Keep it cool.

OK, so thing is...

I am not circumcized. I have always been pretty horrified at the notion because to me it's sheer mutilation (unless performed for necessary medical reasons like was the case for my dad in the context of the early 40's). I believe unless for medical reasons it should be illegal like any other mutilation imposed on a non-consenting child.

Now every time I say that on social networks (whenever the topic comes, it's not something I think of often) all the circumcized people start shouting at me that they are perfectly "normal" and that their sexuality is perfectly "normal" and that I don't know what I'm talking about and I'm an idiot and all. They feel threatened in their virility, I understand that, but...

For one thing, I've read that a study at least shows that circumcized people have slightly less sensitivity on their pleasure zones than non circumcized (of course circumcized people shout when they hear that but since they can't compare how would they know). And masturbation can't DEFINITELY be as pleasurable with bare hand (i.e. without toys or lubricant) with circumcision (I've tried to do it without the skin, it's HORRIBLE, only again one wouldn't know if they never had the extra skin).

And then, even if you do not take the above into account, just try and pass a compulsary circumcision program and see how many adults who are not circumcized will comply without a fuss? Offer it for free to all males around you and see how many will jump on the opportunity? Truth is that outside of medical reasons or religious conversion, few if any adults in their right mind would agree on doing it. I know one would have to chain me before they can touch my precious and amputate me of my skin.

So now please understand that i'm not saying that circumcized people are not "normal" or that their sexuality can't be "normal" (though I maintain their autosexuality can't). I consider them victims and I certainly wouldn't go and try to ostracize them because of it.

But yeah, I am just grateful that my precious wasn't mutilated. And yeah, I'd fight to death anyone who'd wanna try it on me. And yes, I believe it's a mutilation that should be performed on children ONLY for unavoidable medical reasons. After, if a Muslim or Jew or whatever adult wants to do it when they're 18 for religious or hygienic or any other personal reason, it's their body, it's their choice, but let them choose.

It's like most other barbaric acts: considered perfectly normal one day, banned the next. I don't believe it'll still be allowed in developed countries in 100 years.

Not, penisses look great just as they are, besides that jerkin off i'm sure it does not feel the same.

GirlBrother said:

I was circumcised quite late in life, so I know what it feels like with and without. It's definitely less sensitive without the foreskin. But... I don't mind the lessening of sensitivity. I don't miss it. The reason for the surgery was an emergency medical condition. I can't understand how it's still legal to circumcise children for non-medical reasons though. It's kind of mind-boggling to me.

So, is it true that jerkin off it does not feel the same without the foreskin?

No.


Infants can't decide for themselves if they want to get mutilated because of some religion.


I think everybody has the right to integrity of her/his own body. When somebody is old enough to decide for themselves, say 25, then the can the the circumcision.

It's a horrible mutilitation and I don't understand why it is allowed.

I think governments should protect infants against mutilating parents. Everywhere around the world.

Yes for my son we did it. I was scared and really was anxious up until the procedure. I just didn't want my little sweetheart to feel pain but the anticipation of it was worse that the actual event. I prayed everynight that the doctor was going to do a good job and that he would feel the least pain possible. I'm glad we did it though and think we made the right decision.

Krystalkisses said:

Yes for my son we did it. I was scared and really was anxious up until the procedure. I just didn't want my little sweetheart to feel pain but the anticipation of it was worse that the actual event. I prayed everynight that the doctor was going to do a good job and that he would feel the least pain possible. I'm glad we did it though and think we made the right decision.

Why did you let it do it than? Was it neccesary?

No to ladies, yes to gents.

Krystalkisses said:

Pokeno4Money said:

GirlBrother said:

NorthC said:

GirlBrother said:

Think again. You didn't.

It's a little late for that now, isn't it?

It's ok. I just was thinking my son would apprechiate it when he is an adult for aesthetic and convience reasons. It has been very easy to keep clean and he hasn't had any infections or problems whatsoever. I make no apologies for it.

GirlBrother said:

Pokeno4Money said:

No to ladies, yes to gents.

If it was the custom to amputate baby boys' little toes, would you do that too? You know, nobody needs their little toes really. They're just asking for a fungal infection later in life, all squashed up in a sweaty pair of sneakers.

Removal of excess skin is not amputation, and it's done quite often with many different procedures including facelifts and tummy tucks.

