circumcision

[pole_smoker]

Good for Germany, eventually more countries will outlaw male genital mutilation like this or the practice will just die out like it has in most of the world.

http://rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Circumcision is a crime. It is involuntary genital mutilation. Let every child grow up with their genitalia intact, then let them decide as adults if they want to mutilate themselves.

[JUSTLUVIN]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact

[darkeyes]

Not that good for Germany... Merkel thinks the judge made the country a laughing stock and decided to put legislation b4 the bundestag to change the law back to the way it was.. not sure if it has happened yet, but alas, no doubt it shall b4 long...

[pole_smoker]

I'm not surprised at all about what this study found about male genital mutilation.

The International Journal of Men’s Health has published the first study of its kind to look at the link between the early trauma of circumcision and the personality trait disorder alexithymia. The study, by Dan Bollinger and Robert S. Van Howe, M.D., M.S., FAAP, found that circumcised men are 60% more likely to suffer from alexithymia, the inability to process emotions.
People suffering from alexithymia have difficulty identifying and expressing their emotions. This translates into not being able to empathize with others. Sufferers of severe alexithymia are so removed from their feelings that they view themselves as being robots. If acquired at an early age, such as from infant circumcision, it might limit access to language and impede the socialization process that begins early in life. Moderate to high alexithymia can interfere with personal relationships and hinder psychotherapy. Impulsive behavior is a key symptom of alexithymia, and impulsivity is a precursor to violence.
The idea for the investigation came when the authors noticed that American men (for whom circumcision is likely) had higher alexithymia scores than European men (for whom circumcision is unlikely), and that European men had about the same scores as European and American women.


A common reason fathers give for deciding to circumcise their son is so they will “look alike,” but these authors speculate that perhaps a subconscious motivation is so that they will “feel alike,” in other words as equally distant and emotionally unavailable as themselves. It was beyond this study’s design to test for this, and yet the comments received from circumcised participants speak to a vast psychic wounding, which, if unresolved, might lead to an unconscious desire to repeat the trauma upon others.
The authors recommend that more research be conducted on this topic, but in the meantime, parents considering circumcising their infant son should be informed that circumcision might put their son at risk for alexithymia, including difficulty identifying and expressing his feelings, and for impulsive behavior. Psychologists counseling alexithymic patients should investigate the patient’s childhood and neonatal history for possible traumatic events, including circumcision.
If this pattern of men suffering from circumcision-related trauma holds true for the general populace, this would constitute a significant mental health problem and, considering that three-fourths of the U.S. male population is circumcised, a public health problem, too.
Alexithymia is from ancient Greek meaning, “having no words for feelings.” It was coined by psychotherapist Peter Sifneos in 1973 to describe a state of deficiency in understanding, processing, or describing emotions. Alexithymia tends to be persistent and chronic; it doesn’t diminish with time. This is unlike other trauma-based reactions, like post-traumatic stress disorder, which typically dissipate soon after the trauma.

[pole_smoker]

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/10/mri-studies-brain-permanently-altered.html

MRI Studies: The Brain Permanently Altered From Infant Circumcision



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuVDzj-GtdI/AAAAAAAAB5g/bduE9wlwcec/s200/brain.JPG (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuVDzj-GtdI/AAAAAAAAB5g/bduE9wlwcec/s1600-h/brain.JPG)

Two of my physics professors at Queen's University (Dr. Stewart & Dr. McKee) were the original developers of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) for medical applications. They and a number of other Queen's physicists also worked on improving the accuracy of fMRI for observing metabolic activity within the human body.

