# Question about circumcision...



## highwood

So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.

I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


----------



## Lila

I'm not a guy but just wondering what you mean by "having issues. Physical/sexual performance? Or like social stigma/dating?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Satya

My ex H was uncircumcised.

My current husband is.

I personally have no preference.

If that's what you were referring to.


----------



## DaveinOC

I am going to answer your question as honestly as I could.

As an uncut person, these were some issues in my 20s, of which some are complete ignorance on my part

1) I didn't know I was supposed to pull the foreskin while peeing, so I used to urinate all over the toilet and got my mom going berserk. think clipping the end tip of the hose and liquid dispersing in all different directions

2) Because my parents never properly taught me to pull the skin while showering, it used to smell pretty bad sometimes (sweat, dead skin, smegma, lint, etc..), especially when I sweat

3) When I finally realized I gotta pull the skin to clean thoroughly, it was extremely painful process. Because the nerves on the head is not used to touching foreign object other than inner skin, the feeling is comparable to running your eyeball against sand paper

4) I used to get self conscious in locker room cuz my junk looked like little boy's

there are prolly more but these are all I can think of at the moment.


----------



## Slartibartfast

..


----------



## Keke24

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


Not male but had experience with a partner who wasn't and heard from a friend who also never had it done. Both cases, they weren't taught to pull it back all the way for cleaning. Has your son been taught to do that?

Seconding Dave's comments up top regarding cleanliness issues. I was young at the time and wasn't even aware what the difference was. As we got more and more intimate I noticed that he couldn't pull it back AT ALL and couldn't help feeling extremely conscious about potential cleanliness issues, especially during oral. How could he possibly get it 100% clean when he couldn't pull the skin back. Plus it kinna takes away from oral when you can't even get intimate with the head. Can't imagine it must be that pleasurable getting head when the head is all covered with skin that can't be pulled back to expose it. 

Friend who hadn't had it done, got it done right before getting married. According to him, he couldn't have sex without a condom because he wanted to avoid potential tugging of the foreskin which he claimed hurt and ruined the experience. 

Seems the biggest difference is whether a guy is taught to pull it back all the way during childhood or eventually learns to do so at some point.


----------



## Lila

Keke24 said:


> Not male but had experience with a partner who wasn't and heard from a friend who also never had it done. Both cases, they weren't taught to pull it back all the way for cleaning. Has your son been taught to do that?
> 
> Seconding Dave's comments up top regarding cleanliness issues. I was young at the time and wasn't even aware what the difference was. As we got more and more intimate *I noticed that he couldn't pull it back AT ALL* and couldn't help feeling extremely conscious about potential cleanliness issues, especially during oral. How could he possibly get it 100% clean when he couldn't pull the skin back. Plus it kinna takes away from oral when you can't even get intimate with the head. Can't imagine it must be that pleasurable getting head when the head is all covered with skin that can't be pulled back to expose it.
> 
> Friend who hadn't had it done, got it done right before getting married. *According to him, he couldn't have sex without a condom because he wanted to avoid potential tugging of the foreskin which he claimed hurt and ruined the experience. *
> 
> Seems the biggest difference is whether a guy is taught to pull it back all the way during childhood or eventually learns to do so at some point.


Those sound like medical conditions, either Frenulum Breve or Phimosis. I often wonder how common those two are in uncircumcised men.


----------



## highwood

THanks all, yeah I think (can't remember) when he was young telling him to pull it back..., no way is mom going to bring it up to him now

I just remember at the hospital when he was born, both my obstetrician and pediatrician were against it so I went by their expert opinions. 

I am curious as to what the stats are...is it pretty 50/50 now in terms of babies that are getting it doneZ?


----------



## TheCuriousWife

A friend of mine waited until her wedding night to have sex. Her husband was uncircumcised, and I'm guessing never pulled the skin back. Long story short while attempting sex he ripped his foreskin and could not get the bleeding to stop. They had a late night ER visit and stitches... What a fun first time story. lol.

They still use condoms because they are scared years later. Reading the comments I am now wondering how he ever cleaned properly without pulling it back. Ew!

My best friend is married to an uncircumcised guy and she has recently asked him if he would get cut. She doesn't like the smell even after cleaning well, and she says it is messy after sex (for him). Personally I think uncut looks a little homely, and I will be getting my children circumcised.


----------



## GuyInColorado

This thread is proof that you should always have your son circumcised. Thank heavens I was adamant that my son go under the knife, even held his tiny hand while it happened hours after birth. The doc that did it said he saw no need to have it done and didn't have his sons circumcised, but I knew it was for his best interest.


----------



## TheCuriousWife

Yes I have heard a lot more stories about people WISHING they had been circumcised than I have heard people say they wish they hadn't.


----------



## DaveinOC

O if i may add one more thing in terms of sex, people cut when baby or really young are have nerves in the gland desensitized growing up, so it doesnt seem to bother it coming in contact with it, but mine was super sensitive when i started pulling back my skin. It took me like repeated sessions over months to be fullly confortable doing it. It did get desensitized over time, but not really evenly so i can never ejeculate with oral. Even vaginal intercourse in certain positions is not good. I wouldnt really call it severely problematic, but just something to think about if you are getting it done as high teen or adult.


----------



## highwood

Just read some stats for Canada here and it said by 2005 only 9.2% of babies were circumcised, ten years before that it was at 20%...it is declining year by year to that point. Some hospitals have even banned it all together.


----------



## highwood

LOL...so by those stats, he is not alone apparently


----------



## Buddy400

Our obstetrician was obstinate in his insistence that circumcision was bad and unnecessary.

My wife told him that she wanted her sons to receive oral sex so it was getting done.


----------



## Lila

highwood said:


> Just read some stats for Canada here and it said by 2005 only 9.2% of babies were circumcised, ten years before that it was at 20%...it is declining year by year to that point. Some hospitals have even banned it all together.


According to the CDC, it's also declining in the united states. In 2010 (last year CDC reported data) it hovered at 58%. Much lower than the 80+% of earlier decades.


----------



## chillymorn69

Did not have my sons mulitaded.

The vast majority of the world does not do it.

Taught them to pee properly and clean properly.

Over the years I asked them if you ever want to have it done I will take you and get it done they both said no way.

Its not my decission to cut off part of their penis. I figured they can make that decission late if they want.


In my opinion its sexual mutilation. Just like female circumssion 

American pediatrics does not endorse it anymore. At leat they didn't 18yrs ago when I was researching it.


----------



## syhoybenden

Jeez but you Yanks are weird about this.

Circumcision is NOT natural. It is genital mutilation.

Young boys from an early age are taught to pull back the foreskin when bathing to wash off the smegma.

The foreskin covers the glans when the penis is not erect. Upon erection the foreskin pulls back to expose the glans. This preserves the NORMAL sensitivity of the glans to make sexual stimulation more intense and pleasurable. 

Normal sensitivity means less jackhammer banging and more sensual lovemaking, not to mention that the loss of skin with circumcision probably makes for a shorter d*ck.


----------



## anchorwatch

GuyInColorado said:


> This thread is proof that you should always have your son circumcised.


Nonsense.


----------



## NobodySpecial

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


It is rate, but my son had trouble with retraction of the foreskin. He used a cream at one point that worked, but the problem arose again. At 16, he chose to have it done.


----------



## chillymorn69

NobodySpecial said:


> It is rate, but my son had trouble with retraction of the foreskin. He used a cream at one point that worked, but the problem arose again. At 16, he chose to have it done.


My younger son also had this problem took him to the dr and he told him to stretch it in the shower and it was good to go.

Although now he takes 45 mins in the shower ! I think he took the dr advice a little to seriously.

And the hair conditioner is disapearing awful fast. Hmm


----------



## Primrose

I had my son (11) circumcised and I don't think I'd ever do it again. Not only was the procedure extremely traumatic for him (and me afterward), but he has had complication after complication. Too much skin was removed so now he has very painful erections. 

I've been with a few intact men before and that is my preference. Not all parents "forget" to teach their sons proper hygiene, and I have never been with one who 'smelled'. 

Rule #1- do not forcibly retract your infant during diaper changes or baths (a common misdirection given by pediatricians which led to "every boy I know had to be circumcised later in life"). Forcible retraction causes adhesions. Adhesions - open wounds - infections - "now he has to be circumcised". Common sense, according to my son's urologist.

Most boys will be fully retractable before puberty. Only then do you tell them to pull the skin back to keep it clean. Before the foreskin is retractable, you clean the dang thing the same way you would a cut penis.

It's not rocket science. Women have more nooks and folds to keep clean, so I will never understand acting like it's an inconvenience.


----------



## chillymorn69

Some men go as far as trying to restore their foreskin.

Now that sound like fun!


----------



## Personal

I am happy that I am not circumcised and have never had any problems nor complaints about it either. As a child I was taught to clean it properly, just as I have taught my son to do the same.

As to sex all through a rich and varied sex life with different women, where frequent oral sex has always been the norm. Smell and sensitivity hasn't been an issue, while I have never had to pull my foreskin back either. Since in every instance when it gets erect the foreskin always pulls back with insertion into the mouth, vagina or anus, or with a hand or fingers running along it.

That said for comfort not that it hurts at all, I do sometimes pull my foreskin forward again if it doesn't right itself following losing my erection after sex.


----------



## Rob_1

It is incomprehensible that in a country like the USA there are people still practicing the barbaric ritual of male genitalia mutilation (circumcision). This is an ancient religious/social practice that have no bearing socially and/or medically in today's world, with the exception of the few cases were males are borne with conditions such as phimosis or paraphimosis.

If mother nature had by design created the prepuce to cover the penis glands, then it is there for a biological reason, not some nut job idea created by some superstitious ignorant human beings. 

All the problems around circumcision in the USA is being and had been fomented by religious and or religious social indoctrination in some sectors of our society; which through sexual repression has teach people not to discuss and/or transmit what they need to teach their children from a very early age about genitalia cleanliness. This is a basic fact of life that you see being practice even in the most remote jungles of South America's native tribes or any other types of so called by us primitive sociaties around the world. 

There is not male genitalia mutilation in most of the world, it is only in some societies that this barbaric ritual is still practiced. Males around the world live happily uncircumcised without any problem physically or sexually, just because they were not circumcised. Thanks god!!!


----------



## alexm

chillymorn69 said:


> In my opinion its sexual mutilation. Just like female circumssion


It's really not, though 

Obviously, with female circumcision, you are removing the clitoris - therefore, no sexual stimulation is possbile.

With penile circumcision, it's just the foreskin. Sexual stimulation is still very possible (unless it's botched, I suppose).

I DO know what you're talking about, I get it. Making a decision on someone else's behalf that they may or may not have chosen when old enough to do so.

I think a more apt comparison would be to docking a dogs tail, or cropping their ears.

Although circumcision is supposed to be more than just cosmetic, at the end of the day, it's really about that. Teach a boy to clean properly, etc. and you won't have any problems. It's really rather pointless, IMO.

That said, I can't say I've ever met, or even read about many women who prefer an uncut penis. I'm sure they're out there, but the consensus seems to be cut is more preferable if given a choice.


----------



## syhoybenden

Nope.

Without a foreskin the glans (head of the penis) becomes desensitized.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

Circumcision is barbaric and insane if you think about it. The foreskin they remove is about 1/3rd the total volume of the penis at the time you're cut, holding a ton of the nerves required for full sexual pleasure later in life. I was circumcised and the doc sucked and I had to have another surgery in my teens to correct it due to skin reattaching. It's fine now, but men lose their ****s to **** like that if the surgery doesn't go well.

It really should be outlawed, maybe an exception for Jews if they're ultra-religious.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

alexm said:


> It's really not, though
> 
> Obviously, with female circumcision, you are removing the clitoris - therefore, no sexual stimulation is possbile.
> 
> With penile circumcision, it's just the foreskin. Sexual stimulation is still very possible (unless it's botched, I suppose).
> .


