusely. It took about 20 minutes of
direct pressure and a lot of gauze until I could staunch the
main flow. Even then it kept oozing blood for a few
hours. I spent the rest of the evening with nothing on
below the waist, sitting in front of the TV with a few
brews (this became standard procedure for all forthcoming
operations). Any motion tended to make it break open and
bleed again, so I moved around very little. I was
functioning (that is, walking) almost normally again by the
next day, but it took about 5 days before this one
completely stopped oozing blood.


As I gingerly hobbled back into the kitchen for
another brew, I spotted IT, the severed hunk-o-foreskin that
I had left on the table. It was of fairly good size, about
1/2" by 1/4" and maybe as thick as a piece of bacon.
Suddenly, strange thoughts entered my skull, and a raging
mental battle between good and evil ensued.


EVIL: "Eat the foreskin."
GOOD: "Don't do it!! That's gross!!"
EVIL: "Eat the foreskin."
GOOD: "Stop thinking about it!!"
EVIL: "You know what you must do. Eat it. It is your
destiny."
GOOD: "But that's cannibalism!"
EVIL: "So what?"
GOOD: "Cannibalism is shunned for a reason! It spreads
diseases!"
EVIL: "Look dipshit. It's your own fucking flesh. Any
diseases in there, you already got."
GOOD: "But it's SELF-cannibalism!"
EVIL: "So is chewing on the piece of skin you bit off your
fingertip. BFD."
GOOD: "But this is weird, deranged and perverted!"
EVIL: "Exactly"
GOOD: (Hauls its sorry whupped ass away and shuts up)


So, I ate it. Turns out it was very tough and
chewy, kind of like biting a little piece of rubber. I
chewed for about 5 minutes, but didn't make any progress
on breaking it down, so I swallowed it. It had a little bit
of blood flavor at first, but after that it had no flavor at all;
rather disappointing in that respect. Maybe I should have
cooked it.


Operation #3 (Day 10)
A medium sized cut. I held the ice cube on much
longer (10 minutes instead of 5), so there was no problem
with pain. Not nearly as much bleeding, but still a
respectable amount.


A word about erections: they were a bad thing.
Any hard-on would tear the wounds open and start them
bleeding again. This would be a problem for about 3 or 4
days until the wounds had healed sufficiently. Basically,
I had to spend a long, long time without even thinking a
nasty thought. Of course, when I was asleep I had no
control over the process, which would always result in me
waking up with a dick that hurt and bloody bandages. I
was really lovin' life at moments like these.


Operation #4 (Day 12)
Another medium sized cut, but with the added
bonus of having a small vein (about 1 mm in diameter)
running through the skin bridge. Now, the blood supply
for the penis mainly runs through blood vessels buried deep
inside. When you get down the the small vessels, the
circulatory system becomes more of a spiderweb, with
redundant paths going to every point. So I knew it wasn't
actually dangerous to cut it, but it was still a kind of
psychological obstacle. I expected this one to be a heavy
bleeder, and I wasn't disappointed. It took about a full
hour of direct pressure to get the severed ends of the vein
to close up. Otherwise, not too much of a problem.


Operation #5 (Day 14)
I was planning on more time to let the others heal,
but due to changes in the way skin tension was being
applied to the remaining bridges (because I'd cut some
others away), one small bridge was getting a lot of stress
and starting to hurt. So I chopped it quick and easy, no
real problems.


Operation #6 (Day 15)
The problem with operation #5 was that it just
transferred the stress to the next bridge down the line. So
even though I had about 3/4" of flesh left to cut, I resolved
to do it all at once in one last cutting frenzy.


Due to the size of the operation, it took a while to
complete (maybe 1 minute total), which gave the blood a
chance to flow. I had to stop a few times and wipe away
blood so I could see what I was doing. Strangely, this
didn't bother me at all. It seemed perfectly normal that I
should be wiping up copious amounts of blood flowing
from my bleeding pecker which I had sliced open myself.
Actually, it seemed kind of cool at the time, which led me
to speculate at the time that I had gone insane, which I also
thought was pretty cool.


Anyway, except for the excess blood which had
dripped on to the chair, it went quite well. The only thing
that really grossed me out was when I noticed I had blood
all over my hands. If any psychoanalysts want to analyze
that tidbit for me, feel free, though I really don't care.


The wounds are now completely healed, and the
results are good. Mainly:


1. There are no scars to speak of, just a few bumps on the
glans. This is because I didn't trim the flesh quite close
enough in a few spots. They kind of resembling little
warts. I thought about going back and trimming them off,
but I kind of like 'em now. After all, it's not everyone
who has the privilege of appearing to have warts, with
actually being diseased.


2. Without the skin tension holding things back, total dick
length has increased by 1/4". (Of course I've measured the
length of my dick. Like you haven't?)


3. It's a great topic for dinnertime conversation. Women
generally seem to find it quite interesting. Men generally
turn kind of pale.


With my newfound surgical skills, I've been
contemplating a few more self-surgical procedures. You
know, mole removal, wart removal, nose jobs, the whole
vista of cosmetic surgery. I'll need some help for that
mole on my back, which means training an assistant. Ah,
the future looks interesting indeed ...

Norm de Plume
03-24-12, 01:38 AM
It's one of the anti-circumcision zealots of which I wrote. They can smell a circ discussion from a mile away and never hesitate to expound on the evils of the practice. Who signs up at a DVD forum to respond to an unrelated topic?

Giantrobo
03-24-12, 01:49 AM
Who the hell would ask "so do you prefer my uncut dick to the circumcised dicks you've fucked?" :lol:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't talk about the sex and analyze it afterwards with a girl.

You should ask. ;)

It's a personal thing obviously. I've talked to a few of my female friends about uncut men over the years and it seems like a, "I'll put up with it but I prefer it cut", type situation. They all said giving uncut men oral was not something they liked doing. But then again, I've got a Gay friend who LOVES uncut penis*.

Urban Dictionary: "Docking" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=docking)

WCChiCubsFan
03-24-12, 01:57 AM
Like I said, I'm not much of an expert. I would imagine most girls see their first penis through online pr0n nowadays. I would imagine most of those they would see would be cut. And with that, there's a level of expectations that real ones would be cut. If she saw an uncut one for the first time she might think something is wrong with it.

This post gave me a good laugh.

Level of expctations? Cut/Uncut is not the issue.

When she sees her first real life penis she is going to think there is something wrong with it because it's so small compared to the one she saw on the internet.

:lol:

MasterofDVD
03-24-12, 02:22 AM
We had no problem making the choice to take a little off the top but I gotta say the period of time they took him away from the hospital room to do it felt like fucking eternity. I regretted my choice for a bit just because it seemed like they shouldn't of been gone that long. Once he was back I was able to relax and know that we did the right thing. I don't believe in doing the trimming for religious reasons but I do think it shouldn't take forever to wash your dick in the shower and I know that a girl down the road might hesitate for a moment when she sees it. I don't want to be the one to cock block my boy.

Hugh7
03-24-12, 03:34 AM
I do think it shouldn't take forever to wash your dick in the showerForever? Five seconds, tops - and it's fun. I know that a girl down the road might hesitate for a moment when she sees it.If she's reached the point of seeing it, it's most unlikely that it will be a deal-breaker. And if it is, her loss.

LosingMyMind
03-24-12, 04:45 AM
I am circumcised and all of the women I have been with always go on and on about how huge my dick is. I have to idea if this is related to being circumcised.

GMan2819
03-24-12, 06:41 AM
Who the hell would ask "so do you prefer my uncut dick to the circumcised dicks you've fucked?" :lol:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't talk about the sex and analyze it afterwards with a girl.
You gotta point there. Don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answer to. :lol:

Gunde
03-24-12, 07:13 AM
I would lean heavily toward yes, given what the medical community says about the health risks and hygiene issues of uncut penises.
This is a silly argument. The VAST majority of men in the world are uncut. Do you think they are all walking STD's with bad hygiene?