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuVE0QLZLbI/AAAAAAAAB6A/vwngEoBF4PQ/s200/019852403x.imaging-techniques.1.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuVE0QLZLbI/AAAAAAAAB6A/vwngEoBF4PQ/s1600-h/019852403x.imaging-techniques.1.jpg)The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7N0Y4TiI/AAAAAAAAB5I/QjndTCtFWWE/s200/n668850380_2362958_4462.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7N0Y4TiI/AAAAAAAAB5I/QjndTCtFWWE/s1600-h/n668850380_2362958_4462.jpg)We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell ("Plastibell (http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/plastibell-infant-circumcision.html)") with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anaesthetic was used.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7OGAGd4I/AAAAAAAAB5Q/F7QiC4k3Oaw/s200/plasbell1.gif (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7OGAGd4I/AAAAAAAAB5Q/F7QiC4k3Oaw/s1600-h/plasbell1.gif)The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7OaJ7uGI/AAAAAAAAB5Y/vDgJ0wzeHiI/s200/circumcision-08-big.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P07uaGtMQn4/SuU7OaJ7uGI/AAAAAAAAB5Y/vDgJ0wzeHiI/s1600-h/circumcision-08-big.jpg)A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

I would encourage anyone with access to fMRI and /or PET scanning machines to repeat our research as described above, confirm our results, and then publish the results in the open literature.

Dr. Paul D. Tinari, Ph.D.
Director,
Pacific Institute for Advanced Study

See also:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/

I wonder if infant circumcision partly explains the many ills of American society? It does seem nations were circumcision are the norm, males seem to be more aggressive. US, Israel, Muslim Nations, South Korea. Koreans are known for being angry and hot blooded esp compared to other Asian ethnicites, I wonder if the high rate of circumcision has anything to do with it?

[JUSTLUVIN]

Looks like you beat me to the punch pole_smoker. This is a damaging story for the circumcisers out there and they would love this to stay hidden. I have marched with intactivists trying to talk parents from cutting their boys and you would be surprised at the cut males who get so defensive over the whole issue. Mostly moms and wives of husbands were approaching me for information because their husbands or sons were going to have their boys snipped

[jem_is_bi]

Likely total Crap, not validated science, needs much more work to be accepted as true.

[pole_smoker]

Likely total Crap, not validated science, needs much more work to be accepted as true.
Actually no it's not.

Circumcision or involuntary genital mutilation of infants is so painful it causes them to pass out from the pain and go into shock even if anesthesia is used.

ATLANTA (CNN) -- A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.
The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing.

[pole_smoker]

THE FACTS BEHIND CIRCUMCISIONIt's a common misconception that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision, but the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. This invasive procedure carries serious health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and death, as well many ethical considerations.
Myth – Circumcising baby boys is a safe and harmless procedure.
Fact – Surgically removing part of a baby boy's penis causes pain, creates immediate health risks and can lead to serious complications. Risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings.
Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip.
Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.
Myth – Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals.
Fact – No professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is becoming the norm in the U.S., as parents realize the risks and harms of circumcision.
Myth – The baby does not feel any pain during circumcision.
Fact – Circumcision is painful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. The analgesics used for circumcision only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. Further, the open wound left by the removal of the foreskin will continue to cause the baby pain and discomfort for the 7-10 days it takes to heal.
Myth – If I don't circumcise my son, he will be ridiculed.
Fact – Times have changed and so has people's understanding of circumcision. Today, although the popularity of circumcision varies across geographical areas, nearly half of all baby boys born in the U.S. will leave the hospital intact. Most medically advanced nations do not practice child circumcision. Three quarters of the world's men are intact.
Myth – A boy should be circumcised to look like his father.
Fact – Children differ from their parents in many ways, including eye and hair color, body type, and (of course) size and sexual development. If a child asks why his penis looks different from that of his circumcised father (or brother), parents can say, "Daddy (or brother) had a part of his penis removed when he was a baby; now we know it’s not necessary and we decided not to let anyone do that to you."
Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation.
Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.
Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children's genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.
Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life.
Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life.
Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV.
Fact – Claims that circumcision prevents HIV have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or false. Only abstinence or safe sex, including the use of condoms, can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

[jem_is_bi]

The brain alteration stuff is the subject of my reply. Likely done without institutional approval which make it unethical behavior of those that did the study.