They don't typically remove the entire clitoris during female circumcision unless it's some backwoods tribe or something. In Islamic female circumcision (this is what dominates the news lately) the clitoris prepuce is removed, which is basically exactly like male circumcision where the foreskin is removed.


----------



## alexm

syhoybenden said:


> Nope.
> 
> Without a foreskin the glans (head of the penis) becomes desensitized.


Mine's just fine! Don't know what I'm missing, though, I suppose.

FYI, I'm not disagreeing with it being a stupid thing to do. I'm just thinking there may be as many problems with circumcised men as there are with uncircumcised.


----------



## GuyInColorado

Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.

I'm circumcised and have no issues with sexual stimulation.

Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%?


----------



## chillymorn69

GuyInColorado said:


> Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.
> 
> I'm circumcised and have no issues with sexual stimulation.
> 
> Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%?


I see lots of uncircumcised men in porn.

And most women of the world like me un circumcised. Adds more girth and acts as more natural motion during sex. Thats what my research showed 18yrs ago when my first son was born.

Whit happend was my son was premature birth 8 weeks early.

When we took him to be cut the dr said hes kind of big not sure my clamp/ tool is big enough .then he said it should work I guess . Thats when I said stop if your not sure then we will pass on this. And we walked out.then I read as much as I could on it and came to the conclusion that its totally unnessary. And can greatly decrease sensitivity during sex. The forskin as it gets pushed back during sex can stimulate the g spot and the extra girth gives more pleasure for women.


Your research might differ . Both my sons have told me thanks for not cutting me. My older son told me some girls in school found out he wasn't and they want to bang him just to try something different.

The circumsize rate has dropped to about 50% last I checked and the american pediatrics do not endorse it any longer. 

I pleased I didn't have my sons cut.


----------



## Lila

GuyInColorado said:


> Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.
> 
> I'm circumcised and have no issues with sexual stimulation.
> 
> *Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%*?


Do you look at American made porn only? I know foreign porn features lots of uncircumcised guys. I've mentioned it here before and got some flack for it but until a few years ago, I had never seen an uncircumcised penis. And the one I saw was in (drum roll) foreign porn.

All of my sexual partners have been circumcised. I think it's probably because all but one were American; the one exception being Canadian. I'm sure the odds are reversed in countries where circumcision in not the norm.


----------



## anchorwatch

GuyInColorado said:


> Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.
> 
> I'm circumcised and have no issues with sexual stimulation.
> 
> Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%?


Now that's quantitative research in action...


----------



## Betrayedone

Rob_1 said:


> It is incomprehensible that in a country like the USA there are people still practicing the barbaric ritual of male genitalia mutilation (circumcision). This is an ancient religious/social practice that have no bearing socially and/or medically in today's world, with the exception of the few cases were males are borne with conditions such as phimosis or paraphimosis.
> 
> If mother nature had by design created the prepuce to cover the penis glands, then it is there for a biological reason, not some nut job idea created by some superstitious ignorant human beings.
> 
> All the problems around circumcision in the USA is being and had been fomented by religious and or religious social indoctrination in some sectors of our society; which through sexual repression has teach people not to discuss and/or transmit what they need to teach their children from a very early age about genitalia cleanliness. This is a basic fact of life that you see being practice even in the most remote jungles of South America's native tribes or any other types of so called by us primitive sociaties around the world.
> 
> There is not male genitalia mutilation in most of the world, it is only in some societies that this barbaric ritual is still practiced. Males around the world live happily uncircumcised without any problem physically or sexually, just because they were not circumcised. Thanks god!!!


Oh BULL****! Thank you for setting me straight oh anointed one.......


----------



## Betrayedone

GuyInColorado said:


> Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.
> 
> I'm circumcised and have no issues with sexual stimulation.
> 
> Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%?


In most of the porno I watch the un circumcised guys I see are wearing Yamahas..............and black socks...........


----------



## Rob_1

@Betrayeddone: You're welcome!!! ..not.


----------



## David Darling

GuyInColorado said:


> Ask any woman, majority prefer circumcised. I've had this conversation recently with a few.
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I can't recall watching a porno with a guy not circumcised. And I've seen a lot of pornos! 99% of pornos, at least? 99.9%?


Maybe in Colorado, USA. But not true in the rest of the world.


----------



## David Darling

How many healthy guys opt for a circumcision when they're adult i.e. when they can chose freely for themselves?

Doesn't happen.


----------



## arbitrator

*Circumcision seems to be the very first “Mommy-Daddy decision” that is jointly made by them for their newborn son!*


----------



## alexm

I do think it's something that should be left up to a male when they're old enough (over 21, perhaps?)

I am circumsized, but I have enough skin to pull it over the head when not fully erect. And even when it is, there's some loose skin there. It wasn't a tight cut, and I'm guessing I lucked out a bit? I don't know.

As some uncircumsized men have said, it's more sensitive. I'm not entirely certain how one can determine that. Mine seems plenty sensitive!

As well, and this isn't a scientific poll or anything, but IRL, I've only ever heard women say they prefer circumsized penises. It seems to be mostly about the cosmetics, but one in particular said it feels better. Something about the skin preventing a lot of friction while inside. Could have been that particular guy, or her.

FWIW, my wife has definitely indicated that she prefers the feel of mine (cut) because she can feel the head, which is larger in diameter than the shaft, and is a mushroom shape. I don't know if it would matter if I was uncircumsized or not when it comes to this, but it seems to be her preference.

All in all, it does seem to be a rather pointless thing to do, in the end. It's too late for me to have kids of my own, but I don't think it's something I'd do if I did.


----------



## alexm

David Darling said:


> How many healthy guys opt for a circumcision when they're adult i.e. when they can chose freely for themselves?
> 
> Doesn't happen.


Sure it does.

And there are many reasons for it. Sometimes purely cosmetic, sometimes for health reasons. Sometimes they were just never taught to take care of it properly, and it's caused problems. Some people are just prone to infections.

Adult circumcision is more common than you think.


----------



## Slartibartfast

[..


----------



## David Darling

alexm said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> And there are many reasons for it. Sometimes purely cosmetic, sometimes for *health reasons*. Sometimes they were just never taught to take care of it properly, and it's caused problems. Some people are just prone to infections.
> 
> Adult circumcision is more common than you think.


As I said, *healthy* men.

Experiences of men circumcised as adults


----------



## TX-SC

syhoybenden said:


> Nope.
> 
> Without a foreskin the glans (head of the penis) becomes desensitized.


No, it doesn't. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TX-SC

David Darling said:


> How many healthy guys opt for a circumcision when they're adult i.e. when they can chose freely for themselves?
> 
> Doesn't happen.


My uncle had it done in his 40s. My aunt was having issues with infections and his doctor recommended it. It worked and he has no regrets. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## TX-SC

I am circumcised and so is my brother. My dad and uncles were not, and my brother chose not to have his sons circumcised. It isn't genital mutilation and it does not effect sexual function in any way. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chillymorn69

TX-SC said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


How do you know? What are you compairing it to if your cut thats all you know.

I would have to say cut men are less sensitive than uncut men.

Just seems logical to me.


----------



## TX-SC

If I was any more sensitive, sex would be uncomfortable. Why would I assume uncut people are more sensitive? If so, I would feel sorry for them!

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## chillymorn69

TX-SC said:


> If I was any more sensitive, sex would be uncomfortable. Why would I assume uncut people are more sensitive? If so, I would feel sorry for them!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Everybody is different. At 51 I'm much less sensitive than at 21

Uncut people have skin protecting the head so underware and such never rubs on it thus keeping it sensitive.

I read stories where men who get cut later in life takse a while to get used to it because its so sensitive.


----------



## Handy

Dogs, horses and bulls are not circumcised and I never heard of an issue with them. I think there are some cases to get circumcised but my thoughts along the lines of biology and natural selection would have eliminated or reduced some of the foreskin if there was a problem.

I understand some people not liking the smell of uncut. I have listened to women on Youtube on both sides of the debate. What impressed me the most was some women saying un-cut was easier on their internal tissues. The head still extends past the foreskin so that part is the same but the shaft of the penis has a sleeve that eliminates some friction.

I can get-off fairly fast just rubbing (small circles) the underside of my penis (frenulum) and it was connected to what got cut off when I was circumcised.

SO, if my frenulum is super sensitive and part of it was removed, am I missing some sensitivity? Moot point for PIV sex as the W doesn't like sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenulum_of_prepuce_of_penis

My opinion is leave natural biology alone. Same goes for female parts. You got what you got and be happy with that. 

All of the nose jobs didn't make Michael Jackson live any longer.


----------



## AniaR

Buddy400 said:


> Our obstetrician was obstinate in his insistence that circumcision was bad and unnecessary.
> 
> My wife told him that she wanted her sons to receive oral sex so it was getting done.


I'm European and most of my partners have been uncircumcised. To be frank I love oral sex and don't enjoy it as much with uncircumcised men - they are not as sensitive down there. There is nothing more satisfying than playing with the foreskin with a tongue. It literally drives men wild.

In today's day and age, there is no need for cutting when men can shower daily. Nature has put foreskin there for a reason, it naturally helps STD prevention, penis cancer and loss of sensitivity. Rubbing an uncircumcised penis against undies and pants all the time will contribute to loss of ending nerves..

In Australia, where I live, circumcising used to be normal practice for boys. Not anymore. If you want your son to be circumcised you must a Jew or have powerful medical reasons to have for your infant to be subjected to surgery.


----------



## Talker67

highwood said:


> Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


OMG, this is the most barbaric procedure ever devised to put men in their place. Unless you are Jewish and need to for religious reasons, NEVER circumcise your son. He will have a LIFETIME of reduced sexual felling because of cutting off his foreskin.


----------



## lostmyreligion

AniaR said:


> I'm European and most of my partners have been uncircumcised. To be frank I love oral sex and don't enjoy it as much with uncircumcised men - they are not as sensitive down there. There is nothing more satisfying than playing with the foreskin with a tongue. It literally drives men wild.
> 
> In today's day and age, there is no need for cutting when men can shower daily. Nature has put foreskin there for a reason, it naturally helps STD prevention, penis cancer and loss of sensitivity. Rubbing an uncircumcised penis against undies and pants all the time will contribute to loss of ending nerves..
> 
> In Australia, where I live, circumcising used to be normal practice for boys. Not anymore. If you want your son to be circumcised you must a Jew or have powerful medical reasons to have for your infant to be subjected to surgery.


*"In today's day and age, there is no need for cutting when men can shower daily." *
Yeah, but you gotta ask yourself - do they?

"*Nature has put foreskin there for a reason, it naturally helps STD prevention, penis cancer and loss of sensitivity.*" 
Yeah (again). I don't know where you got that info (?) Please read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/ Note the source and the links to references. The paper is titled "How Does Male Circumcision Protect Against HIV Infection" It's basically a summation of over 40 peer reviewed scientific studies definitively concluding that circumcision confers massive (2 to 8 times) protection against acquiring HIV during sex and asks why isn't this informing public health policy. From the article:

"Summary points


The majority of men who are HIV positive have been infected through the penis
There is conclusive epidemiological evidence to show that uncircumcised men are at a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men
The inner surface of the foreskin contains Langerhans' cells with HIV receptors; these cells are likely to be the primary point of viral entry into the penis of an uncircumcised man
Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection
The development of HIV receptor blockers, which could be applied to the penis or vagina before intercourse, might provide a new form of HIV prevention"

This was the deciding factor for me when my wife and I were discussing the issue prior to my son's birth in '99. I had read the original study in 1998 in a quarterly pub. called The Sciences. It was a great little journal for staying on top of what was new before the internet made it quaintly (and quickly) redundant. Authors would published one quarter and get challenged the next. The study that I'd read was done in Africa and when published, the authors were torn at in a frenzy of indignantly righteous rebuke citing "barbarism", "unnecessary mutilation", "assault".. and on. 