In regards to your "does it look like an uncircumcised penis when it's erect", yes, of course.
That's not a given. Some men's foreskin don't retract even when erect. That's not necessarily a problem though.

LosingMyMind
03-24-12, 07:28 AM
This is a silly argument. The VAST majority of men in the world are uncut. Do you think they are all walking STD's with bad hygiene?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35407224/ns/health-aids/t/circumcision-ring-cuts-aids-risk-africa/
The most powerful force against AIDS in Africa may be circumcision, a procedure that's easily done in the developed world. But it's a challenge on a continent where there are too few medical workers and a reluctance by men for cultural reasons and fear of pain.

Now there may be a new weapon in the arsenal — a ring-shaped device that is mostly painless and requires less time for health workers.

The Chinese-developed device, the ShangRing, has been tested in a small study in Kenya and a larger test is set for later this year. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will invest about $4 million into studying the device.

The drawback is that men must wear the ShangRing for 10 days, but at least one man who tried it found it surprisingly painless.

Christopher, a Kenyan farmer who asked that only his first name be used, decided to get the ring after hearing how painful traditional circumcision was.

"I thought it would be the best way to protect against diseases (like) AIDS," he said, adding there was little pain when the ring was put on. He said more Kenyan men should be able to try the ring, and didn't find it difficult to wear the ring for so long.

Scientists think circumcision reduces the chances of HIV infection because the foreskin is particularly susceptible to HIV.

The ShangRing consists of two plastic rings, one slightly smaller than the other, that trap the foreskin in between them. With the use of some anesthesia, the foreskin can then be snipped off without major bleeding or stitches. The device is kept on for 10 days to allow the wound to heal.

According to Chinese data, the complication rate in thousands of men who have had the ShangRing is less than 5 percent. In traditional circumcisions in Africa, it can be as high as 15 percent. A surgical circumcision takes about 20 minutes; one with the ShangRing can be done in about five.

"The ShangRing could have a huge impact on reducing HIV transmission," said Marc Goldstein, a professor of reproductive medicine and urology at New York Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical Center. Goldstein, who does not have any financial ties to the ring, and colleagues conducted the Kenya testing.

In the 40 men tested in Kenya, 90 percent said they were satisfied with the procedure.

Don't miss these Health stories
Image:
Lionsgate
'Hunger Games' workout: Should you train like a tribute?

They use archery, swiftness and brute strength to compete against each other but, luckily, the participants in these games -- which take place at a gym in New York -- will still be alive at the end of the day.
Whitney's death: How cocaine hardens arteries
Why Carnie Wilson got weight-loss surgery again
Bottled water may boost kids' tooth decay
Experts: Don't treat sinus infections with antibiotics

In recent years, health officials have been scrambling to figure out how to circumcise about 50 million men across Africa — where 70 percent of the world's HIV-infected population lives. "Circumcision is unlike a vaccine," said Dr. Renee Ridzon, an AIDS expert at the Gates Foundation. "It has certain challenges."

Countries with high HIV rates, including Botswana, Kenya, Rwanda, Namibia and Zambia, have all added circumcision to their prevention campaigns.

While circumcision tools have long been used for babies, few have been developed for adults. The Gates Foundation had biomedical engineers examine the available handful of adult circumcision devices, including a clamp Ridzon described as "cage-like."

In some parts of Africa, cultural issues are a sticking point. Some tribes in South Africa perform circumcision as a rite of passage, but others do not consider circumcised men to be "complete."

Experts are also concerned men who get circumcised will mistakenly think they are immune to HIV. That was the case for Samson Agalo, a bicycle taxi operator from Kisumu, Kenya, who recently had a circumcision — and has been having sex with multiple partners ever since. "After going for the cut, you don't need condoms," he said.

Kim Dickson, an AIDS expert at the World Health Organization, said mass circumcision could prevent about 4 million adult HIV infections between 2009 and 2025.

"Circumcision will likely avert far more deaths per dollar spent than other things we're spending HIV money on," said Philip Stevens, of the London-based think tank International Policy Network. "The main problem I can foresee with this is actually persuading men to sign up for it."

Rockmjd23
03-24-12, 08:36 AM
Well, he can tell his son to not have sex with the locals in Africa. That's a pretty good rule for all of us to follow.

Mrs. Danger
03-24-12, 10:32 AM
I suspect "washing up after" would have the same effect on disease rates as circumcision.

orangecrush
03-24-12, 10:59 AM
Would I be right in saying every guy that's commenting on this thread is advocating for the way his dick is?No.

orangecrush
03-24-12, 11:30 AM
We had no problem making the choice to take a little off the top but I gotta say the period of time they took him away from the hospital room to do it felt like fucking eternity. I regretted my choice for a bit just because it seemed like they shouldn't of been gone that long. Once he was back I was able to relax and know that we did the right thing. I don't believe in doing the trimming for religious reasons but I do think it shouldn't take forever to wash your dick in the shower and I know that a girl down the road might hesitate for a moment when she sees it. I don't want to be the one to cock block my boy.I watched our son get circumcised and it was mildly uncomfortable to watch. Defiantly harder than watching him get shots, but I don't think it was necessarily more painful to him than a shot. It just felt a lot worse to me.

I am circumcised and all of the women I have been with always go on and on about how huge my dick is. I have to idea if this is related to being circumcised.:lol:

mbs
03-24-12, 01:32 PM
I think this is the most successful (by number of posts) for any thread I started. I am a bit teary eyed. I think my next topic should be either: global warming, abortion, or vaccines.

I'm still waiting for mhg83's opinion (so I can choose the opposite)...

Navinabob
03-24-12, 02:08 PM
Sex? If a uniquely mobile, highly innervated part was not put just where it is without it having the function of enhancing sex, what was God/evolution thinking? And it's not just "more sensitive" it's better sensitive. Getting circumcised in adulthood has been compared to going colourblind, or having your accelerator pedal cut out and just an on-off switch left behind. You can still get there (and circumcised men seem to think that "getting there" is all-important) but you don't enjoy the journey so much. If women don't like it, well a foreskin is a good airhead replellent.

Like I mentioned before, I had sex for years both before and after getting cut. One is not more sensitive then the other, just different feeling.

Spoiled for being a bit graphic:

The biggest difference is with oral; while you don't get the sensitive skin tip stimulated anymore, the underside of the head becomes much more sensitive. So while the "teasing" licks no longer have the same punch as they did before, the mouth moving from head to shaft before much better.

I never had complaints about appearance before, but I think it is just because most women don't find it a big deal. I think a woman agonizes way more of deciding what to do for her kid rather then caring what type of equipment her future sexual partner has. I think the current rate in hospitals (those happening as religious ceremonies are not tracked) are about 55-60%, but researchers say that it partially due to the lack of insurance coverage rather then a lot of other sweeping movement reasons the anti-circumcision groups want you to believe.

In the 1980s, women like circumcised partners for sexual acts at around 75-80% (about 20% didn't care). I don't know of a better study being conducted since then, typically the newer studies are being conducted by interest groups so their results are suspect. But I imagine they are lower today since people are a bit more liberal about such things now, and because rates have come down in the US, less foreskin shock. The more future partners get exposed to both alternatives, the less it will matter to them....

So remember, dating a whore makes the foreskin date ultimately irrelevant.

Pharoh
03-24-12, 04:05 PM
Like I mentioned before, I had sex for years both before and after getting cut. One is not more sensitive then the other, just different feeling.

Spoiled for being a bit graphic:

The biggest difference is with oral; while you don't get the sensitive skin tip stimulated anymore, the underside of the head becomes much more sensitive. So while the "teasing" licks no longer have the same punch as they did before, the mouth moving from head to shaft before much better.