It comes down to personal preference, just like peeling back the skin on a banana before eating it.

Pokeno4Money said:

Pokeno4Money said:

It's forced genital mutilation.

People should know better by now.

GirlBrother said:

Pokeno4Money said:

Removal of excess skin is not amputation, and it's done quite often with many different procedures including facelifts and tummy tucks.

Surgical removal of any body part is amputation. The foreskin isn't excess skin; it's an integral component of the penis. Would you give a baby a facelift or a tummy tuck? Pokeno4Money said:

It comes down to personal preference, just like peeling back the skin on a banana before eating it.

I've never known of a baby to express a personal preference to undergo an unnecessary irreversible surgical procedure. I have no response to your metaphor of eating bananas, other than shock and disgust.

If it's such an integral component, why do so many circumcised males (81% in the states) live their entire lives without the need for it and without any adverse affects from having it removed? Try using logic.

And I haven't even brought up the fact that half of all uncircumcised males come up with a medical condition related to their foreskin.

There is no need to give a baby a facelift or tummy tuck, that was quite the poor analogy.

Of course an infant isn't capable of formulating a justifiable personal preference, let alone expressing it. So you are advocating waiting until the child is in his teens or twenties before conducting the circumcision? Really? Obviously very few males that age would choose such a painful procedure for someone that age.

Religion wouldn't happen to be the main reason why you are so against it, would it?

Atty said:

One thing that is striking for me is that circumcision is often discussed in terms of cosmetics. That for me is a disgrace.

I can't speak for everyone, but the vast majority of people who have it done for their child do so because it removes the possibility of future health problems.

Most parents don't give a damn as to what their child's penis looks like, as long as there's nothing wrong with it ... sheesh.

"Circumcision for male infants is becoming less common in the U.S., according to new data published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. The paper also finds that over their lifetime, half of all uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/

Pokeno4Money said:

Atty said:

One thing that is striking for me is that circumcision is often discussed in terms of cosmetics. That for me is a disgrace.

I can't speak for everyone, but the vast majority of people who have it done for their child do so because it removes the possibility of future health problems.

Most parents don't give a damn as to what their child's penis looks like, as long as there's nothing wrong with it ... sheesh.

"Circumcision for male infants is becoming less common in the U.S., according to new data published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings. The paper also finds that over their lifetime, half of all uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/

I'm not really talking about parents, I'm talking more about people who defend it after it's been done when this is discussed.

It hasn't been brought up in this thread but I've discussed it enough times and the aesthetics argument is never far away.

As for the health benefits, they are negligable. The HIV argument in particular is silly as exposure to the virus is safeguarded by using condoms, and if you're having unprotected sex with people whom you do not know their status then you have a lot more to worry about than just HIV, and those STDs are easier to catch too.

Pokeno4Money said:

Pokeno4Money said:

Pokeno4Money said:

Pokeno4Money said:

Pokeno4Money said:

I'm not. What other people do to their own bodies is their business. I haven't had sex with circumsized person, so I don't know what it feels like. However, I'd never break my children's body integrity. If they want to tattoo or pierce their bodies, they can as soon as they know what that entails.

Circumcision of infants is unethical. Chopping off a human being's tissue without consent is wrong.

Circumcised penises are ugly, tight and scarred. And keratinized! *shudder*

The real question is, how come nobody EVER considers circumcising the clitoral hood? It's such a sexist procedure!

And never forcibly retract a foreskin! It will naturally separate from the glans around the age of 9 or 10 or so. They aren't separate structures until that age.

The ignorance is palpable.

There is NOTHING natural about circumcision.

NOTHING.

Wow! I'm so glad to see that the tide is turning. I had my older son circumcized because I thought it was just what you were supposed to do. I was an 18yr old uninformed mom. I had two more sons eighteen years later, and after researching it and watching a procedure on youtube, I think the whole procedure is horrid and needs to be made illegal. Why are we as parents allowed to chop of the body parts of another human? Why are girls in the U.S. protected and not boys? It's crazy. And it's male co-workers who give me the hardest time about not having my boys circumcized. "They're gonna be teased in the locker room"..... Who gives a flying fuck? I'm like......that's their freakin penis. What right do I have to make that decision for them??????

They are so ugly with circumcision