What was impressive is that they foresaw it and responded to their attackers with (paraphrasing) "We understood that this was a VERY EMOTIONAL issue and fully expected this level of fury when we published. Consequently, here is a link to ALL of our methodologies and raw data. We invite you to review it and come to any other conclusion than we did". It is the first and only time in years of reading crap like this I've ever seen researchers open their work so thoroughly to public scrutiny. They haven't, to my knowledge, been repudiated yet even though apparently more than 40 groups took a swing at it.

Regarding penile cancer. Please read this: Penile Cancer, Cervical Cancer and Circumcision Status Again, note the source. They state definitively that *having* an intact foreskin can in no way be linked to contracting penile cancer or spreading cancer through HPV in the smegma (actual medical term for what women refer to as Head Cheese, almost always with a reflexive stomach heave and a shudder of revulsion). Nowhere does it say anything about a foreskin *providing* protection against cancer. 

The sensitivity issue. I would suggest that desensitizing the glans is probably a good thing. After all, there's a substantial sub-segment of the sexual lube market with local anesthetics mixed in to help prevent men from being One Minute Wonders in the sack.

*"In Australia, where I live, circumcising used to be normal practice for boys. Not anymore. If you want your son to be circumcised you must a Jew or have powerful medical reasons to have for your infant to be subjected to surgery." *
In Africa they have had an add campaign, including billboards, promoting circumcision both in adult and infant males for at least the last 15 years. I'm an atheist, so the Jew angle wouldn't work. Because it's a procedure that is at least as effective as a vaccine in preventing potentially life threatening infectious illness I would argue that that this is itself a sufficiently "powerful medical reason" to allow parents to make that decision for their infant children.


----------



## Rob_1

@ lostmyreligion: your exposition of the HIV is correct. Having said that, what you are not including is risky behavior, it doesn't matter if you are circumcised or not, risky behavior will get you. As an analogy to your HIV exposition, we therefore, should have all females remove their breast to avoid the risk of breast cancer. People, please leave mother nature alone. Why we keep going against it?


----------



## RideofmyLife

We chose not to have our son circumcised. My father saw him running around naked about age 5 one day and started insisting to me that I must have him circumsized because he had way too much foreskin. My father is uncircumcised, and he told me that it caused problems with him during sex as he had too much excess skin and it made it difficult to have comfortable sex. I told him we would let our son choose when he got older whether he wanted to get circumcised or not.


----------



## BAN919

I am not a man... I have partners that have had it done and those that haven't. There was never much of a difference and never any problems.

I'm currently expecting a boy and will not be having him circumcised. I think proper cleaning and self care information will help with any of those issues.

However, I do billing for an anesthesia group. A lot of young men seem to get it done in their early 20s. So it can be done later in life if a man chooses to. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## gfel

I never had it done. I always kept it very clean and believe the head is more sensitive because it doesn't rub against clothing. My wife had a brief affair with a guy who was and she said uncut feels different because the foreskin bunches up and she can feel it nd it is better


----------



## Talker67

Circumcision is a barbaric process that causes pain to the baby, and a lifetime of decreased sexual sensitivity. Why anyone would want it, other than those who are required by a religious rule...is beyond me. 

The OP made the right decision about not circumcising their son. Do not re think such a horrific process


----------



## arbitrator

*I had no choice in the matter, as I was circumcised at 4 years old when the family doctor admitted me to the hospital for a hernia operation. He informed my parents that since the hernia surgery was going to be in the same general vicinity, he could do the circumcision as an incidental!

I remember my Mom telling him that it was and always had been extremely hard and painful for me to pull the foreskin back. The doctor told her that he was a proponent of circumcision in that it would alleviate that problem and would look much more attractive later in life as a youth than uncircumcised did! I totally agree that it looks much better!

All through school and athletics where we were introduced to showering at school, I’d venture to say that more than 95% of my cohorts were cut, and was seemingly the norm!

Never had a problem with it and I’m still as sensitive as they come! 

Had no problems in letting the recommending OB/Gyn circumcise my two sons on their birth! *


----------



## Todd Haberdasher

I like how the pro side in this thread keep bringing up "well, you know women all prefer circumcised..." Like you are condemning your son to being the 40 Year Old Virgin unless you make the same choice they did. The stats are conclusive: circumcision is waning big-time. Unless women want to share their male partners with five other women they will learn to alter their preferences.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

This is what I picture when I hear the word uncircumcised:


----------



## Mr The Other

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


As a European (UK), I am not circumsized. There was a one-off incident in my youth of banjo-string (www.news-medical.net/health/Torn-frenulum-(banjo-string).aspx), but that was fixed very easily. I certainly would not have my son circumsized.

I have entertained many American women in my time, and generally on far more than one occasion. I can barely think of any comment.

I am aware of the AIDS thing, but that is because AIDS affects the immune system and the foreskin is a branch of the immune system - not a reason to cut it away.


----------



## Steve2.0

In summary. There's no scientific proof that cut foreskin is beneficial and most new parents are moving away from it.

Just teach your kid how to properly wash their junk like a parent should. This is the information age... Use it to your advantage


----------



## chillymorn69

She'sStillGotIt said:


> This is what I picture when I hear the word uncircumcised:


Your idea of uncircumcised is perverted to the max.

What would you do if you met the man of your dreams and after a long courtship you found out he was intact?


----------



## MJJEAN

chillymorn69 said:


> Your idea of uncircumcised is perverted to the max.
> 
> What would you do if you met the man of your dreams and after a long courtship you found out he was intact?


Not directed at me, but I wanted to answer anyways.

If he was willing to have a long courtship without sex and/or was intact and intended to stay that way, he wouldn't be the man of my dreams. I find the intact penis to be extremely unattractive and an active turn-off.


----------



## MattMatt

MJJEAN said:


> Not directed at me, but I wanted to answer anyways.
> 
> If he was willing to have a long courtship without sex and/or was intact and intended to stay that way, he wouldn't be the man of my dreams. I find the intact penis to be extremely unattractive and an active turn-off.


Wouldn't it depend on which end of the penis they cut off? >


----------



## MJJEAN

MattMatt said:


> Wouldn't it depend on which end of the penis they cut off? >


Good point! Perhaps we should start calling it the sculpted and unsculpted penis to avoid confusion....


----------



## chillymorn69

MJJEAN said:


> Not directed at me, but I wanted to answer anyways.
> 
> If he was willing to have a long courtship without sex and/or was intact and intended to stay that way, he wouldn't be the man of my dreams. I find the intact penis to be extremely unattractive and an active turn-off.


So this would be a deal breaker!

Hmm, interesing.

I am begining to think woman are more superficially than men.


----------



## FeministInPink

Todd Haberdasher said:


> I like how the pro side in this thread keep bringing up "well, you know women all prefer circumcised..." Like you are condemning your son to being the 40 Year Old Virgin unless you make the same choice they did. The stats are conclusive: circumcision is waning big-time. Unless women want to share their male partners with five other women they will learn to alter their preferences.


In response to the pro side, not EVERY woman prefers circumcised (or vice versa). Personally, I don't have a preference. My first sexual partner was uncut, and the rest have all been cut.

What people prefer, in general, tends to correlate with what society deems as desirable or preferable. Different physical characteristics go in and out of vogue. When Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield were popular, buxom blondes were considered the most attractive. In more modern times with J Lo and Kim Kardashian, a big round posterior is the rage. In the Renaissance, a curvy, ample woman was considered more attractive than a thin woman, but in the late 1960s, no one was sexier than Twiggy. 

As circumcision rates drop, women will see it as less of an anomaly and more of an either/or. It will become more normalized, and no longer unusual.



Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## MJJEAN

chillymorn69 said:


> So this would be a deal breaker!
> 
> Hmm, interesing.
> 
> I am begining to think woman are more superficially than men.


I don't think it's superficial to say I consider an active turn-off a deal breaker. I literally find the uncut penis to be unappealing and the idea of touching one, much less inserting it into my mouth or vagina, to be nauseating. I have no idea why that is, but it is.


----------



## Personal

I don't see anything wrong with someone not liking an uncircumcised penii, nor do I think those who feel that way are superficial because of it.

Having been born in Australia, I am typical for Australia in being uncircumcised.

In my experience having had sex with mostly British, Australian and various nationality European women, with no women from the United States. it has never been an issue, since it has been the normal thing for those I have been with.


----------



## Machjo

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


Benefits of circumcision 'outweigh the risks' official report declares | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Notself

Machjo said:


> Benefits of circumcision 'outweigh the risks' official report declares | Daily Mail Online


I would take pretty much anything you read in the Daily Fail with a grain of salt.

The medical side has been argued, re-argued, re-argued again, and re-re-argued and there's no consensus among scientists. Personally, I'm a fan of bodily integrity. If we expect other cultures not to chop parts off of little girls, I believe we should be morally consistent and stop chopping parts off little boys.


----------



## Rhubarb

David Darling said:


> How many healthy guys opt for a circumcision when they're adult i.e. when they can chose freely for themselves?
> 
> Doesn't happen.


I don't know myself, but I'm wiling to bet the vast majority of circumcised guys don't obsess about the fact it was done to them. I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I am circumcised, however my son isn't. My wife (now ex) let me decided. I did some reading and didn't feel it was necessary to put him though surgery just after being born (however there were some arguments for having it done). I also don't think it's a big deal if parents decide to have it done. I have never noticed any ill effects from being circumcised. There are arguments on both side of this, but it seems some people here are making it into a **** measuring contest.

Edit: And BTW it does in fact "happen". When I was researching it for my son I did encounter some parents that said their teen sons were upset that they weren't circumcised and had made the decision to have it done.


----------



## Luvher4life

I am circumsized, and I'm the only male in my immediate family that was. It was a medical necessity when I was a baby because of persistent infections. I have no regrets at all. I think it looks better, feels better, and is cleaner to me. I can't say anything about sensitivity because this is all I've ever known. I "turtle" just like an uncut man would, just not all the way, so I'm pretty sure there hasn't been much loss of sensitivity. I never had sons so I will never have to make that decision. When I was growing up, I don't remember seeing any circumsized people in locker rooms, so I felt a little awkward at times. It's a good thing that I was more of a "shower" than a "grower".


----------



## Maxwedge 413

She'sStillGotIt said:


> This is what I picture when I hear the word uncircumcised:


Almost. You just need to rub sweat, semen, urine and a lot of funk into all the folds and wait for it to smell like an old homeless woman with a bad yeast infection. Then it would be perfect.

I'm going to play both sides of this topic with anecdotes and experiences from close friends and lovers' perspectives.

My first wife had had over 70 partners ( :surprise: ) and several of them, including her second husband, were uncut. She said that while she liked the look and feel, they always stunk and she would not, unless forced, put it near or in her mouth. She said that when she showered with her husband if she tried to seductively wash it for him he would jump away saying it was too sensitive to touch like that, and consequently she felt (and I feel from her telling) that while most boys and men know that they _should_ wash it well... they don't because it is uncomfortable to do so. She also said that compared to us "barbarically mutilated" circumcised men, the uncut guys were all one-pump-chumps. YMMV.

I had a few friends in college who were uncircumcised and talked about it. I wrote in another thread recently about the one with Phimosis, which has it's own issues. But the other fellow, who said he was taught early to wash it thoroughly and often, said that it still got nasty due to the nature of the beast. Bare feet in sandals on vacation in the sun - no problem. Hard working feet trapped in sweaty socks and tight army boots, marching through the jungle for a week? Jungle rot. On your d!ck. He also said that he was a one-pump-chump when with women.

I have another friend who was cut as an infant, and has spent the last 5 years trying to stretch it back. Idiot. Love him, but he wraps his wang in medical tape and weights to try to stretch non-foreskin into being foreskin. His wife isn't happy, but supports his endeavors. He is hung up that some part of his masculinity was stolen from him, and says this is a nationwide movement. I say if you never knew it, how can you miss it?