I never had complaints about appearance before, but I think it is just because most women don't find it a big deal. I think a woman agonizes way more of deciding what to do for her kid rather then caring what type of equipment her future sexual partner has. I think the current rate in hospitals (those happening as religious ceremonies are not tracked) are about 55-60%, but researchers say that it partially due to the lack of insurance coverage rather then a lot of other sweeping movement reasons the anti-circumcision groups want you to believe.

In the 1980s, women like circumcised partners for sexual acts at around 75-80% (about 20% didn't care). I don't know of a better study being conducted since then, typically the newer studies are being conducted by interest groups so their results are suspect. But I imagine they are lower today since people are a bit more liberal about such things now, and because rates have come down in the US, less foreskin shock. The more future partners get exposed to both alternatives, the less it will matter to them....

So remember, dating a whore makes the foreskin date ultimately irrelevant.


Just want to point out again, that the stats also don't include circumcisions not paid for by insurance, or not coded by insurance companies. The rates are certainly higher than 60%.

Also, there seems to be more evidence supporting the idea of circumcision as a preventative health measure.

Just one such study: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/164/1/78.pdf



Adding: I couldn't find any extremely recent studies, but it appeared in the year 2000 that circumcision rates were increasing in the US.

kgrogers1979
03-24-12, 04:54 PM
So remember, dating a whore makes the foreskin date ultimately irrelevant.

So does drunken sex, which is what probably 90% of college sexual encounters are anyway. Its not like a drunk chick is mentally alert enough to notice a foreskin or not.

Hugh7
03-24-12, 06:06 PM
while you don't get the sensitive skin tip stimulated anymore, the underside of the head becomes much more sensitive. So while the "teasing" licks no longer have the same punch as they did before, the mouth moving from head to shaft before much better. Interesting. It's not that the underside of the head becomes more sensitive, but that all the sensitivity that used to be distributed around the ridged band of nerves running around the inside of the foreskin becomes concentrated in the frenulum, the (remnant of the) membrane linking the foreskin to the underside of the glans. The part of the brain that was connected to the ridged band, now lacking any stimulus from there, rewires itself to connect to parts associated nearby, in your case the underside. But your mileage may differ. There is no rule about how it turns out. And when its done in infancy, before the person has mobilised the erotic potential of that region, the outcome may be different again.

Hugh7
03-24-12, 06:30 PM
Also, there seems to be more evidence supporting the idea of circumcision as a preventative health measure.

Just one such study: {URL}

Yes, most of the circumcision studies have been driven by a small coterie of interconnected researchers (notably Robert Bailey, Stefan Bailis, Ronald Gray, Daniel Halperin, Godfrey Kigozi, Jeffrey Klausner, Brian Morris, Stephen Moses, Malcolm Potts, Thomas Quinn, Edgar Schoen, Maria Wawer, Helen Weiss), some of whom have clearly expressed more interest in circumcision than in HIV/AIDS prevention. The one you cite includes Gray and Quinn. Tobian should probably go on the list too.

In the developed world outside the US, we just roll our eyes at this fascination with neonatal male genital cutting. The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) says:

"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene. Partly in the light of the complications which can arise during or after circumcision, circumcision is not justifiable except on medical/therapeutic grounds. Insofar as there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives."

brilk
03-25-12, 07:45 AM
Dude, if you really want to chop off part of a penis, take a knife to your own. For anyone else you should sure as hell get his consent first. I have no idea how this garbage is even legal. It's sick.

/just kidding, I know how. eat a bag of dicks, religion. uncut dicks

Josh-da-man
03-25-12, 08:06 AM
If I had a son, I'd never get him circumcised.

But all of my cats are declawed.

Mrs. Danger
03-25-12, 09:45 AM
Oh yeah.... "so he won't get teased" is a poor way to start his life.

Are you going to follow every trend so he won't get teased? The "right" clothes, gadgets and car?

arminius
03-25-12, 02:03 PM
Oh yeah.... "so he won't get teased" is a poor way to start his life.

Are you going to follow every trend so he won't get teased? The "right" clothes, gadgets and car?

It almost seems like you are teasing him. How can he be teased? He has no foreskin, by God.

CRM114
03-26-12, 10:01 AM
I hate when people say they don't want to do it because it's painful. I don't know about them, but I can't remember anything from the day I was born.

Overprotective. THese are the people that will allow their child to sleep in their bed until they are twelve too.

RunBandoRun
03-26-12, 10:07 AM
Overprotective. THese are the people that will allow their child to sleep in their bed until they are twelve too.

... which will be about three years after they wean the kid off the boob. :lol:

CRM114
03-26-12, 10:08 AM
I don't want to be the one to cock block my boy.

/thread :lol:

Kittydreamer
03-26-12, 11:14 AM
I left my boys in tact. :up: There is no reason at all to chop off a newborn baby's penis. Please, don't do it. Think about your own junk....would you want it cut?

TGM
03-26-12, 11:35 AM
I left my boys in tact. :up: There is no reason at all to chop off a newborn baby's penis. Please, don't do it. Think about your own junk....would you want it cut?

idiotic argument. you WOULDN'T want it cut as an adult, but you have absolutely NO memory of it happening if done as a newborn.

Mrs. Danger
03-26-12, 11:40 AM
I still imagine a big subconscious lesson being learned. "welcome to the world! Here's what it's going to be like! *whack*"

TGM
03-26-12, 11:43 AM
I still imagine a big subconscious lesson being learned. "welcome to the world! Here's what it's going to be like! *whack*"

It happened to me, and I have no recollection, subconscious or otherwise.

It's quite simple: there's more of a potential risk of unpleasant things from being uncircumcised than there is of having it performed at birth. Some feel the risk is more significant than others, but it exists nonetheless.

Josh-da-man
03-26-12, 01:11 PM
I wonder how circumcision got started in the first place.

Was someone just sitting around one day and thought it might be cool to slice off part of his dick?

whotony
03-26-12, 01:25 PM
I was finding the discussion most interesting until someone had to add to it with the accidental cutting off of the penis tip. Had to stop there.

wishbone
03-26-12, 01:33 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/opxs0m.jpg

"You've got to nip it. Nip it in the bud. NIP IT!"

RunBandoRun
03-26-12, 02:18 PM
http://i42.tinypic.com/opxs0m.jpg

"You've got to nip it. Nip it in the bud. NIP IT!"

Many pediatricians are no longer in favor of bud-nipping. :D

brilk
03-26-12, 02:44 PM
It happened to me, and I have no recollection, subconscious or otherwise.

It's quite simple: there's more of a potential risk of unpleasant things from being uncircumcised than there is of having it performed at birth. Some feel the risk is more significant than others, but it exists nonetheless.

None of that is relevant, regardless of whether it's even true in the first place. How many other types of brutality like this can you legally perform on an unconsenting person? I'm always shocked and disgusted when I find people who don't view circumcision as the horrific child abuse that it so obviously is. For anyone who doesn't consider circumcision a big deal, what the fuck do you consider a big deal if hacking off part of a baby's dick doesn't make the cut?

As for not remembering what happens when you're a baby, it's ridiculous and irrelevant to the discussion. Babies don't remember being molested, either. Nobody outside of NAMBLA would argue that molesting babies should be legal, regardless of whether or not they remember it.

Mrs. Danger
03-26-12, 02:45 PM
It happened to me, and I have no recollection, subconscious or otherwise.

It's quite simple: there's more of a potential risk of unpleasant things from being uncircumcised than there is of having it performed at birth. Some feel the risk is more significant than others, but it exists nonetheless.

You certainly ACT like someone who had his dick assaulted at birth.

logrus9
03-26-12, 02:54 PM
If a boy was born with a big flap of skin hanging off of his nose would you leave it so he wouldn't suffer the pain of removal? It's only a cosmetic operation.

brilk
03-26-12, 02:58 PM
If a boy was born with a big flap of skin hanging off of his nose would you leave it so he wouldn't suffer the pain of removal? It's only a cosmetic operation.