[pole_smoker]

The brain alteration stuff is the subject of my reply. Likely done without institutional approval which make it unethical behavior of those that did the study.
OK that obviously did not happen since they apparently did have funding and approval, and other studies have shown that circumcision or male genital mutilation is very painful when performed unwillingly on an infant, young boy, or even adult man.

There are many more studies that deal with the behavioral affects that this has and they are overwhelming and conclusive. This is a heinous act to commit against a totally defenseless individual, only humans do this to their own offspring.

Genital mutilation is a crime, the only sexual violation of children tolerated or condoned in large portions of certain societies. No one who commits abuse thinks they are causing harm regardless of what they are doing or what their reasoning is but what one person thinks does not change the reality that circumcision or male genital mutilation does disfigure the penis with scaring, make the penis far less sensitive, reduces penis length and circumference, and the sexual partners of 'cut' men both male and female describe sex with cut men as being less pleasurable compared to sex with a male partner that's intact.

[pole_smoker]

This, after all, is the topic of male genital mutilation, which has become so 'humdrum' that society casually refers to it as "circumcision", as a way of not identifying it for what it is: mutilation.



http://i.imgur.com/SgS9q.png

[JUSTLUVIN]

The brain alteration stuff is the subject of my reply. Likely done without institutional approval which make it unethical behavior of those that did the study.

It was the approval of the parents and at any rate, if the study showed something, it should be investigated. Why should all the files be ordered to be destroyed if there was evidence of harm. If the reason for destroying the files was merely due to a supposed unethical behavior, that would seem to be a bigger crime since the results showed more harm done by the procedure of circumcision than just exposing the child to a scan.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who is watching the ethics board of institutions to make sure they are not doing harm to others? Money is a very powerful tool and the poor child strapped down can say nothing but scream then later claimed he was not harmed cause it happened too early in his life and he is unaware of what damage was already done.

[JUSTLUVIN]

I can personally attest to the damage done to me by circumcision even though I was cut as an infant. I have told a few on here some of my details but I was told to write a book so I did. This is not a promotion of any time but if you are interested in reading my book on Amazon it is called Restoring, a Private Journey Home.

I have been restoring my foreskin. Although I cannot gain my nerve endings back, I have experienced so much benefit from regaining my new foreskin. However, whatever brain damage done to me from the early experience I guess is permanent.

[JUSTLUVIN]

THE FACTS BEHIND CIRCUMCISION

It's a common misconception that there are tangible health benefits to male circumcision, but the truth is no medical society in the world recommends it. This invasive procedure carries serious health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and death, as well many ethical considerations.
Myth – Circumcising baby boys is a safe and harmless procedure.
Fact – Surgically removing part of a baby boy's penis causes pain, creates immediate health risks and can lead to serious complications. Risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings.
Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip.
Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male.
Myth – Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals.
Fact – No professional medical association in the United States or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is becoming the norm in the U.S., as parents realize the risks and harms of circumcision.
Myth – The baby does not feel any pain during circumcision.
Fact – Circumcision is painful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. The analgesics used for circumcision only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. Further, the open wound left by the removal of the foreskin will continue to cause the baby pain and discomfort for the 7-10 days it takes to heal.
Myth – If I don't circumcise my son, he will be ridiculed.
Fact – Times have changed and so has people's understanding of circumcision. Today, although the popularity of circumcision varies across geographical areas, nearly half of all baby boys born in the U.S. will leave the hospital intact. Most medically advanced nations do not practice child circumcision. Three quarters of the world's men are intact.
Myth – A boy should be circumcised to look like his father.
Fact – Children differ from their parents in many ways, including eye and hair color, body type, and (of course) size and sexual development. If a child asks why his penis looks different from that of his circumcised father (or brother), parents can say, "Daddy (or brother) had a part of his penis removed when he was a baby; now we know it’s not necessary and we decided not to let anyone do that to you."
Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation.
Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery.
Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry.
Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children's genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm.
Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life.
Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy's genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life.
Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV.
Fact – Claims that circumcision prevents HIV have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or false. Only abstinence or safe sex, including the use of condoms, can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