Now _Nature_ - That is a different animal. Yes, God or nature made that foreskin for a specific reason and who are you to cut it off of your child? It is there to protect the incredibly sensitive glans of his penis as he runs and squats through the brush and thorns of the wilderness. It is there to protect and desensitise it until he finally gets a chance to mate. In nature, where our biology was designed before civilization began, you didn't have the luxury of silk boxers and long, sensual lovemaking sessions with candles and feathers. No, you waited until the female came into heat, and was receptive to you, and you copulated with her as fast as possible before a bear ate you. Your unsheathed super-sensitive penis did it's intended purpose, which was to inseminate the female in _as short a time as possible_. It is/was meant to be ultra sensitive. But how many women want an ultra-fast coming man to inseminate them and run back into the woods, in this day and age? It's also natural to never bath or shave your face. We're building quite a sexy fellow now, aren't we ladies?

And while leaving it to the young man to decide doesn't strip him of his right to choice... Having it done as an adult has a month-long painful and awkward recovery. I have had several reproductive surgeries and wish I could change time so that they happened to me as an infant, when my whole schedule was laying down and crying while someone else bathed and coddled me. Going to work with swollen, sutured, punctured genitals is inconvenient to say the least. 

So if you don't like it, keep your boys natural. Just make sure you are frank with them that they must wash it or it will get stinky and girls won't like that.

And if you want to keep it super easy to take care of, "wash and wear" style, while setting them up to be a better lover with fewer social hang-ups, get them cut at birth. Do what you think is best for your sons.


----------



## Primrose

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Almost. You just need to rub sweat, _*semen- (we'll replace this with discharge)*_, urine and a lot of funk into all the folds and wait for it to smell like an old homeless woman with a bad yeast infection. Then it would be perfect.


So basically, it's like a vagina?


----------



## SoFlaGuy

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.


I know someone that had it done as as adult, I didn't ask why, but he said it was a very painful recovery.


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Primrose said:


> So basically, it's like a vagina?


Except that it's not a self-cleaning appliance. It's an old boot that you never take off (except when you want someone to play with it).


----------



## Primrose

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Except that it's not a self-cleaning appliance. It's an old boot that you never take off.


You've smelled these penises yourself then? 

Having been intimate with a few intact men myself, I can safely state the opposite opinion that there is no apparent scent or cleanliness discrepancy. 

Seems to me that's more of a selectivity bias right there. The more partners you experience, you're bound to come across a select few who aren't on top of their showering game. I'm sure there are men here who may have encountered a less than fresh woman themselves.


----------



## MJJEAN

SoFlaGuy said:


> I know someone that had it done as as adult, I didn't ask why, but he said it was a very painful recovery.


My cousin had his done as an adult, too. He said it wasn't too bad. I've had some friends and family have vasectomies and had some report total misery while others said minor discomfort. I think it's a pain tolerance thing. Some are going to say the pain was so bad they wished someone would drop an anvil on them and others will say they were fine after taking two Tylenol.


----------



## Maxwedge 413

These are only (all of) the uncircumcised men that my wife had experience with, including a husband. And a close friend who was un-cut. Perhaps it's just an American aardvark issue, I really don't know. I am not trying to insult you or your man. I am just telling what the smellers, bangers and owners of such penises have told me. No, I have not smelled one personally. I also don't need to smell dog poop to believe it is unpleasant. But I do know what my crotch smells like if I have a quicky with the Mrs before work and wear those juices for a 12 hour shift. Nasty, funky, natural body secretion yuck. Just tell em to wash it often.


----------



## Middle of Everything

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Bare feet in sandals on vacation in the sun - no problem. Hard working feet trapped in sweaty socks and tight army boots, marching through the jungle for a week? Jungle rot. On your d!ck.
> 
> .


I have to admit, this cracked me up.


----------



## SoFlaGuy

MJJEAN said:


> I've had some friends and family have vasectomies and had some report total misery while others said minor discomfort. I think it's a pain tolerance thing..


 I think you may be on track with the pain tolerance thing. I read some horror stories before my vasectomy but I had, what I would describe as, mild discomfort with some bruising- no painmeds.


----------



## Cletus

SoFlaGuy said:


> I think you may be on track with the pain tolerance thing. I read some horror stories before my vasectomy but I had, what I would describe as, mild discomfort with some bruising- no painmeds.


My story is a little different, and I've never been accused of a low pain tolerance. 

The procedure was excruciating. When the doctor pulled out my Vas, I thought I'd been kicked in the groin by Pele. You know the feeling - that creeping ache that starts in your balls and migrates into your stomach? The nausea, cold sweat, your universe contracting to a tiny ball of light? 

The recovery was not bad with the help of some frozen peas. But the 10 years of the periodic post surgical testicular pain was not a lot of fun either.


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Cletus said:


> The recovery was not bad with the help of some frozen peas. But the 10 years of the periodic post surgical testicular pain was not a lot of fun either.


10 years of pain??? That is not normal. Are you sure this wasn't an alien abduction? My vascectomy was fairly painless but since you're wide awake I could feel the tugging and smell the cauterization. I think I only took a few days off work for recovery. The Vas Reversal 24 years later was another story. I was off work for a month with a purple sac the size of a grapefruit. The things I do for this kid.


----------



## Notself

Cletus said:


> The recovery was not bad with the help of some frozen peas. But the 10 years of the periodic post surgical testicular pain was not a lot of fun either.


Neither my surgery nor my recovery was painful in the least. But yeah, I also had 10 years of pain afterwards. Not fun. Sometimes I still get a twinge more than 20 years post-surgery. No one warned me it could be a side effect. I might not have gone through with it if they had.

Now the hydrocele I had ... That was just miserable.


----------



## Cletus

Maxwedge 413 said:


> 10 years of pain??? That is not normal. Are you sure this wasn't an alien abduction? My vascectomy was fairly painless but since you're wide awake I could feel the tugging and smell the cauterization. I think I only took a few days off work for recovery. The Vas Reversal 24 years later was another story. I was off work for a month with a purple sac the size of a grapefruit. The things I do for this kid.


Not constant. Every once in a while I would sleep wrong on one nut and walk funny for a day. Never had it before, and by now it's disappeared. But man, some of those days...


----------



## Maxwedge 413

I've had a real pain in the a$$ since my son was born, but I think that's different.


----------



## 269370

Oh wow. Thanks for this. I was about to book my vasectomy/nut cracker procedure until I read this.
Please, at least tell me that the sex is unbelievably amazing after all this pain...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Ummm, why would it be any better?


No.


----------



## 269370

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Ummm, why would it be any better?
> 
> 
> No.




‘Cos the website where I was booking it clearly said that cutting your balls off ‘is the most loving gift you can make to your spouse’. (!)
Since I pretty much bought everything a spouse could wish for, I (perhaps mistakenly) thought that serving her my blue balls on a silver platter would make her want to want me more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

inmyprime said:


> Oh wow. Thanks for this. I was about to book my vasectomy/nut cracker procedure until I read this.
> Please, at least tell me that the sex is unbelievably amazing after all this pain...


If it's any consolation, I'd do it again. We'll, I mean not a second time. **** that. You get my drift.


----------



## Notself

inmyprime said:


> Oh wow. Thanks for this. I was about to book my vasectomy/nut cracker procedure until I read this.
> Please, at least tell me that the sex is unbelievably amazing after all this pain...


Google "sperm granuloma." About 10% get one, but no one tells you that.

Sex is still the same afterwards. You just don't have to worry about birth control, which I suppose could make it better if you were inclined that way.


----------



## 269370

Notself said:


> Google "sperm granuloma."...


Is it a breakfast dish?


----------



## Maxwedge 413

inmyprime said:


> Is it a breakfast dish?


No, you're thinking of Post Great-Nuts. Delicious.


----------



## chillymorn69

Read up on vasectomys before doing it.

They can have problems.

I know a lot of guys say that it was the best thing ey ever did but there is a small chance that there could be problems.

I think rheres a thread on here about it. 

Me personally....no thanks plus wife has been through change of life already.

Just make an informed decision.


----------



## biwing

Clearly this forum is dominated by self proclaimed know it alls that continue to push their misinformation on to the other unsuspecting patrons. Those same individuals are not to about to accept anyone's else opinions nor appreciate honest knowledge derived from years of life's experiences.


I'm out a here ...........


----------



## Maxwedge 413

biwing said:


> I was mutulated at birth with a circumsion and have always had disgust with my mom for having it done WITHOUT my consent! (And I'm very sure that I verbalized my opposition to having it done at the time.)
> 
> I spent three years tugging and streaching what was left back into a sorta foreskin but the lost nerve ends are gone for good. I managed to get a foreskin look but not the tightly wrapped look that is with a normal one.
> 
> *If man wasn't supposed to have that protective wrap then GOD wouldn't have designed him that way. His engineering is much better than that!
> 
> **In terms of fertility, the foreskin makes a better seal with the cervix at the moment of climax and more of the seman/sperm is injected into the uterus lessening the work that the sperms need to do to get to the egg and do their job.


*That is a good viewpoint and you are entitled to it. But I will point out that God also didn't intend for man to cut his hair, shave, take baths or wear clothing. But man has an evolved mind and is able to suit his environment, and his body, to his own design.

**You do not have a very good understanding of human anatomy or sexuality. The foreskin does not attach or seal to the cervix in any way, shape or form. Also your penis doesn't fit into or directly against the cervix like a fueling nozzle to "inject" semen into it when ejaculation / fertilization takes place.


----------



## Wolf1974

Maxwedge 413 said:


> *That is a good viewpoint and you are entitled to it. But I will point out that God also didn't intend for man to cut his hair, shave, take baths or wear clothing. But man has an evolved mind and is able to suit his environment, and his body, to his own design.
> 
> **You do not have a very good understanding of human anatomy or sexuality. The foreskin does not attach or seal to the cervix in any way, shape or form. Also your penis doesn't fit into or directly against the cervix like a fueling nozzle to "inject" semen into it when ejaculation / fertilization takes place.


Glad someone corrected this. Amazing how many don’t understand the working of their own bodies


----------



## RandomDude

biwing said:


> If man wasn't supposed to have that protective wrap then GOD wouldn't have designed him that way. His engineering is much better than that!


Hahaha I always found amusing the old testament and God's intense hatred of foreskins! They are uncircumsized! Must genocide them all! 



Wolf1974 said:


> Glad someone corrected this. Amazing how many don’t understand the working of their own bodies


'Tis a curious thing, the foreskin should be folded back when erect anyway. Don't really get how it causes problems with sex. :scratchhead:


----------



## Wolf1974

RandomDude said:


> Hahaha I always found amusing the old testament and God's intense hatred of foreskins! They are uncircumsized! Must genocide them all!
> 
> 
> 
> 'Tis a curious thing, the foreskin should be folded back when erect anyway. Don't really get how it causes problems with sex. :scratchhead:


More of a problem with hygiene as most didn’t know how to properly wash


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Wolf1974 said:


> More of a problem with hygiene as most didn’t know how to properly wash


Correct. Hygiene, or lack of, is the only normal problem. If you are against it, then don't have your sons snipped. Just make sure you teach them to wash well, and when they hit puberty _really_ tell them. I believe little boy's foreskin is more attached to the glans, so they cannot pull it back. But by puberty they should be able to and should know to clean it as they must their stinky armpits and feet. 

I do not, however, understand men that carry a big bag of resentment with them everywhere, because their parents let the hospital perform a common, recommended minor medical procedure when they were 1 day old. I'd be more upset that the doctors pulled you out by your head with big hot dog tongs. How do you miss something that you never knew? It just doesn't seem like something worth worrying about. If you are a lousy lover and can't satisfy a woman, trust me - it has nothing to do with your lack of foreskin.


----------



## biwing

Miss guotes and youth are no excuse for their Ignorance ....................


These people will get what they deserve in the near future .......... because they fail to see beyond themselves.


----------



## Broadways

You people are either naive or have forgotten the past. My guess is that your ancestors never told you the meaning behind old customs. It has nothing to do with hygiene and all that sympathetic bs.

Where I live, only Muslims get their penis chopped.

On the streets, people call them, "Landya".