Is it just me or is this absolutely nothing like mutilating a child's penis because your favorite book told you to?

Rockmjd23
03-26-12, 02:59 PM
If a boy was born with a big flap of skin hanging off of his nose would you leave it so he wouldn't suffer the pain of removal?
If every boy was born with that flap of skin, then I'd assume there was some point to it being there.

cpgator
03-26-12, 03:01 PM
Is it just me or is this absolutely nothing like mutilating a child's penis because your favorite book told you to?

:lol:

kgrogers1979
03-26-12, 03:41 PM
If every boy was born with that flap of skin, then I'd assume there was some point to it being there.

Everyone is born with an appendix, and it serves no purpose.

madcougar
03-26-12, 03:57 PM
I've had sex with more than 30 women in my life. The vast majority didn't even notice I'm not circumcised. The few who did were intrigued by it... in a very good way.

I had a neighbor (single mother) who was downright ugly about the topic with me before she gave birth (she had no idea what my situation was) when I mearly suggested she look into NOT doing it to make an informed decision. She also suggested (like some on this thread) that a penis looks deformed when you're not cut. I asked her if she'd ever been with a guy who was uncut. She hadn't. To make a long story short (too late) the doctor accidently cut a piece of her baby's penis off when he was circumcising him. It happens. 10 years later I still think about that poor kid.

The best advice I've ever heard is the kid should match his dad. Makes sense to me.

TomOpus
03-26-12, 04:00 PM
I've had sex with more than 30 women in my life. The vast majority didn't even notice I'm not circumcised. The few who did were intrigued by it... in a very good way.And I've never heard of a woman looking at a circumcised penis and exclaiming it's "mutilated".

So that just means women are whores and love a penis no matter if it's cut or not :D

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 04:04 PM
I had a neighbor (single mother) ... She also suggested (like some on this thread) that a penis looks deformed when you're not cut. I asked her if she'd ever been with a guy who was uncut. She hadn't.


I see where this is going!

To make a long story short (too late) the doctor accidently cut a piece of her baby's penis off when he was circumcising him. It happens.

I was wrong. :(

superdeluxe
03-26-12, 04:09 PM
My wife is pregnant with our first kid and we found out a few weeks ago that it's a boy. I've been reading up on taking care of a baby and I think I'm becoming convinced that I don't want the kid circumcised.

I'm circumcised and I think most babies these days are (is that true?). I know at one time it was thought to be more hygienic, however, I'm not sure that is still the case. I'm leaning against it because of the pain (and possibility of infection) to the baby when there is no substantial benefit.

So, here are my questions:

(a) Did you circumcise your child (assuming you have had a male child)?
(b) Is there any advantage/disadvantage to circumcision that you have actually seen (with yourself or your child)?
(c) If you are uncircumcised: were you ever made fun of or felt odd in the school gym showers? :lol:

I've been debating this in my head (spending much more time worrying about it than it's worth) and figured this would get some interesting replies...


A) Yes
B) I would guess the advantage would be not having to 'going in' and cleaning it out?
C) I'm Circumcised

Word of advice, they are going to ask you or your wife if you want to be in the room.

You don't want to be in that room, my heart still breaks hearing his screams even though we were all the way down the hall :\

Doctor did tell us that we should be proud of our son, because they had to use the biggest penis cuff they had lol.

Mabuse
03-26-12, 04:16 PM
Is it just me or is this absolutely nothing like mutilating a child's penis because your favorite book told you to?

Circumcision predates all modern religions.

brilk
03-26-12, 04:23 PM
Circumcision predates all modern religions.

Irrelevant. Religion and religious culture are the reasons for the vast majority of circumcisions today. There is absolutely no valid medical need for circumcision. We can find plenty of other barbaric practices people have carried out over the years, ranging from skull elongation to foot shrinking. I don't see many people clamoring to keep those traditions alive.

wishbone
03-26-12, 04:46 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/2a7bjwp.jpg

Cut like an Egyptian.

SterlingBen
03-26-12, 04:49 PM
You certainly ACT like someone who had his dick assaulted at birth.

So do you.

TomOpus
03-26-12, 04:53 PM
http://i44.tinypic.com/2a7bjwp.jpg

Cut like an Egyptian.I :lol:'d

Mabuse
03-26-12, 04:55 PM
Irrelevant. Religion and religious culture are the reasons for the vast majority of circumcisions today. There is absolutely no valid medical need for circumcision. We can find plenty of other barbaric practices people have carried out over the years, ranging from skull elongation to foot shrinking. I don't see many people clamoring to keep those traditions alive.

I'm aware of all that (and while I can't speak for foot binding) I've said repeatedly in this thread: All the bullshit about hygiene and preventing boys from touching themselves is just 20th century happenstance. People who want to ban it today are really rebelling against the 20th century excuses that were used to popularize the practice (stopping masturbation and hygiene) and they’re ignoring that historically humans have been doing circumcision for thousands of years and it was always to make their dicks look bigger, more threatening, and ready for action. A movement away from presenting and perceiving the penis this way probably reflect the further feminization of men.

Furthermore, we westerners seem to always be trying to beat the heathen and the primitive out of ourselves. All the surviving primitive tribes of the world still perform circumcision the same way our primitive ancestors did: Bloodletting, purification rituals, the removal of the feminine, the "rite of passage" rituals of manhood. These are the things that gave humans strength; the unity and endurance to get to where we are today. Let's not be pussies and forget all that. Let's not put it away entirely and say, "I'm going to wear a shirt and tie and sit on my couch and watch Tivo and eat a diet of processed food." We're not as different from our ancestors as we pretend to be.

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 05:00 PM
Irrelevant. Religion and religious culture are the reasons for the vast majority of circumcisions today. There is absolutely no valid medical need for circumcision. We can find plenty of other barbaric practices people have carried out over the years, ranging from skull elongation to foot shrinking. I don't see many people clamoring to keep those traditions alive.

Which is why they are probably even more irrelevant to this discussion. :)

brilk
03-26-12, 05:07 PM
Which is why they are probably even more irrelevant to this discussion. :)

They are relevant to what he is arguing, which is that it is okay to perform barbaric acts today because people have performed those acts for a long time. I agree that they're irrelevant to an intelligent discussion of circumcision based on ethics, though.

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 05:12 PM
Before we declare it barbaric, maybe we should have a show of hands of how many circumcised people feel barbarized by the act.

wishbone
03-26-12, 05:25 PM
We're victims of circumcisionstance... :sad:

brilk
03-26-12, 05:26 PM
Before we declare it barbaric, maybe we should have a show of hands of how many circumcised people feel barbarized by the act.

Dude, go ahead and pick whatever terminology you wish that puts a smile on your face. You're fighting a pointless battle there. The important discussion involves the ethics of cutting off part of an unconsenting human's penis.

Mabuse
03-26-12, 05:33 PM
You are far too much of a rationalist for me. I'm not very religious but there is room for metaphysics in this world. A certain sacrifice, shared by an enormous part of the population, that's been going on for centuries...that all caries some weight. Perhaps human beings' ineffectual attempts to be rational are not the natural order of the world.

I find your posts far too brief and dismissive. I've written a lot in this thread regarding perceptions of circumcision and you simply say "it's invented by the church, therefore it's barbaric, goodbye."

I need some substance in my penis talk :)

What do you have to say to someone like me that sees an "anti-male" bent in the recent discourse against circumcision?

With the rise of feminism over the last 40 years there's been a trend of increasing provocativeness and flamboyance on behalf of women; it's "empowering to show your body". Over the same period there's been a vilification of the male body with fashion trends, especially among young men, gravitating toward baggy, body-hiding fashion. There's been a softening of men and what is considered manly.