Yes yes yes...totally agree. Of course I am sure there will be those who try to debate it all but the facts are there. Thanks for posting this

[Hypersexual11]

This is so frustrating! Knowing all this information is available, and not being able to convince my ultra conservative, redneck son to even look at it. My grandson will be born next month and I have been told to stop beating this dead horse, he's gonna get mutilated. Yes, he is curcumsized as well and yes I was an ultra conservative redneck when he was born 30 some years ago. Honestly, I don't even remember if I was asked, it was just done.

[pole_smoker]

This is so frustrating! Knowing all this information is available, and not being able to convince my ultra conservative, redneck son to even look at it. My grandson will be born next month and I have been told to stop beating this dead horse, he's gonna get mutilated. Yes, he is curcumsized as well and yes I was an ultra conservative redneck when he was born 30 some years ago. Honestly, I don't even remember if I was asked, it was just done.
Can you talk to your daughter-in law?

[JUSTLUVIN]

This is so frustrating! Knowing all this information is available, and not being able to convince my ultra conservative, redneck son to even look at it. My grandson will be born next month and I have been told to stop beating this dead horse, he's gonna get mutilated. Yes, he is curcumsized as well and yes I was an ultra conservative redneck when he was born 30 some years ago. Honestly, I don't even remember if I was asked, it was just done.

Wow it is amazing how brainwashed we can get to believe anything. I am so sorry that you are going through that. You know back in the 50's it was not only approved by western medicine, but accepted by the public to have your tonsils taken out if you had a sore throat. Now it makes no sense whatsoever since the tonsils are key to the immune system.

There are many other body parts that western medicine deems unessential and can be removed. It is funny I guess the Creator made some mistakes huh...just joking

You know in some areas it is a felony to circumcise girls. Same principle here but I guess guys are dispensible. Again so sorry to hear what you are going through

[JUSTLUVIN]

This is so frustrating! Knowing all this information is available, and not being able to convince my ultra conservative, redneck son to even look at it. My grandson will be born next month and I have been told to stop beating this dead horse, he's gonna get mutilated. Yes, he is curcumsized as well and yes I was an ultra conservative redneck when he was born 30 some years ago. Honestly, I don't even remember if I was asked, it was just done.

Additional note here..maybe you can get hom to watch some of these babies being circumcised to get the low down. The screams are horrific and it is not normal. When I was in a protest recently to the mutilation, I cannot tell you the moms I had come up to me to give them information cause their sons were going to have their son cut to look like daddy. The moms knew what was going on

[Hypersexual11]

I appreciate your notes. I have spoke to them both about this. Asked them to read up and educate themselves before making this decision. My son is easily swayed and if it was just him, I could talk him out of it. But his life is ruled by the iron fist of his wife who aint havin no freak fer a son and that's that!

[rabbit16]

Our son hasn't had this done. And it was a big family topic that started to get extended family in. It finally stopped when I had absolutely enough.

[jem_is_bi]

OK that obviously did not happen since they apparently did have funding and approval, and other studies have shown that circumcision or male genital mutilation is very painful when performed unwillingly on an infant, young boy, or even adult man.

The GRADUATE STUDENT funding was through the institution and funded Principal Investigator. His unfunded, unapproved study was all on his own initiative.
MORE COMMENTS on this total nonsense study

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

COMMENT:
SCIENTIST or graduate student with a biased agenda?