Back in the 80-90s, we didn't have bulldogs or any of the fight dogs so we used to grab 10 day old new born puppies and chop their tail off to make it look like a fight dog. That's where the word, "landya" originates from. It means disguising a "farm boy" to look like a "soldier".

--------

Back to the discussion, Now I would have condoned male circumcision had the child been an African child. They could spare loosing a few inches. But non-african kids getting their willy's chopped is just plain stupid. None of us are chopped. None of the people of my culture have their's chopped.

The extra skin(the hood) disappears when the penis gets erect. Mine does and you won't be able to tell if I'm chopped when I'm erect. If you remove the skin, your willy will be an inch or two shorter while erect. If you still have skin hanging while you're full erect, you clearly have a limp deek(an erection dysfunction). Get yourself checked or take viagra to see how a stiff erection looks like.

Stop chopping your non-african Willie's!!! Every inch counts lol

Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


----------



## sandcastle

Broadways said:


> You people are either naive or have forgotten the past. My guess is that your ancestors never told you the meaning behind old customs. It has nothing to do with hygiene and all that sympathetic bs.
> 
> Where I live, only Muslims get their penis chopped.
> 
> On the streets, people call them, "Landya".
> 
> Back in the 80-90s, we didn't have bulldogs or any of the fight dogs so we used to grab 10 day old new born puppies and chop their tail off to make it look like a fight dog. That's where the word, "landya" originates from. It means disguising a "farm boy" to look like a "soldier".
> 
> --------
> 
> Back to the discussion, Now I would have condoned male circumcision had the child been an African child. They could spare loosing a few inches. But non-african kids getting their willy's chopped is just plain stupid. None of us are chopped. None of the people of my culture have their's chopped.
> 
> The extra skin(the hood) disappears when the penis gets erect. Mine does and you won't be able to tell if I'm chopped when I'm erect. If you remove the skin, your willy will be an inch or two shorter while erect. If you still have skin hanging while you're full erect, you clearly have a limp deek(an erection dysfunction). Get yourself checked or take viagra to see how a stiff erection looks like.
> 
> Stop chopping your non-african Willie's!!! Every inch counts lol
> 
> Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk




Holy circumcised willy-


Ya know-
You got your penis but leave dogs and what you did to them out of it.

We are all so happy and proud about your penis.


----------



## sandcastle

Serious- your peepee rules the day.

Poor puppies.
Yuck.


----------



## manwithnoname

Broadways said:


> You people are either naive or have forgotten the past. My guess is that your ancestors never told you the meaning behind old customs. It has nothing to do with hygiene and all that sympathetic bs.
> 
> Where I live, only Muslims get their penis chopped.
> 
> On the streets, people call them, "Landya".
> 
> Back in the 80-90s, we didn't have bulldogs or any of the fight dogs so we used to grab 10 day old new born puppies and chop their tail off to make it look like a fight dog. That's where the word, "landya" originates from. It means disguising a "farm boy" to look like a "soldier".
> 
> --------
> 
> Back to the discussion, Now I would have condoned male circumcision had the child been an African child. They could spare loosing a few inches. But non-african kids getting their willy's chopped is just plain stupid. None of us are chopped. None of the people of my culture have their's chopped.
> 
> *The extra skin(the hood) disappears when the penis gets erect. Mine does and you won't be able to tell if I'm chopped when I'm erect. **If you remove the skin, your willy will be an inch or two shorter while erect*. If you still have skin hanging while you're full erect, you clearly have a limp deek(an erection dysfunction). Get yourself checked or take viagra to see how a stiff erection looks like.
> 
> Stop chopping your non-african Willie's!!! Every inch counts lol
> 
> Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


Yes, with the skin pulled back when erect you can't tell whether circumsized or not. 

But no, your willy is the same length whether circumsized or not. You don't lose any length.


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Broadways said:


> You people are either naive or have forgotten the past. My guess is that your ancestors never told you the meaning behind old customs. It has nothing to do with hygiene and all that sympathetic bs.
> 
> Where I live, only Muslims get their penis chopped.
> 
> On the streets, people call them, "Landya".
> 
> Back in the 80-90s, we didn't have bulldogs or any of the fight dogs so we used to grab 10 day old new born puppies and chop their tail off to make it look like a fight dog. That's where the word, "landya" originates from. It means disguising a "farm boy" to look like a "soldier".
> 
> --------
> 
> Back to the discussion, Now I would have condoned male circumcision had the child been an African child. They could spare loosing a few inches. But non-african kids getting their willy's chopped is just plain stupid. None of us are chopped. None of the people of my culture have their's chopped.
> 
> *The extra skin(the hood) disappears when the penis gets erect. Mine does and you won't be able to tell if I'm chopped when I'm erect*. If you remove the skin, your willy will be an inch or two shorter while erect. If you still have skin hanging while you're full erect, you clearly have a limp deek(an erection dysfunction). Get yourself checked or take viagra to see how a stiff erection looks like.
> 
> Stop chopping your non-african Willie's!!! Every inch counts lol
> 
> Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


The *Bold* sentence is the only factual part of your post. Well, I also don't know what racist names you call Muslims, so that could be true too. Otherwise you clearly don't understand the physical structure of a penis. When you get a haircut, or take your raincoat off, do you get shorter? You're saying that's what happens. 

I question your knowledge of dogs too. Here in America we've had fighting dog breeds since the the 1600's, and we brought them with us from Europe. It's much more common to trim ears than tails, but they are both for practical reasons. But again, I don't know what you do where you live.

But be careful saying borderline racist things here (like black boys could use a few inches chopped off).


----------



## Maxwedge 413

sandcastle said:


> We are all so happy and proud about your penis.


Yes we are. Don't be jealous Sandcastle.


----------



## SGr

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


Uncut. Sons uncut. No need to. No issues. Just practice proper hygiene.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk


----------



## Broadways

manwithnoname said:


> But no, your willy is the same length whether circumsized or not. You don't lose any length.


As someone who has an unchopped deek, and knows how it feels to have the head protrude forward in intense situations(it shivers in pain before settling down), I have to disagree with you.

The extra skin is there for a reason. For chopped guys, I imagine the pressure increasing but settling down as soon at it hits the wall. There is no skin for it protrude any longer. Anyone who argues against it is a sympathiser of the custom.

The custom actually originated out of Africa where communities practiced it as a form of sacrifice to the gods which eventually trickled into Abrahamic customs. The africans could afford it. If I had long thick hair(which I do), I would have sacrificed it to my gods(as many people in my community already do) as well.

But here is a fact. Neither YOU or I are Africans(deek size). Neither YOU or africans are me(Long thick silky hair and beard).

1) The africans can afford to chop their deeks

2) My people (ie, I) can afford to chop our hair

What can you afford to chop? What do you have? Hain? HAIN?

Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Broadways said:


> What can you afford to chop? Hain? HAIN?
> 
> Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


You are entitled to live in whatever reality, or galaxy, you think you are in. But understand that when you write as a looney bird, then that is how you will be perceived. Oh, and you are incorrect on just about everything. At least according to medical knowledge, common knowledge, and historical knowledge. But who cares about all that? Hain Hain!


----------



## Tatsuhiko

GuyInColorado said:


> This thread is proof that you should always have your son circumcised. Thank heavens I was adamant that my son go under the knife, even held his tiny hand while it happened hours after birth. The doc that did it said he saw no need to have it done and didn't have his sons circumcised, but I knew it was for his best interest.


What do stories about deaths and disfigurements that occur during circumcisions prove? This is a reality. What's weird is how emotional people get about the issue.


----------



## Broadways

Maxwedge 413 said:


> You are entitled to live in whatever reality, or galaxy, you think you are in. But understand that when you write as a looney bird, that that is how you will be perceived. Oh, and you are incorrect on just about everything. At least according to medical knowledge, common knowledge, and historical knowledge. But who cares about all that? Hain Hain!


I have no doubt that if there was an Abrahamic custom of chopping off an infant's ear lobe, there would be some person, somewhere writing articles in a science journal about the benefits of that practice. Others(like you for eg) would even argue that such an amputation had no effect on the size of the ear lobe.

Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


----------



## manwithnoname

Broadways said:


> As someone who has an unchopped deek, and knows how it feels to have the head protrude forward in intense situations(it shivers in pain before settling down), I have to disagree with you.
> 
> The extra skin is there for a reason. For chopped guys, I imagine the pressure increasing but settling down as soon at it hits the wall. There is no skin for it protrude any longer. Anyone who argues against it is a sympathiser of the custom.
> 
> The custom actually originated out of Africa where communities practiced it as a form of sacrifice to the gods which eventually trickled into Abrahamic customs. The africans could afford it. If I had long thick hair(which I do), I would have sacrificed it to my gods(as many people in my community already do) as well.
> 
> But here is a fact. Neither YOU or I are Africans(deek size). Neither YOU or africans are me(Long thick silky hair and beard).
> 
> 1) The africans can afford to chop their deeks
> 
> 2) My people (ie, I) can afford to chop our hair
> 
> What can you afford to chop? What do you have? Hain? HAIN?
> 
> Sent from my YU5510 using Tapatalk


You make a lot of assumptions, and say a lot of stupid things that are not true.

I'm "unchopped" as you put it. If I was to get cut today, my "deek" would be the same length when erect, before and after the procedure. I would just be missing foreskin. 

As far as being able to "afford" being chopped, I'm pretty sure they don't chop the ****ing head of your ****.


----------



## Maxwedge 413

Deek Head.


----------



## RandomDude

manwithnoname said:


> You make a lot of assumptions, and say a lot of stupid things that are not true.
> 
> I'm "unchopped" as you put it. If I was to get cut today, my "deek" would be the same length when erect, before and after the procedure. I would just be missing foreskin.
> 
> As far as being able to "afford" being chopped, I'm pretty sure they don't chop the ****ing head of your ****.


Ey? I thought it was just you know... 'nip the tip':






Lol


----------



## sandcastle

Maxwedge 413 said:


> Yes we are. Don't be jealous Sandcastle.


Ok- I'm confident your **** is bigger than your mouth.


----------



## [email protected]rseas1

The people I see getting emotional about it are the ones who either had circumcision done on themselves or on their own children. 

When you question mutilation, and that is a proper term for it, the guilt is obviously motivation for extreme defense mechanisms.

Someone above mentioned the Africans as early practicioners. Specifically, it was the Egyptian royalty. It was taken as a mark of them being "chosen ones", and as was correctly cited above: adopted by early Jewish practicioners as well. 

In Genesis, God tells Abraham to practice circumcision as a sign of the "covenant". Now clearly this is just copycat superstitious nonsense in terms of its origin. After centuries of it in certain cultures and religions, people don't question it for the same reason they question none of the other rituals. And yes of course, as someone else above mentioned, they make up additional reasons for circumcision that are just apologetics.

We give our kids the choice anytime they want. That's who the decision belongs to. So far they are adamant that they don't want to mutilate their own weenies.


----------



## committed_guy

I don't understand in this day and age why it's ok to cut infant boys there.

How many mother's who claim to be "pro-choice" because it's their body also get their sons cut as newborns?


----------



## hardwired

[email protected] said:


> The people I see getting emotional about it are the ones who either had circumcision done on themselves or on their own children.
> 
> When you question mutilation, and that is a proper term for it, the guilt is obviously motivation for extreme defense mechanisms.
> 
> Someone above mentioned the Africans as early practicioners. Specifically, it was the Egyptian royalty. It was taken as a mark of them being "chosen ones", and as was correctly cited above: adopted by early Jewish practicioners as well.
> 
> In Genesis, God tells Abraham to practice circumcision as a sign of the "covenant". Now clearly this is just copycat superstitious nonsense in terms of its origin. After centuries of it in certain cultures and religions, people don't question it for the same reason they question none of the other rituals. And yes of course, as someone else above mentioned, they make up additional reasons for circumcision that are just apologetics.
> 
> We give our kids the choice anytime they want. That's who the decision belongs to. So far they are adamant that they don't want to mutilate their own weenies.