I've noticed a generally increasing attitude among the population (men and women) that men's bodies are gross and that penises are "disgusting". I wonder if this recent trend against circumcision (again over the last 15 years) is being driven by mothers who want their boys to have a "kinder gentler penis".

Rockmjd23
03-26-12, 05:52 PM
Everyone is born with an appendix, and it serves no purpose.
So everyone should get them removed at birth, right?

brilk
03-26-12, 05:53 PM
I've written a lot in this thread regarding perceptions of circumcision and you simply say "it's invented by the church, therefore it's barbaric, goodbye."

Seriously? That's what you took out of my posts? You might want to try reading them again since I never said circumcision was "invented by the church." I do consider it barbaric, though, since it accurately fits the definition of the word.

A certain sacrifice, shared by an enormous part of the population, that's been going on for centuries...that all caries some weight.

It carries no weight in a discussion of ethics.

Perhaps human beings' ineffectual attempts to be rational are not the natural order of the world.

Being "natural" is not the same as being right. Also, are you arguing against rational thinking here? If so, I don't see any reason to continue a discussion with you. If not, could you clarify the point you are making with this statement?

brilk
03-26-12, 05:57 PM
Xxx

kgrogers1979
03-26-12, 06:04 PM
So everyone should get them removed at birth, right?

No.

The guy was saying that since every man is born with a foreskin that means the foreskin must serve some purpose, and I was using the appendix as an example of something that everyone is born with that serves no purpose.

I didn't mean that everyone should have their appendix removed at birth at all, just that we are indeed born with things that are useless.

TomOpus
03-26-12, 06:05 PM
Last edited by brilk; 03-26-12 at 04:59 PM. Reason: edited because this is a battle that's not worth fighting You didn't realize this at the first page?

brilk
03-26-12, 06:17 PM
You didn't realize this at the first page?

That edit wasn't about circumcision. I'm always willing to fight against things I consider evil, and the ritual mutilation of babies is firmly in that camp. There's always the chance that one person could read one of my posts and decide not to perform a heinous act on their son, and that's more than worth it.

I just decided that my response to something else in this thread would push things in the wrong direction.

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 06:22 PM
What if we find a way to circumcise them in the womb before babies have rights?

brilk
03-26-12, 06:52 PM
What if we find a way to circumcise them in the womb before babies have rights?

We can discuss science fiction when it becomes reality.

arminius
03-26-12, 07:19 PM
What if we find a way to circumcise them in the womb before babies have rights?

Rights? You can have their brains sucked out. After all children are not actually human until 23 or 24 right?

Mrs. Danger
03-26-12, 07:23 PM
It can be done, already. If they can do heart surgery on a fetus, they can circumcise them.

danwiz
03-26-12, 07:25 PM
I am 64 years old and I am happy that my parents had me circumcised.

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 07:25 PM
It can be done, already. If they can do heart surgery on a fetus, they can circumcise them.

There you go. So no sense in dodging the question any longer.

I am 64 years old and I am happy that my parents had me circumcised.

Yeah, well some people are probably glad their father beat them because they "turned out okay" or are stronger because of it... while walking around with mutilated genitals!

Shazam
03-26-12, 07:53 PM
Man, you white people and your obsession with cutting off parts of your dinkies.

JMLEWIS1
03-26-12, 09:16 PM
We'll be having our son circumcised when he is born this summer, mainly due to societal norms...plus, there is no "cutting" involved...a small band is placed around the skin and it falls off...I would also have any warts removed from my kid when he gets older...it's cosmetic, sure, but kids have it hard enough with giving them something to have to explain/be embarrassed about.

Th0r S1mpson
03-26-12, 10:11 PM
plus, there is no "cutting" involved...a small band is placed around the skin and it falls off...

Uh... no. That's the umbilical cord.

Shazam
03-26-12, 11:21 PM
:lol:

brilk
03-27-12, 01:47 AM
What if we find a way to circumcise them in the womb before babies have rights?

First, I'll point out that this is not the problem currently facing the world. You're still ignoring all of the ethical concerns of slicing off part of a nonconsenting human's penis as it happens today. The situation you pose is also not something that could be implemented on a non-trivial scale with current technology. The answer's still the same as my other responses in this thread, though, if the situation posed ever becomes reality.

Your question easily branches off in too many directions. I don't see a need to move the discussion to the ethics of designer babies, the point at which life begins, or other areas unrelated to circumcision. I'll cover some of them briefly, but please be aware that these are very off-topic from the ritual genital mutilation that occurs today. If you start a thread on the ethics of designer babies I'll be glad to chime in.

Babies in the womb already have rights. There's a reason you can't legally perform an abortion at nine months. Regardless, rights are granted by the government. They often coincide with ethics, but that is obviously not necessarily the case. Ethically, I consider an unborn baby the same as any other, which takes us to the question of when life begins.

When does life begin? I don't know, but that point in time changes the issue from the ethics of mutilating an unconsenting human's body to one of designing a baby as if it's an architectural work. I'm firmly against designer babies, but that topic's so far off from the ethics of circumcision that I see no reason to pursue it here.

Since people seem to be ignoring the ethical issue here, I'll pose a question of my own on the subject. What makes it ethically acceptable to cut off part of an unconsenting person's penis? Are babies not subject to ethical concerns due to being very young or being very dumb? Do they count as your property since they are your child? What exactly is it that makes it okay to do this to another person?

Tracer Bullet
03-27-12, 09:16 AM
What if we find a way to circumcise them in the womb before babies have rights?

Babies don't have rights after they're born, either, unless I missed something.

Mrs. Danger
03-27-12, 09:29 AM
They have one right. The right to live.

orangecrush
03-27-12, 09:35 AM
If a boy was born with a big flap of skin hanging off of his nose would you leave it so he wouldn't suffer the pain of removal? It's only a cosmetic operation.This is the point. The medical benefits are negligible to the point of being nearly non-existent in America and other first world countries. I don't really have a problem with people circumcising their sons, but it isn't a medical decision. It is a cosmetic one.

TGM
03-27-12, 11:11 AM
This is the point. The medical benefits are negligible to the point of being nearly non-existent in America and other first world countries. I don't really have a problem with people circumcising their sons, but it isn't a medical decision. It is a cosmetic one.

wrong.

orangecrush
03-27-12, 11:15 AM
wrong.right.

Mrs. Danger
03-27-12, 11:16 AM
A big flap of skin does not normally hang off of a human being's nose. It's a deformity. Is a foreskin a deformity?

cpgator
03-27-12, 11:18 AM
mutilating an unconsenting human's body

For me, when you describe it as that, you lose all credibility.

TGM
03-27-12, 11:19 AM
right.

thanks for agreeing!

brilk
03-27-12, 11:37 AM
For me, when you describe it as that, you lose all credibility.

"1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" - from Merriam-Webster. You'll find plenty of other definitions for mutilate in other dictionaries that fit my usage of the word completely.

Regardless, if you discount my entire argument based on a disagreement in word choice, I'm not too concerned with having an intellectual discussion with you. It would likely be a bit too one-sided for my tastes.

Also, if anyone wants to chime in with an answer to why it's ethically acceptable to slice off part of an unconsenting person's penis, I'm all ears.

orangecrush
03-27-12, 11:45 AM
thanks for agreeing!Exactly!

cpgator
03-27-12, 11:52 AM
Regardless, if you discount my entire argument based on a disagreement in word choice, I'm not too concerned with having an intellectual discussion with you. It would likely be a bit too one-sided for my tastes.
Just saying you might want to tone down your rhetoric if you want your message to be taken seriously.

Also, if anyone wants to chime in with an answer to why it's ethically acceptable to slice off part of an unconsenting person's penis, I'm all ears.