The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.
COMMENT:
GRADUATE STUDENT with a social/moral agenda has made an assumption that is TOTALLY WRONG!! You must have permission for a study such as that, You cannot steal time on a multimillion dollar machine for a bogus study. It MUST get institutional approval from a committee that determines the scientific merit and human rights and moral implications of the study. (THAT IS NEVER OPTIONAL)


We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape.
COMMENT: They forgot to mention the horrific banging noise generated for many minutes during the study that the infant was subject to before and after surgery. DO YOU THINK THE RESTRAINS and HORRENDEOUS NOISE MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME OF THE STUDY!!!



COMMENT: GOOD SCIENCE or GRADUATE STUDENT WITH AN AGENDA BEING TOTALLY UNETHIC

You need to be more critical of the sources of your facts to be credible as a spokesman for your extremely biased and self-righteous views

[pole_smoker]

You need to be more critical of the sources of your facts to be credible as a spokesman for your extremely biased and self-righteous views

My views are neither "extremely biased" or 'self righteous'. The majority of cultures and people around the world do not practice genital mutilation on their sons, or daughters.

For decades people (even so called medical professionals) actually believed such BS as "infants do not feel any pain at all during a circumcision". Which is not true, as it's been proven to be one of the most painful things to happen. Not just for infants but for adults as well. Even with anesthesia that still does not make male or female genital mutilation any less painful for the unfortunate person it is being performed on.

Is anyone really surprised? A person's genitals were not meant to be involuntarily mutilated this way.



Infant Responses to Circumcision

The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continous screams.


PAIN RESPONSE DURING CIRCUMCISION

To help in determining the degree of pain and stress caused by circumcision, infant response was compared to that resulting from other procedures. Levels of cortisol (a hormone released into the blood in response to stress) and behavioral responses were recorded for newborns undergoing circumcision, heel-stick blood sampling, weighing and measuring, and discharge examination. Circumcision resulted in significantly higher levels of behavioral distress and blood cortisol levels than did the other procedures. Since the infant is restrained during circumcision, the response to the use of restraint was similarly tested and was not found to be measurably distressing to newborns.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure that involves forcefully separating the foreskin from the glans and then cutting it off. It is typically accomplished with a special clamp device (see Fig. 2 (http://www.circumcision.org/gomco.htm)). Over a dozen studies confirm the extreme pain of circumcision. It has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.” In one study, researchers concluded that the pain was “severe and persistent.” Increases in heart rate of 55 beats per minute have been recorded, about a 50 percent increase over the baseline. After circumcision, the level of blood cortisol increased by a factor of three to four times the level prior to circumcision. Investigators reported, “This level of pain would not be tolerated by older patients.”
Circumcision pain is described in this research study by Howard Stang and his colleagues from the Department of Pediatrics, Group Health Inc., and the University of Minnesota Institute of Child Development: “There is no doubt that circumcisions are painful for the baby. Indeed, circumcision has become a model for the analysis of pain and stress responses in the newborn.” They report that the infant will “cry vigorously, tremble, and in some cases become mildly cyanotic [having blueness or lividness of the skin, caused by a deficiency of oxygen] because of prolonged crying.”
According to adult listeners in one study, the infant’s response during circumcision included a cry that changed with the level of pain being experienced. The most invasive part of the procedure caused the longest crying. These cries were high pitched and were judged most urgent. A subsequent study confirmed that cries with higher pitch were perceived to be more distressing and urgent. Excessive crying can itself cause harm. In a rare case, an infant cried vehemently for about ninety minutes and ruptured his stomach. Using a pacifier during circumcision reduced crying but did not affect hormonal pain response. Therefore, while crying may be absent, other body signals demonstrate that pain is always present during circumcision.
Another perspective on the infant’s response to circumcision pain is provided by Marilyn Milos, who witnessed a circumcision during her training in nursing school:
We students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top across the room. He was struggling against his restraints—tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. . . . I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him. He began to relax and was momentarily quiet. The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream—the baby’s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of the penis), tearing the two structures apart. The baby started shaking his head back and forth—the only part of his body free to move—as the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise, which he then cut. This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument, the device used to protect the glans from being severed during the surgery. The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams. . . . During the next stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally, amputated it. The baby was limp, exhausted, spent.
There is disagreement among physicians about using anesthesia during circumcisions. Prior to the mid-1980s, anesthesia was not used because infant pain was denied by the medical community. That belief has changed among many physicians, but an anesthetic still is not always administered due to a lack of familiarity with its use, as well as the belief that it introduces additional risk. Although there is indication that the risk is minimal, some physicians who perform circumcisions do not use anesthetics even after they are taught how. When an anesthetic is used, it relieves only some but not all of the pain, and its effect wanes before the post-operative pain does. The most effective form of anesthetic involves injections into the penis.
Continuing research in this area tends to compare existing options rather than trying new techniques, suggesting that accepting some pain during circumcision is unavoidable. Meanwhile, some physicians’ views about the use of anesthesia during circumcision grow more intense. In a medical article on the subject, the writers described circumcision without pain relief as “barbaric.” Another physician wrote that subjecting an adult to the same practice would be “unfathomable.”
BEHAVIORAL RESPONSE FOLLOWING CIRCUMCISION