Exactly. It's predominantly a Jewish custom and a North American thing....the latter becoming far more uncommon. North Americans ended up doing it for so long because it became a trend. That's all - there's no reason to do it. As Kramer said when George asked "isn't it a question of hygiene?", "it's a myth". If you don't clean in between your toes, that gets funky too. Teach your uncircumcised boys proper hygiene and they'll be fine. The North Americans on here defending it are defending a past trend, not a medical necessity. The whole "we want our baby to look like his dad" argument for mutilating their baby boy is disturbing at the very least. Unless you're Jewish, or there's an actual health concern (very rare), there's no reason to do it. It's barbaric and messed up.

As far as the women who are all freaked out by an uncut penis...you've been trained to feel this way because what you're used to is men who were cut to follow a trend. You're conditioned. Which is sad. If it were a trend for baby girls to have their nipples cut off at birth, guys would be turned off by women with nipples. It's stupid.

The overwhelming majority of European males are uncut - their incidence of medical issues with their wangs is not any greater than North Americans'. European women are not disgusted by natural penises. Watch Euro porn - most of those dudes are uncut. 

Mutilating a baby's penis for a (dying) trend is absurd. And that's all it is. I am uncut. I am clean and have had countless bj's in my life with never a complaint. I am also not a "one pump chump". Not even close, and never have been. I wash my member thoroughly every day, just like I do my butthole - which would also stink if I didn't do so. Should we remove the anus as well?

It's an antiquated, cruel and messed up thing to do to a baby. 

And that was a great question above - how many "pro-choice" women out there insisted on having their baby boy's penis mutilated? Hmm.


----------



## Etomidate

highwood said:


> So just curious for guys that are not circumsized (sp?) any issues? My son who is in his 20s now we did not get circumsized because the pediatrician back then did not recommend it.
> 
> I was just reading an article about it and it is not something I talk about with him but often I wonder is he going to have issues because of that? Sometimes I wish we had because it seems like the majority get their baby boys done.


I’m uncircumcised and it has never been an inssue for me in terms of hygiene or having sex. If women I was with prior to my wife had a preference it was never a deal breaker for them. My wife has mentioned that she used to have a preference for circumcised, but obviously not enough to be a deal breaker for her. The only time we ever discussed it was when our son was born, and it’s really no ones business what we chose to do or not do. As a nurse, I’m neutral about the topic - either is fine. Parents make the decision that is right for their family and it really is not anyone elses’ business.

To those calling it mutilation - oh do shut up. The circumcised penis works just fine (plenty of studies have disproved the sensitivity thing). As a nurse, I watched a couple of circumcisions in nursing school. They were basically non-events for the baby. They were given a ring block and then their foreskin was removed when they were properly numbed. They did not go into “shock” when it was done, contrary to what a lot of activists say. These people should look up the medical definition of the word shock. They also nursed and bonded with their mothers just fine. There are also small, inarguable health benefits confired by circumsion. Studies have proven this time and again. Only the most scientifically uneducated try to argue this point. In my decade-long career in ER medicine I’ve seen maybe one or two complications from circumcision and it’s always been very minor bleeding (the parents needed to be treated more than the baby). I’ve seen far worse complications from knee surgeries.

On the flip side of the argument, I laugh at so-called nurses or healthcare workers that talk about the problems older men have with their foreskins. I work in an ER. The vast majority of UTIs I see are in female patients. The UTIs I have seen in male patients are split pretty much 50/50 circumcised/uncircumcised. Men have a much bigger
problem with urinary retention (usually do to prostate issues) than with UTIs. In any case, antibiotics are used to treat UTIs.


----------



## hardwired

Etomidate said:


> I’m uncircumcised and it has never been an inssue for me in terms of hygiene or having sex. If women I was with prior to my wife had a preference it was never a deal breaker for them. My wife has mentioned that she used to have a preference for circumcised, but obviously not enough to be a deal breaker for her. The only time we ever discussed it was when our son was born, and it’s really no ones business what we chose to do or not do. As a nurse, I’m neutral about the topic - either is fine. Parents make the decision that is right for their family and it really is not anyone elses’ business.
> 
> To those calling it mutilation - oh do shut up. The circumcised penis works just fine (plenty of studies have disproved the sensitivity thing). As a nurse, I watched a couple of circumcisions in nursing school. They were basically non-events for the baby. They were given a ring block and then their foreskin was removed when they were properly numbed. They did not go into “shock” when it was done, contrary to what a lot of activists say. These people should look up the medical definition of the word shock. They also nursed and bonded with their mothers just fine. There are also small, inarguable health benefits confired by circumsion. Studies have proven this time and again. Only the most scientifically uneducated try to argue this point. In my decade-long career in ER medicine I’ve seen maybe one or two complications from circumcision and it’s always been very minor bleeding (the parents needed to be treated more than the baby). I’ve seen far worse complications from knee surgeries.
> 
> On the flip side of the argument, I laugh at so-called nurses or healthcare workers that talk about the problems older men have with their foreskins. I work in an ER. The vast majority of UTIs I see are in female patients. The UTIs I have seen in male patients are split pretty much 50/50 circumcised/uncircumcised. Men have a much bigger
> problem with urinary retention (usually do to prostate issues) than with UTIs. In any case, antibiotics are used to treat UTIs.


Actually it is someone else's business - the child who's having a part of their genitalia removed without their consent. How anyone claiming to be a rational human being can defend it is beyond me.

"Oh do shut up"? Nah, but you feel free to do so. 

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/jmbqj3/is-male-circumcision-a-form-of-genital-mutilation

Your assertion that "plenty of studies have disproved the sensitivity thing" means nothing. There are studies that state otherwise, too. You're cherry picking to fit your narrative. You have no way of proving that assertion. Nobody does. Even if you could prove that, it wouldn't matter. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x

"small, inarguable health benefits"? Oh, well then, by all means, raise your scalpels. Again, there aren't higher incidents of penis problems in countries where it isn't practiced. It went from being a health hazard not to do it, to "small" benefits...to, well, yeah, completely unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of males. 

You watched a couple babies being cut and came to the conclusion they're cool with it, so it's all good? Lol. You're a nurse, not a psychic.


----------



## hardwired

And comparing removing part of the penis to shaving or cutting your hair? Wow.


----------



## Etomidate

hardwired said:


> Actually it is someone else's business - the child who's having a part of their genitalia removed without their consent. How anyone claiming to be a rational human being can defend it is beyond me.
> 
> "Oh do shut up"? Nah, but you feel free to do so.
> 
> https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/jmbqj3/is-male-circumcision-a-form-of-genital-mutilation
> 
> Your assertion that "plenty of studies have disproved the sensitivity thing" means nothing. There are studies that state otherwise, too. You're cherry picking to fit your narrative. You have no way of proving that assertion. Nobody does. Even if you could prove that, it wouldn't matter.
> 
> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x
> 
> "small, inarguable health benefits"? Oh, well then, by all means, raise your scalpels. Again, there aren't higher incidents of penis problems in countries where it isn't practiced. It went from being a health hazard not to do it, to "small" benefits...to, well, yeah, completely unnecessary in the overwhelming majority of males.
> 
> You watched a couple babies being cut and came to the conclusion they're cool with it, so it's all good? Lol. You're a nurse, not a psychic.


The article you provided from vice is just that - an article, no about a scientific piece. The second one is a study of tissues on cadavers. Since you seem to lack understanding of a lot of science, cadavers are dead bodies and are therefore unable to say anything about their sensitivity. Studies on males circumcised as adults show no reduction in sensitivity. 

You seem pretty triggered by something that’s NOT your business and you’re making emotional arguments, rather than arguments based on science and logic... If I were you, I’d first learn proper research methodology. Then I’d do a little more research...if I were you. But by all means, keep making emotional arguments.


----------



## hardwired

Etomidate said:


> The article you provided from vice is just that - an article, no about a scientific piece. The second one is a study of tissues on cadavers.  Since you seem to lack understanding of a lot of science, cadavers are dead bodies and are therefore unable to say anything about their sensitivity. Studies on males circumcised as adults show no reduction in sensitivity.
> 
> You seem pretty triggered by something that’s NOT your business and you’re making emotional arguments, rather than arguments based on science and logic... If I were you, I’d first learn proper research methodology. Then I’d do a little more research...if I were you. But by all means, keep making emotional arguments.


That's true Nurse Etomidate, I am not a scientist. And as I stated in the post you quoted, you cannot prove it does not reduce sensitivity - BUT, it doesn't matter either way. That's not my beef. The problem is that there is no legitimate reason to do it - emotional arguments? Like choosing to remove part of your kid's penis so he'll "look like daddy", or so that girls won't be grossed out? 

So tell me then, what scientific reasons justify cutting a boys penis? The "small" medical benefits? What scientific facts have you that justify removing part of a person's body without their consent?


----------



## hardwired

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

The science isn't settled. And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that it does reduce sensation. But again, that's not the crux of my argument.

Also, I don't think you can conclusively report as medical fact something that is clearly subjective. How can a man who was circumcised as a baby declare "I do not have decreased sensitivity"? He has absolutely no way of knowing.


----------



## Etomidate

hardwired said:


> That's true Nurse Etomidate, I am not a scientist. And as I stated in the post you quoted, you cannot prove it does not reduce sensitivity - BUT, it doesn't matter either way. That's not my beef. The problem is that there is no legitimate reason to do it - emotional arguments? Like choosing to remove part of your kid's penis so he'll "look like daddy", or so that girls won't be grossed out?
> 
> So tell me then, what scientific reasons justify cutting a boys penis? The "small" medical benefits? What scientific facts have you that justify removing part of a person's body without their consent?


I never said there were scientific reasons to circumcise, but there are a small inarguable health benefits from the operation. You can look up the studies (not my job to do your homework for you) that show reduced risk of HIV and STDs and penile cancer in circumcised males. But I'm guessing you'll have another emotional argument against those as well. 

If you had any education in science or even the most basic understanding of research methodology you'd know that anecdotal evidence is pretty worthless. 

As I said, I'm neutral on the topic, it's not my concern or business what other parents choose to do. That goes for you as well, it's really not your concern and your preoccupation with the penises' of children that aren't yours is, quite frankly, creepy and disturbing. Much more disturbing than a parent choosing to circumcise their son. :|:smile2:


----------



## hardwired

Etomidate said:


> I never said there were scientific reasons to circumcise, but there are a small inarguable health benefits from the operation. You can look up the studies (not my job to do your homework for you) that show reduced risk of HIV and STDs and penile cancer in circumcised males. But I'm guessing you'll have another emotional argument against those as well.
> 
> If you had any education in science or even the most basic understanding of research methodology you'd know that anecdotal evidence is pretty worthless.
> 
> As I said, I'm neutral on the topic, it's not my concern or business what other parents choose to do. That goes for you as well, it's really not your concern and your preoccupation with the penises' of children that aren't yours is, quite frankly, creepy and disturbing. Much more disturbing than a parent choosing to circumcise their son. :|:smile2:


The rates of penile cancer, STD's and HIV are not higher in countries where male circumcision is not practiced. My argument is no more emotional than yours. And your purported evidence that the 2 babies you saw get cut were OK with it and bonded just fine with their moms is anecdotal. Don't be a hypocrite. 

"and your preoccupation with the penises' of children that aren't yours is, quite frankly, creepy and disturbing. Much more disturbing than a parent choosing to circumcise their son.". 

Lol. Ad hominem attacks that insinuate I'm some sort of pervert or pedophile aren't very scientific, but are emotionally based, and low af. Again, don't be a hypocrite. If I have some sort of preoccupation with penises' of children, then wtf are you doing here?

The hypocrisy is amusing.