Stuff like this doesn't help your cause. Besides, there isn't much an infant can consent to. Can i retroactively give my consent?

wishbone
03-27-12, 12:04 PM
"1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" - from Merriam-Webster.Does this mutilation render a circumcised penis incapable of procreation or experiencing pleasure? So far the only anecdote provided is that felatio is more intense with an uncircumcised penis.

kgrogers1979
03-27-12, 12:09 PM
A big flap of skin does not normally hang off of a human being's nose. It's a deformity. Is a foreskin a deformity?

People aren't normally born with a flap of skin hanging off their nose, so yes, that would be a deformity if someone was born with it. However, every man is born with a flap of skin on their penis, so that isn't a deformity unless you think every single man is deformed upon birth.

brilk
03-27-12, 12:11 PM
Just saying you might want to tone down your rhetoric if you want your message to be taken seriously.

I don't consider my message of "don't mutilate the penises of babies" to be extreme in the slightest. The problem is that people like you do.

Stuff like this doesn't help your cause. Besides, there isn't much an infant can consent to. Can i retroactively give my consent?

Yes, an infant cannot consent to having its penis mutilated. That sounds like an excellent reason not to do it to me. Do you have an answer to the question, though? Can you ethically justify this act, or do you just ignore the ethical concerns altogether as so many others seem to?

brilk
03-27-12, 12:13 PM
Does this mutilation render a circumcised penis incapable of procreation or experiencing pleasure? So far the only anecdote provided is that felatio is more intense with an uncircumcised penis.

This is not relevant to anything I've said or to my position on circumcision. I do like that you have a whole anecdote to back you up, though. Not sure how I compete with that.

Th0r S1mpson
03-27-12, 12:19 PM
I'm all ears.

Don't you wish your parents had trimmed some of those off when you were young enough not to remember?

kgrogers1979
03-27-12, 12:23 PM
Stuff like this doesn't help your cause. Besides, there isn't much an infant can consent to. Can i retroactively give my consent?

Not just infants, but kids and teens in general legally don't have the ability to consent to many things. A child cannot legally sign a contract, so he cannot buy a house, rent an apartment, buy a car, get married, get non-emergency medical treatment, etc without an adult to co-sign.

brilk
03-27-12, 12:33 PM
Not just infants, but kids and teens in general legally don't have the ability to consent to many things. A child cannot legally sign a contract, so he cannot buy a house, rent an apartment, buy a car, get married, get non-emergency medical treatment, etc without an adult to co-sign.

Again, ethics and the law don't necessarily see eye to eye. You still can't legally force your teenage son to get a circumcision, so that's moot anyway.

logrus9
03-27-12, 12:35 PM
Is it just me or is this absolutely nothing like mutilating a child's penis because your favorite book told you to?

Not everyone does it because of a favorite book. Is it OK to mutilate your daughters earlobes so everyone knows she's a girl or for fashion?

brilk
03-27-12, 12:40 PM
Not everyone does it because of a favorite book. Is it OK to mutilate your daughters earlobes so everyone knows she's a girl or for fashion?

Of course it is. Girls can't be hot without pierced ears.

kgrogers1979
03-27-12, 12:54 PM
You still can't legally force your teenage son to get a circumcision, so that's moot anyway.

If you decide not to circumcise your son when he was born, why would you suddenly change your mind 13+ years later? That isn't going to happen, so that's moot anyway.

brilk
03-27-12, 01:03 PM
If you decide not to circumcise your son when he was born, why would you suddenly change your mind 13+ years later? That isn't going to happen, so that's moot anyway.

It happens, just not very often. Converting to a new religion is the cause I'm aware of, but it's likely there are other reasons I as well. There was a case that went to court about it not too long ago. The kid won.

kvrdave
03-27-12, 02:21 PM
Irrelevant. Religion and religious culture are the reasons for the vast majority of circumcisions today. There is absolutely no valid medical need for circumcision. We can find plenty of other barbaric practices people have carried out over the years, ranging from skull elongation to foot shrinking. I don't see many people clamoring to keep those traditions alive.

So, you make a crack about circumcision being silly because it is based on religion, then when it is pointed out that it predates religion, you decide that the fact that it predates religion is irrelevant and go on to base it on religion.

You do know that the same "favorite book" that talks about doing it, also ends with "you don't need to do it" but you think it is based on religion? The predominate religion in the UK is the same as the predominate religion in the US, but circumcision rates are vastly different. Oh wait, let me make your point for you.....IRRELEVANT!!!

http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

brilk
03-27-12, 02:53 PM
So, you make a crack about circumcision being silly because it is based on religion

Dave, this is complete bullshit. I did not say that. Feel free to go back and reread my posts for proof. They're all still there. I've plainly listed the reasons I consider genital mutilation evil. The fact that most circumcisions that occur today are based on religion is simply that - a fact. I'm anti-genital mutilation and anti-religion, but I'm not against one because of the other. They just both happen to be shit.

I'll skip the next load you dropped since it's based on this straw man.

You do know that the same "favorite book" that talks about doing it, also ends with "you don't need to do it" but you think it is based on religion? The predominate religion in the UK is the same as the predominate religion in the US, but circumcision rates are vastly different. Oh wait, let me make your point for you.....IRRELEVANT!!!

http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

Your reasoning is highly flawed as usual, Dave. Most circumcision is due to religion. Not all religious people perform circumcisions. These two statements can both be (and are) true. It's even possible for people in the same religion and different places (or even the same!) to do different things. Crazy world, huh?

As for the preferred Christian book telling you "you don't need to do it" (which I have no idea why you put in quotes), people interpret that book to mean whatever they want it to mean and follow the rules they feel like following. You know that. That book also tells you to stone just about every person on the planet to death, but I don't see too many religious folks chucking rocks these days.

Regardless, the religious aspects of circumcision mean dick to the ethics of the situation. I get that people get upset when their favorite myths are disrespected. I'm cool with that. I don't respect your myths.

madcougar
03-27-12, 03:09 PM
And I've never heard of a woman looking at a circumcised penis and exclaiming it's "mutilated".

So that just means women are whores and love a penis no matter if it's cut or not :D

Pretty much!

One of the few girls who noticed was going down on me at the time. She mentions it and I say "yep, it's not big deal."

She says "Oh I know. My brother isn't circumsized either. I'm used to it."

The weird thing she only had one brother and he was five years older than her. :jawdrop:

kgrogers1979
03-27-12, 03:16 PM
Pretty much!

One of the few girls who noticed was going down on me at the time. She mentions it and I say "yep, it's not big deal."

She says "Oh I know. My brother isn't circumsized either. I'm used to it."

The weird thing she only had one brother and he was five years older than her. :jawdrop:

The weird thing is that she is used to a non-circumcised penis because of her brother period.

kvrdave
03-27-12, 03:24 PM
Dave, this is complete bullshit. I did not say that. Feel free to go back and reread my posts for proof. They're all still there. I've plainly listed the reasons I consider genital mutilation evil. The fact that most circumcisions that occur today are based on religion is simply that - a fact. I'm anti-genital mutilation and anti-religion, but I'm not against one because of the other. They just both happen to be shit.
You can say that most circumcisions that occur today are based on religion is a fact, but can you actually back that up? I showed in the link above that two very similar countries (the UK and the US) that have the same predominant religion have a vastly different rate of circumcion. I suppose I could conclude that it isn't the religion that you are talking about (Christianity), but that is the dominant one in both countries, so it would seem to be the one that could support large numbers of circumcisions. Yet one country does it a lot, and the other doesn't. So how does that come from the same religion?

If you say it is based on Judiaism, I would agree that the Jews do this for a religious reason. Yet they are not a very big part of our population in the US, and in no way represent the total number of circumcisions performed. If you say it is based on Christianity, I again point out the differences in the two countries, and would also point out that circumcision is not a requirement of Christianity. So how is it a fact that it is based on religion. This would be a much easier discussion if you could actually back that fact up with actual facts. I suspect this is more of "it's not what you know, it's what you think you know."