----------



## Etomidate

hardwired said:


> The rates of penile cancer, STD's and HIV are not higher in countries where male circumcision is not practiced. My argument is no more emotional than yours. And your purported evidence that the 2 babies you saw get cut were OK with it and bonded just fine with their moms is anecdotal. Don't be a hypocrite.
> 
> "and your preoccupation with the penises' of children that aren't yours is, quite frankly, creepy and disturbing. Much more disturbing than a parent choosing to circumcise their son.".
> 
> Lol. Ad hominem attacks that insinuate I'm some sort of pervert or pedophile aren't very scientific, but are emotionally based, and low af. Again, don't be a hypocrite. If I have some sort of preoccupation with penises' of children, then wtf are you doing here?
> 
> The hypocrisy is amusing.



Sorry, but you’re wrong. Arguing for the sake of arguing, which is what you’re doing, only proves you’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

Does acting so childish and triggered make you feel better?

Have a nice day.


----------



## personofinterest

It always makes me laugh when.people try to make this into some big moral or human right issue.

You dint want your kid circumcised, say no. People who had their babies circumcised arent evil. Get off the high horse.

I think circumcision is unnecessary, but good grief. Virtue signaling over a little flap of skin is just too precious lol


----------



## Betrayedone

Well here in the good ol' US of A we like our dinkies cut.......and our women like it cut! Looks better......not like it's trying to hide from something....Don't force your commie brainwashing ways on us......We can think for ourselves.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

hardwired said:


> Mutilating a baby's penis for a (dying) trend is absurd.


Get off your damned soapbox with your overzealous nonsense, accusing everyone of 'mutilating' their male children because it was the standard to circumcise male children for many, many years here in the States. I'm not apologizing to YOU or anyone else. And yes, it was believed to be for hygienic reasons and was considered the NORM, so take it down a few notches for Christ sakes. I don't know one single mother who would ever purposefully 'mutilate' her newly born son *just* for the 'trend' of it like breeders lop off the tails of certain dog breeds. You have no 'skin' in the game so back off with your nasty ass accusations of Americans mutilating their children.



> And that's all it is. I am uncut. I am clean and have had countless bj's in my life with never a complaint. I am also not a "one pump chump". Not even close, and never have been. I wash my member thoroughly every day, just like I do my butthole - which would also stink if I didn't do so.


Thanks for sharing. I didn't need my damned lunch anyway.



> And that was a great question above - how many "pro-choice" women out there insisted on having their baby boy's penis mutilated? Hmm.


What in the actual **** does that have to do with ANYTHING? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. It IS pretty entertaining, however, to see Etomidate - who actually has a *college education* and many years of experience in the *medical* field - continually proving you wrong while you furiously search Google for more gospel from "Vice." LOL.

Pffft. I have drying paint I need to go watch, I can't waste any more of my time on this stupidity.


----------



## hairyhead

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Get off your damned soapbox with your overzealous nonsense, accusing everyone of 'mutilating' their male children because it was the standard to circumcise male children for many, many years here in the States. I'm not apologizing to YOU or anyone else. And yes, it was believed to be for hygienic reasons and was considered the NORM, so take it down a few notches for Christ sakes. I don't know one single mother who would ever purposefully 'mutilate' her newly born son *just* for the 'trend' of it like breeders lop off the tails of certain dog breeds. You have no 'skin' in the game so back off with your nasty ass accusations of Americans mutilating their children.
> 
> Thanks for sharing. I didn't need my damned lunch anyway.
> 
> What in the actual **** does that have to do with ANYTHING? You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now. It IS pretty entertaining, however, to see Etomidate - who actually has a *college education* and many years of experience in the *medical* field - continually proving you wrong while you furiously search Google for more gospel from "Vice." LOL.
> 
> Pffft. I have drying paint I need to go watch, I can't waste any more of my time on this stupidity.


So why is it or was it so prevalent in the States.

It's not needed for hygiene or health reasons.

Religious? What percentage of America is Jewish? Certainly not the percentage circumcised. 

Fashion?

Societal trends or pressure?

Certainly suggests irrational surgery.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Justinian

hardwired said:


> The science isn't settled. And there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that it does reduce sensation. But again, that's not the crux of my argument.
> 
> Also, I don't think you can conclusively report as medical fact something that is clearly subjective. How can a man who was circumcised as a baby declare "I do not have decreased sensitivity"? He has absolutely no way of knowing.


Due to a bad case of Phimosis I was circumcised in my 50s, so I've experienced sex both uncut and cut.

While there has been some reduction in sensitivity, it has not noticeably reduced the pleasure. And, being less sensitive does allow me to go longer, which is a plus. Hygiene is definitely easier. 

I don't think I would have ever considered a circumcision without the medical issue, but over all, I'm happy with it. 

.


----------



## arbitrator

Justinian said:


> Due to a bad case of Phimosis I was circumcised in my 50s, so I've experienced sex both uncut and cut.
> 
> While there has been some reduction in sensitivity, it has not noticeably reduced the pleasure. And, being less sensitive does allow me to go longer, which is a plus. Hygiene is definitely easier.
> 
> I don't think I would have ever considered a circumcision without the medical issue, but over all, I'm happy with it.
> 
> .


*I was uncircumcised at birth, but at age 5, I developed a minor hernia issue, and the family doctor, who actually did the hernia surgery on me, had recommended to my Dad and Mom the circumcision. So I woke up from surgery with two cuts.

And all through life, neither really bothered me!

Both OB/Gyn's for my sons births, recommended the procedure for them basically for cleanliness, and me and my XW went along with it as it was fully covered by insurance! *


----------



## Cletus

Etomidate said:


> To those calling it mutilation - oh do shut up.


Seems a perfectly good use of the term to me.

verb (used with object),*mu·ti·lat·ed,*mu·ti·lat·ing.

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

Look between your legs. Count the number of penises. That's the number of circumcisions you should be allowed to authorize.

I don't care how many thousands of years we've been performing them or what trivial health benefits we can rationalize after the fact. No doubt some enterprising data analyst could make a convincing case for bilateral mastectomy in all women past puberty. Or perhaps less incendiary might be to remove all appendices at birth.

So of course parents who circumcise are not monsters. But let's be accurate in calling the practice what it is - elective genital mutilation. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

She'sStillGotIt said:


> Thanks for sharing. I didn't need my damned lunch anyway.


With such a weak stomach, you should definitely avoid this site. Just so we're clear on what we're talking about here. Be sure to not look at the photographs of this non - mutilation. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/

"The rate of adverse events varies widely across reports, depending on the definition chosen for a postoperative complication. In a large meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective series, Weiss et al. reported a frequency of adverse events of and for serious adverse events [14]. This can represent a significant cost in terms of utilization resources and healthcare dollars. During a five-year period at the Massachusetts General Hospital, 7.4% of all visits to a pediatric urologist were for circumcision complications. This translated to an average total cost per patient for redo procedures of $1,617 and an estimated annual cost of $137,122 to the institution [15].

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## hairyhead

Cletus said:


> Seems a perfectly good use of the term to me.
> 
> verb (used with object),*mu·ti·lat·ed,*mu·ti·lat·ing.
> 
> to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:
> 
> Look between your legs. Count the number of penises. That's the number of circumcisions you should be allowed to authorize.
> 
> I don't care how many thousands of years we've been performing them or what trivial health benefits we can rationalize after the fact. No doubt some enterprising data analyst could make a convincing case for bilateral mastectomy in all women past puberty. Or perhaps less incendiary might be to remove all appendices at birth.
> 
> So of course parents who circumcise are not monsters. But let's be accurate in calling the practice what it is - elective genital mutilation.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Well said. Have a read if this page on which it says

Myth: Circumcision is worth it because it can save lives.

Reality check: Consider breast cancer: There is a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer in her lifetime. Removal of the breast buds at birth would prevent this, and yet no one would advocate doing this to a baby. It is still considered somewhat shocking when an adult woman chooses to have a prophylactic mastectomy because she has the breast cancer gene, yet this was a personal choice done based upon a higher risk of cancer. The lifetime risk of acquiring HIV is less than 2% for men, and can be lowered to near 0% through condom-wearing (Hall 2008). How, then, can we advocate prophylactic circumcision for baby boys?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...cision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk


----------



## TRy

After an extensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released draft policy recommendations in December 2014 affirming male circumcision (MC) as an important public health measure.

They advised that doctors inform all uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex about the significant, but partial, efficacy of MC in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV and some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through heterosexual sex. The World Health Organization also recommends MC, and funds programs to promote and provide it in poor countries.


----------



## Cletus

Etomidate said:


> By your own admission, there are gains from circumcision and marginal gains, are gains nonetheless.
> 
> Usage of inflammatory vitriol such as "mutilation," and "butchering" only shows you to be a biased observer with no understanding of what they're talking about. Keep embarrassing yourself, though, snowflake.


Elective genital mutilation is far and away the most descriptive term for the practice. It's the definition one would give to someone unfamiliar with the term circumcision. It's not hyperbolic and fits the dictionary definitions to a T. We can squabble over butchering if you like.

You don't get to call using proper terminology "vitriol" just because you don't like it. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Cletus

Etomidate said:


> By your own admission, there are gains from circumcision and marginal gains, are gains nonetheless.
> .


Yet it is the only such procedure that we routinely perform on anyone without their consent prior to reaching the age of majority.

The only reason for that is not because of efficacy but because of cultural acceptance. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## Etomidate

Cletus said:


> Elective genital mutilation is far and away the most descriptive term for the practice. It's the definition one would give to someone unfamiliar with the term circumcision. It's not hyperbolic and fits the dictionary definitions to a T. We can squabble over butchering if you like.
> 
> You don't get to call using proper terminology "vitriol" just because you don't like it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


Calling it mutilation is vitriol. You don’t agree with the procedure, so you THINK it’s mutilation; however, it is a valid medical procedure that is recognized as having health implications by the WHO, CDC, and other health organizations. You can believe it be mutilation all you want but it doesn’t make it true. Remeber, “science doesn’t care what you believe,” and in this case, the science doesn’t really support your claim. :wink2:

It really is hilarious when the uneducated lay, such as yourself, embarrass themselves.


----------



## Cletus

Etomidate said:


> Calling it mutilation is vitriol.


Hard to imagine a better term for the removal of disease free tissue causing the patient no discomfort or health issues whatsoever at the time of removal. Vitriol? Oh do shut up, indeed. Mutilation is a morally neutral descriptive term that fits the circumstances better than any other. It is trivially easy to post examples of respected health care providers who use the exact phrase. 

Name me another external body part, any other, the removal of which you would not consider to be mutilation. You should note that I would technically consider ear piercings to be mutilation as well - because it is. Putting holes through, cutting, scarring or surgically removing tissue is mutilation. Infer whatever value laden judgement you like. 



> It really is hilarious when the uneducated lay, such as yourself, embarrass themselves.


So by all means, yuck it up. As my sister-wife Brandine would say - "it doesn't take a circumcision to expose a ****".

Keep up the ad hominem, and we'll get a lot closer to the actual definition of the term "vitriol". Though it's probably best that I bow out of the conversation now before I'm further exposed as your intellectual inferior.


----------



## MattMatt

Cut it out, folks. Maybe we need some tips on how to debate?

What's the similarity between circumnavigation and circumcision?

Both can involve short cuts.


----------



## Ikaika

When I was born, physicians did not ask the parents, they just circumcised, period. 

When we knew we were having a boy, we spent time contemplating the issue. In the end, we did not want our boys (2), looking at dad and asking why theirs looks different. In the end, there really is not as much evidence as many assume to think it is good or bad to circumcise. It’s probably the least invasive outpatient surgery one could have with the least amount of risk (granted there is always risk). 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MattMatt

I had it done age 9 or so for medical reasons.

The only time I ever regretted not having a forskin was when I got the tip of my glans caught in a zip.


----------



## Cynthia

Ouch, ouch, ouch That gave me the shivers @MattMatt


----------



## PigglyWiggly

I was circumcised. I am not sure why but I assume it was cultural. I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church so we weren't Jewish. My dad was not circumcised so maybe his experiences had something to do with it. I will ask and report back. 

FWIW, I am glad I was circumcised as that was the norm in my younger day. For ME, I think it was psychologically beneficial to feel "normal" even though normal may have been because of butchers. Perception is key.


----------



## Ikaika

hardwired said:


> It was a trend. And the people who did it for the trend are very, very defensive about it.




Not guilty or defensive about my son’s having been circumcised. In fact, I rarely think about it at all. And, they have never said to us “why did you do this to us”. 

So many other things that are more important in the life of being a parent. This is not one of them. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## hardwired

Etomidate said:


> Calling it mutilation is vitriol. You don’t agree with the procedure, so you THINK it’s mutilation; however, it is a valid medical procedure that is recognized as having health implications by the WHO, CDC, and other health organizations. You can believe it be mutilation all you want but it doesn’t make it true. Remeber, “science doesn’t care what you believe,” and in this case, the science doesn’t really support your claim. :wink2:
> 
> It really is hilarious when the uneducated lay, such as yourself, embarrass themselves.


The way you speak of yourself, one would think you're a urologist. You're a nurse. Yes, we need nurses. It's a respectable profession. But methinks you place a little too much importance on your nursing education. And your personal attacks really take away any credibility you seem to think you have.

It's a barbaric procedure, largely done in North America, without the consent of the child, and for no good reason. You can yell all you want about the "minor health benefits" or whatever you call them, but that in no way justifies mutilating a baby's genitals. And if there were any actual health benefits, you'd see far more disease in countries that don't practice the trend (which is most countries). And that is not the case.

There's no reason, unless it's your religion, to cut a healthy baby's foreskin off. People who did it and realize they didn't need to seem to be extremely defensive about it. I would be too, if I had had my son cut and then realized I shouldn't have.


----------



## Cynthia

hardwired said:


> There's no reason, unless it's your religion, to cut a healthy baby's foreskin off. People who did it and realize they didn't need to seem to be extremely defensive about it. *I would be too, if I had had my son cut and then realized I shouldn't have.*


I don't think that's what's going on. The problem is that when someone tells a parent that they have "mutilated" their child's genitals they get defensive. Very few people want to harm their children. They do things that they believe are best for their children, when someone comes along and criticizes their parenting and accuses them of mutilating their child, they get defensive. That's a pretty common response.

I agree that it's a mild form of mutilation and that it's okay to say that, but when people start using other words that are only used to inflame things get out of control. People get defensive when they are attacked, which is what has happened on this thread.

Use the report button. Don't respond back in the same manner in which someone attacked you and things will be copasetic .


----------



## happyhusband0005

hardwired said:


> or so that girls won't be grossed out?


That is a good reason. My wife's view, "I would never want something that looks like that in my mouth"


----------



## Cletus

happyhusband0005 said:


> That is a good reason. My wife's view, "I would never want something that looks like that in my mouth"


Funny, 'cause that's what my wife says about my penis. Of course, it has nothing to do with cut status. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## personofinterest

Again, I'm cracking up that this has become a topic for virtue signaling.

Its not a moral issue.

No....its not.


----------



## Ikaika

personofinterest said:


> Again, I'm cracking up that this has become a topic for virtue signaling.
> 
> Its not a moral issue.
> 
> No....its not.




It is not even an issue of parents doing their sons wrong (mutilation). While there are risk for any medical procedure, more often than not, this is not likely to affect a male for any part of his life. 

I have managed to screw my sons up in other ways (I’m probably not that good of a father), but this is not one of them. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Cynthia

I would only have a son of mine circumcised if there were a problem. But I have no negative opinion of those who choose the circumcise. It's a personal family choice. We make all sorts of choices for our children that are no one else's business and I think this is one of them.

Not meaning that the procedure and its implications shouldn't be discussed. It should be. It's good to go into a decision based on facts. That's my modus operandi in most cases, which is why my husband and I wouldn't circumcise. But I also don't think making this decision based on social reasons or emotions is wrong either. And I think it's possible for a person to have the exact same facts that I do and make a different decision.

Vilifying others who disagree with your opinion is no way to win an argument, but it's obviously difficult for people to stick to the facts in this matter and have a reasonable conversation about it without judging each other.


----------



## Cletus

CynthiaDe said:


> Vilifying others who disagree with your opinion is no way to win an argument, but it's obviously difficult for people to stick to the facts in this matter and have a reasonable conversation about it without judging each other.


I am not intending to vilify anyone. I fully understand the religious and social forces informing a parent's decision. These are practices with deep roots. 

I prefer to think about it this way: in a world where no one practiced circumcision, what would your reaction be to someone suggesting that you do it to your son? It would probably be little different from the reaction you would have today if they suggested that you do it to your daughter.

5000 years of the practice has desentisized us to a tradition that many if not most of us would consider a little barbaric if it arose in some religious cult ex nihilo tomorrow. 

Important to that discussion is calling the practice for what it is. 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk


----------



## BioFury

Ikaika said:


> So many other things that are more important in the life of being a parent. This is not one of them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I'd disagree. Doctors remove most of the frenulum along with the foreskin during the procedure. The frenulum contains most of the nerve endings in the penis. Would you say your sex life, or your son's sex lives, are not important?


----------



## Ikaika

BioFury said:


> I'd disagree. Doctors remove most of the frenulum along with the foreskin during the procedure. The frenulum contains most of the nerve endings in the penis. Would you say your sex life, or your son's sex lives, are not important?




Ok

https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SGr

hardwired said:


> I wash my member thoroughly every day, just like I do my butthole - which would also stink if I didn't do so. Should we remove the anus as well?
> 
> It's an antiquated, cruel and messed up thing to do to a baby.
> 
> And that was a great question above - how many "pro-choice" women out there insisted on having their baby boy's penis mutilated? Hmm.


Funniest thing I've read in a while. I just about forgot everything I read leading up to this.

Sent from my 6045O using Tapatalk


----------



## BioFury

Ikaika said:


> Ok
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/27769-does-circumcision-reduce-sexual-pleasure.html
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The article merely states that a study came to one conclusion, while other scientists disagreed with their methods.

The facts are that most of the nerve endings in the penis are in the frenulum. It is thus common sense that if the frenulum is cut off, there would be a loss of sensitivity/pleasure. In addition, you've probably noticed how your finger tips are less sensitive than the back of your hand. One of the reasons for this is because the skin is tougher from everyday use. The same principle could be applied to the penis. When exposed to everyday friction, it toughens the skin, and makes it less sensitive.

Common sense and deductive reasoning.


----------



## happyhusband0005

hardwired said:


> It was a trend. And the people who did it for the trend are very, very defensive about it.


I don't know why most people do it. We gave it a lot of thought. I had never really thought about it before we were close to having a son. Three things were major factors in deciding to have our son circumcised. 1. Our pediatrician recommended it. 2. A good friend of ours who is a urologist told us that grown men he had circumcised (mostly for cosmetic reasons) reported no noticeable change in sensitivity. 3. My wife thought uncut penises were gross, probably due to what the societal norms are in the states, but it is what it is. 

For me I've never thought about it. Maybe I do have less sensation, maybe thats why I can last so long during sex, I've never thought, Oh man I wish sex felt better. But I don't know, I guess based on my wife's feelings on the matter I'm glad I am. But I can honestly say besides the few days we were thinking about it for our son I've never given it a seconds thought.


----------



## Ikaika

BioFury said:


> The article merely states that a study came to one conclusion, while other scientists disagreed with their methods.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that most of the nerve endings in the penis are in the frenulum. It is thus common sense that if the frenulum is cut off, there would be a loss of sensitivity/pleasure. In addition, you've probably noticed how your finger tips are less sensitive than the back of your hand. One of the reasons for this is because the skin is tougher from everyday use. The same principle could be applied to the penis. When exposed to everyday friction, it toughens the skin, and makes it less sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and deductive reasoning.




What does most mean? Ah yes, most that scientific terminology between 0 and well All. 

Actually you have a greater sensory field associated with your fingertips than you do the back of your hand (a two point threshold test can verify this). As a species we are tool makers. And, yes as one gets older his/her sensory systems are not what they used to be. But a build up of callous tissue is not alone in explaining this phenomenon. And, yes scar tissue can reduce sensation, but if you had read the original articles and the rebuttal you would note the amount of scar tissue was never considered a factor. Nerve ending can grow back, especially during early development. 

Needless to say the whole discussion is non-starter since in my 57 years I have yet to experience any loss in pleasure during sex. And, more often than not loss of sensation is more age or cardiovascular related than it is due to circumcision. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 269370

MattMatt said:


> I had it done age 9 or so for medical reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> The only time I ever regretted not having a forskin was when I got the tip of my glans caught in a zip.




Happened to me as well. Once when I zipped up the jacket all the way up to my neck...

Oh sorry, that’s not the penis size thread, is it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370

Etomidate said:


> You can look up the studies (not my job to do your homework for you) that show reduced risk of HIV and STDs and penile cancer in circumcised males.



The best way to reduce risk of STDs is surely not to stick your dong, where it don’t belong. (I will put this with the rest of my rap lyrics).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator

MattMatt said:


> *The only time I ever regretted not having a forskin was when I got the tip of my glans caught in a zip.*


*Hell, Matt! I'm officially outing you as Ben Stiller on prom night from the infamous comedy classic,  There's Something About Mary!

"It's just like pulling off a band-aid! 
A one, and a two and... We've got a bleeder!" *


----------



## 269370

BioFury said:


> The article merely states that a study came to one conclusion, while other scientists disagreed with their methods.
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are that most of the nerve endings in the penis are in the frenulum. It is thus common sense that if the frenulum is cut off, there would be a loss of sensitivity/pleasure. In addition, you've probably noticed how your finger tips are less sensitive than the back of your hand. One of the reasons for this is because the skin is tougher from everyday use. The same principle could be applied to the penis. When exposed to everyday friction, it toughens the skin, and makes it less sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense and deductive reasoning.




Can’t be ‘most’. But even if there are ‘some’, it seems weird to want to cut off an area that has nerve endings.
I think it’s commonly accepted that circumcised penises have slightly less sensitivity (how would a circumcised or non circumcised person know the difference?) but that was viewed as a good thing (last longer).
I dunno. At 38, my frenulum can last ‘all night long’ 
But that wasn’t always the case and I think it’s also to do with ‘mental training’. So if you have the discipline to just thrust it in such a way that is not maximising your pleasure, you can prolong it pretty much indefinitely, whether your Johnson has a haircut or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PigglyWiggly

arbitrator said:


> *Hell, Matt! I'm officially outing you as Ben Stiller on prom night from the infamous comedy classic,  There's Something About Mary!
> 
> "It's just like pulling off a band-aid!
> A one, and a two and... We've got a bleeder!" *


OMG that scene is hysterical. The mentally handicapped brother running around yelling, "franks and beans!" as well as "he was masturbating!" gets me lmao every time.


----------



## personofinterest

Is it weird that I find it funny that in some ways a thread about circumcision has become a measuring contest lol


----------



## PigglyWiggly

personofinterest said:


> Is it weird that I find it funny that in some ways a thread about circumcision has become a measuring contest lol


Spoiler alert: I didn't win lol


----------



## Justinian

BioFury said:


> ... The facts are that most of the nerve endings in the penis are in the frenulum. It is thus common sense that if the frenulum is cut off, there would be a loss of sensitivity/pleasure. In addition, you've probably noticed how your finger tips are less sensitive than the back of your hand. One of the reasons for this is because the skin is tougher from everyday use. The same principle could be applied to the penis. When exposed to everyday friction, it toughens the skin, and makes it less sensitive.
> 
> Common sense and deductive reasoning.


As I posted earlier, I lived for decades with a foreskin, and now nearly a decade without. No noticeable difference in pleasure.

Sometimes actual experience can defy common sense and deductive reasoning.

.


----------



## 269370

personofinterest said:


> Is it weird that I find it funny that in some ways a thread about circumcision has become a measuring contest lol




When has it ever stopped being a measuring contest?
The whole life is one big (depending on the size) measuring contest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