If your entire point is that when it is done, it is for a perceived religion reason of the person doing it, just back that up.


Your reasoning is highly flawed as usual, Dave.
Undoubtedly you can't back that up either. My reasoning is only highly flawed 8% of the time. It is somewhat flawed nearly 19% of the time (which embarasses me to no end), and neither flawed nor unflawed the rest, which is the "usual."

Most circumcision is due to religion. Not all religious people perform circumcisions. These two statements can both be (and are) true. It's even possible for people in the same religion and different places (or even the same!) to do different things. Crazy world, huh?
Both of those statements can be true, but are they? You said one is a fact. Now back that up. I would contend that most circumcision is due to tradition.

As for the preferred Christian book telling you "you don't need to do it" (which I have no idea why you put in quotes), people interpret that book to mean whatever they want it to mean and follow the rules they feel like following. You know that. That book also tells you to stone just about every person on the planet to death, but I don't see too many religious folks chucking rocks these days.
I'm working on that. Especially the whores.

Regardless, the religious aspects of circumcision mean dick to the ethics of the situation. I get that people get upset when their favorite myths are disrespected. I'm cool with that. I don't respect your myths.

I don't feel upset, so it's all good. I get that people try to make others upset and think that some minor procedure that has less risk than immunizations want to rile people up over something that the majority think is a non issue. You've got a cause and most think it is a silly one. You call it mutilation to try to make it sound really bad and scary, but common sense tells everyone that it is just setting bait, even if the dreaded dictionary facts are on your side.

kvrdave
03-27-12, 03:25 PM
Pretty much!

One of the few girls who noticed was going down on me at the time. She mentions it and I say "yep, it's not big deal."

She says "Oh I know. My brother isn't circumsized either. I'm used to it."

The weird thing she only had one brother and he was five years older than her. :jawdrop:

Never insinuate that your dick is not a big deal as a gal that is going down on you sees it for the first time. Instead you should say, "BEHOLD!"

TomOpus
03-27-12, 03:30 PM
One of the few girls who noticed was going down on me at the time. She mentions it and I say "yep, it's not big deal."

She says "Oh I know. My brother isn't circumsized either. I'm used to it.""So THAT'S how it is in that family." -eek-

TomOpus
03-27-12, 03:32 PM
I get that people try to make others upset and think that some minor procedure that has less risk than immunizations want to rile people up over something that the majority think is a non issue. You've got a cause and most think it is a silly one. You call it mutilation to try to make it sound really bad and scary, but common sense tells everyone that it is just setting bait, even if the dreaded dictionary facts are on your side.
http://i43.tinypic.com/hrelpt.gif

clappj
03-27-12, 03:35 PM
I've plainly listed the reasons I consider genital mutilation evil.

When you shave do you consider it folicle mutilation?

TomOpus
03-27-12, 03:37 PM
What about trimming your nails? Digital mutilation!

brilk
03-27-12, 03:40 PM
derp

"The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim." Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision)

It's Wikipedia, but you'll find plenty of other sources with the same info if you care to look.

brilk
03-27-12, 03:43 PM
When you shave do you consider it folicle mutilation?

It's okay if you don't consider slicing part of a baby's penis off mutilation. I do. We'll find a way to make it work, baby. Promise.

kvrdave
03-27-12, 03:47 PM
"The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim." Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision)

It's Wikipedia, but you'll find plenty of other sources with the same info if you care to look.

Peter Townsend looks at naked pictures of little kids and you think I give a shit if he got an article on Wikipedia published. Grundle has done that much.

brilk
03-27-12, 03:51 PM
Peter Townsend looks at naked pictures of little kids and you think I give a shit if he got an article on Wikipedia published. Grundle has done that much.

What part of the statement I posted are you challenging, Dave? Or is this just more of your standard derp?

Bandoman
03-27-12, 03:54 PM
What part of the statement I posted are you challenging, Dave? Or is this just more of your standard derp?

I find that comment offensive. Dave's derp is exceptional, not standard.

brilk
03-27-12, 03:57 PM
I find that comment offensive. Dave's derp is exceptional, not standard.

I was referring more to the frequency, but Dave does push out some of the highest quality of derpage. If any of you are familiar with GROGnads, though, you know why I can't crown Dave king.

TomOpus
03-27-12, 03:58 PM
I find that comment offensive. Dave's derp is exceptional, not standard.-other- <---- note the circumcision.

Th0r S1mpson
03-27-12, 03:59 PM
"The WHO has estimated that 664,500,000 males aged 15 and over are circumcised (30% global prevalence), with almost 70% of these being Muslim." Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision)


Wow. That really is an incredible statistic. Why, if you lined up all those foreskins end to end, you'd have...

<img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641"><img src="http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/05/17/34449/bigmac.jpg?t=20110517174641">

wishbone
03-27-12, 04:02 PM
Just when you thought this discussion might peter out...

kvrdave
03-27-12, 04:07 PM
What part of the statement I posted are you challenging, Dave? Or is this just more of your standard derp?

Let's go with your wikipedia and my flawed logic. I read the whole thing and it states that in Muslim countries it appears to be for religious reasons, though it is not mentioned in their mythical book. But curious that they actually had this section on circumcision....
Non-religious circumcision

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally.[142] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[142] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[143] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[144] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produceparalysis).[142] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.[142]

Although it is difficult to determine historical circumcision rates, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 32% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1933.[145] Laumann et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was approximately 70%, 80%, 85%, and 77% for those born in 1945, 1955, 1965, and 1971 respectively.[145] Xu et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was 91% for males born in the 1970s and 84% for those born in the 1980s.[146] Between 1981 and 1999, National Hospital Discharge Survey data from the National Center for Health Statistics demonstrated that the infant circumcision rate remained relatively stable within the 60% range, with a minimum of 60.7% in 1988 and a maximum of 67.8% in 1995.[147] . A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[148] However, a later study speculated that an increased recognition of the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision may have been responsible for the observed increase in the US rate between 1988 and 2000.[149] A report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality placed the 2005 national circumcision rate at 56%.[150] Most recently, the Centers for Disease control used the Charge Data Master [CDM] from SDIHealth to estimate that 54.7% of American newborn males were circumcised in 2010 .[151].

In 1949, the United Kingdom's newly formed National Health Service removed infant circumcision from its list of covered services, and circumcision has since been an out-of-pocket cost to parents. Among men (aged 15 years or older) who are neither Jews nor Muslims, the overall prevalence of circumcision in the UK is 6% according to the WHO's estimates.[9] When "data from targeted oversampling of black Caribbean, black African, Indian, and Pakistani groups (the Natsal ethnic minority boost) were combined with the main [Natsal II] survey data", it was found that the prevalence of circumcision in the UK is age-graded, with 11.7% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised and 19.6% of those aged 40–44 years.[152] There is a clear ethnic division: "With the exception of black Caribbeans, men from all ethnic minority backgrounds were significantly [(3.02 times)] more likely to report being circumcised compared to men who described their ethnicity as white". These particular findings "confirm that the prevalence of male circumcision among British men appears to be declining. This is despite an increase in the proportion of the British population describing their ethnicity as nonwhite"; indeed, the proportion of newborns circumcised in England and Wales has fallen to less than one percent.

The circumcision rate has declined sharply in Australia since the 1970s, leading to an age-graded fall in prevalence, with a 2000–1 survey finding 32% of those aged 16–19 years circumcised, 50% for 20–29 years and 64% for those aged 30–39 years.[153][133]

In Canada, Ontario health services delisted circumcision in 1994.[154]


Now, let not my derp confuse you. Hidden in many of those sentences are some big words, and some I just couldn't understand. But I did see this.
A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.

But that confuses me because of all the stuff you said about it being a fact that it is mainly done for religious reasons. Without that being a fact, it would just look like a trollish reason to bring religion into a discussion and bash it, and further attribute misinformation to a religion, which would let you bash it more as though it were fact because you had repeated it so often.

But hell, I couldn't get past the name "National Hospital Discharge Survey" because I was giggling like a little girl, so maybe your facts are buried somewhere in there.

I'm sure despite all you said you were really just outraged over Muslim countries and this didn't apply to America, as we sure weren't talking about how it is viewed here. We suddenly went global in our discussion and all I could offer was derp. For that, I am sorry.

brilk
03-27-12, 04:14 PM
Yes, Dave, all you offered was derp. You did not refute a single point I have made. Congratulations.

Mabuse
03-27-12, 04:15 PM
Brilk is exactly the kind of zealot that defines the circumcision debate. He's impossible to debate with, but I wish you luck Dave. So far you're doing great.

I wonder what would make the Brilk's of this world happy? An international ban on circumcision? How much would it cost to enforce vs how much would anyone benefit?

The truth is Brilk simply wants acknowlegement that he is right on an issue where there is no right and wrong and winning gets you nothing.

wishbone
03-27-12, 04:16 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/2udvvgj.png

The Cow
03-27-12, 04:17 PM
Yes, Dave, all you offered was derp. You did not refute a single point I have made. Congratulations.

His derp is better than your derp.

brilk
03-27-12, 04:29 PM
Brilk is exactly the kind of zealot that defines the circumcision debate. He's impossible to debate with

Man, I am incredibly fucking easy to debate with. I'm the kind of person you should love to debate with. Here's one thing that will crush me instantly:

Ethically justify cutting part of a nonconsenting human's penis off.

Seriously. It's one thing. The foundation of my argument hinges on the fact that I consider it unethical to do this. It should be pretty easy for you win this argument.

On zealotry, how strongly do you feel about rape or anything else you consider an extreme human injustice? If people threw the caliber of arguments at you that I've been presented with here, would you suddenly start saying that rape's okay? I seriously doubt it. If you're going to complain about my zealotry, try presenting me with a single good argument first. See if I stick to my guns in the face of a convincing argument that I'm wrong.

Really, though, just ethically justify mutilating a baby's genitals. (You can call it "giving fairy kisses," since my accurate terminology seems to bother so many of you.)

kvrdave
03-27-12, 04:40 PM
Man, I am incredibly fucking easy to debate with. I'm the kind of person you should love to debate with. Here's one thing that will crush me instantly:

Ethically justify cutting part of a nonconsenting human's penis off.

Seriously. It's one thing. The foundation of my argument hinges on the fact that I consider it unethical to do this. It should be pretty easy for you win this argument.

On zealotry, how strongly do you feel about rape or anything else you consider an extreme human injustice? If people threw the caliber of arguments at you that I've been presented with here, would you suddenly start saying that rape's okay? I seriously doubt it. If you're going to complain about my zealotry, try presenting me with a single good argument first. See if I stick to my guns in the face of a convincing argument that I'm wrong.

Really, though, just ethically justify mutilating a baby's genitals. (You can call it "giving fairy kisses," since my accurate terminology seems to bother so many of you.)

Ah, so to crush you, we simply need to change your opinion. That does sound easy. Especially when you consider a medical procedure that the AMA doesn't consider unethical to be unethical.

This will be easy guys, he just disagrees what those in the medical sciences say about it. It's like trying to convince someone that the earth isn't 6,000 years old. If only I had known we had a reasonable person to debate with.

And facts. He gave them. They didn't hold up, but he gave them. Well, at least he asserted them. And then he just changed the venue when his facts didn't hold up. This isn't about us or the US or anyone we know...it's all about the Muslims.

Minor Threat
03-27-12, 04:51 PM
I find that comment offensive. Dave's derp is exceptional, not standard.

Agreed, my wife asked for the recipe, but was saddened it contained foreskin - that stuff is waaaay more expensive than caviar.....

:(

Mabuse
03-27-12, 05:06 PM
On zealotry, how strongly do you feel about rape or anything else you consider an extreme human injustice? On a 1 to 100 scale of injustice, rape is 100, parking tickets are 72, and circumcision is 1. My life is too short to worry about things that rate a 1.

And I ask again: What would it take to make you happy? An international ban on circumcision? How much would it cost to enforce vs how much would anyone benefit?

Please explain to me how I or anyone would BENEFIT from converting to your point of view. Does it put money in my pocket? Will it make me happy?

brilk
03-27-12, 05:12 PM
On a 1 to 100 scale of injustice, rape is 100, parking tickets are 72, and circumcision is 1. My life is too short to worry about things that rate a 1.

It is absolutely amazing how proficient you guys are at not stating why you consider it ethically acceptable to do this. You do have an argument, right? It's incredibly clear that you don't care at all about dicing baby cock, but you should have at least a quick answer as to why it's an ethically sound practice.

brilk
03-27-12, 05:14 PM
Please explain to me how I or anyone would BENEFIT from converting to your point of view. Does it put money in my pocket? Will it make me happy?

Okay, your edit wasn't up when I responded. Feel free to ignore me since you obviously have no fucking clue what ethics are.

kvrdave
03-27-12, 05:22 PM
It is absolutely amazing how proficient you guys are at not stating why you consider it ethically acceptable to do this. You do have an argument, right? It's incredibly clear that you don't care at all about dicing baby cock, but you should have at least a quick answer as to why it's an ethically sound practice.

My argument is that the AMA and all the doctors I know do not consider circumcision to be unethical. I tend to defer to those with background in medicine and science. What do you base your superstition on? Professionals in the field are stupid and you know more because this thing is yucky? I can't see how it is unethical. And that comes from someone who actually had it done. It isn't like I'm talking about a subject I know nothing about. Perhaps you are victimized by this, but I don't see people that are. No one sees this as brutality or unethical because most of us went through it and don't care.

How can you argue that it is unethical when the vast majority of the victims don't agree that they have been taken advantage of?

Mabuse
03-27-12, 05:26 PM
It is absolutely amazing how proficient you guys are at not stating why you consider it ethically acceptable to do this. You do have an argument, right? It's incredibly clear that you don't care at all about dicing baby cock, but you should have at least a quick answer as to why it's an ethically sound practice.

All my reasons and answers are on page 2. I copy/pasted some of them on page 9 but you didn't acknowledge any of them.

Short answer, it IS unethical, you're doing it without consent of a human who is too young to give consent, but it's infinitesimally unethical in comparison to the many other unethical things I'm confronted with in my life, and when I consider the alternative is some system of laws effectively banning circumcision I think we already have too many laws where the government intrudes on our lives. The government baning circumcision would be unethical in many people's opinion.

Furthermore, as a father, I make all kinds of decisions on behalf of my kids, for better or for worse I have that right. I am their father, they are not viewed by the law as being the age of majority, and it's up to my judgement what they will and won't do. This is the way our society is set up. Christian Science parents can refuse medical care for their children, John Travolta let his kid die because of his principles. Thus is the world mate.

brilk
03-27-12, 05:31 PM
Your argument is an argument from authority, Dave. I may be a bit too zealous to change my mind when presented with logical fallacies.

It is unethical to cut off part of the penis of an adult who does not give consent. I have no reason to think this should change due to the age of the victim. You obviously do. I would like to know why.

Th0r S1mpson
03-27-12, 05:35 PM
Your argument is an argument from authority, Dave.

I look forward to the Occupy Foreskin movement.

Mabuse
03-27-12, 05:35 PM
It is unethical to cut off part of the penis of an adult who does not give consent. I have no reason to think this should change due to the age of the victim. You obviously do. I would like to know why.It would be unethical for me to force you to conform to a diet that I insist you adhere to. But it's not unethical for me to tell my kid what to eat, when to eat, restrict certain items, and withold food as a punishment.