Various studies investigated the effect of circumcision on infant behavior. Some studies found differences in sleep patterns and more irritability among circumcised infants. In addition, changes in infant-maternal interaction were observed during the first twenty-four hours after circumcision. For example, breast- and bottle-fed infants’ feeding behavior has been shown to deteriorate after circumcision. Other behavior differences have been noted on the day following the procedure. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision noted these various behavioral changes resulting from circumcision in their report.
Researchers found that European reports of newborn infant responses to hearing and taste stimulation showed little difference in responses between males and females, while related tests on American infants showed significant gender differences. Investigators suggested that these differences could be the result of circumcision and not gender.
In one of the most important studies, the behavior of nearly 90 percent of circumcised infants significantly changed after the circumcision. Some became more active, and some became less active. The quality of the change generally was associated with whether they were crying or quiet respectively at the start of the circumcision. This suggests the use of different coping styles by infants when they are subjected to extreme pain. In addition, the researchers observed that circumcised infants had lessened ability to comfort themselves or to be comforted by others.
Some mothers and nurses who contacted the Circumcision Resource Center also noted behavior changes. Sally Hughes, an obstetrical nurse who has seen many circumcised infants before they go home, reported,
When you lay them on their stomachs they scream. When their diaper is wet they scream. Normally, they don’t scream if their diaper is wet. Baby boys who are not circumcised do not scream like that. The circumcised babies are more irritable, and they nurse poorly.
Mothers reported that their infants changed temperament after the circumcision, cried for extended periods at home, and seemed inconsolable. See Circumcision, Persistent Crying (Colic), and Parental Stress (http://www.circumcision.org/colic.htm).
Researchers at Children’s Hospital in Boston noted changes in sleep patterns, activity level, irritability, and mother-infant interaction. They concluded,
The persistence of specific behavioral changes after circumcision in neonates implies the presence of memory. In the short term, these behavioral changes may disrupt the adaptation of newborn infants to their postnatal environment, the development of parent-infant bonding, and feeding schedules.
A team of Canadian researchers produced evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.
The authors believe that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."

[pole_smoker]

Eventually male genital mutilation will die off both as something done as a silly religious custom, and as a pointless cultural practise.

According to the children’s ombudsmen of the Nordic countries, male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation and they’re fighting to ban the practice. Representatives from Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Greenland all recently met in Norway (http://barneombudet.no/2013/09/29/aldersgrense-for-omskjaering-av-gutter/) with doctors and surgeons who agreed on one thing: the fight for the right to keep foreskin.


In a campaign, which launched in September, they concluded that the procedure is in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (http://www.unicef.org/crc/), which says, “Children should have the right to express their own views and be protected from traditional rituals which may be harmful to their health.”

In other words, the boys should wait until they’re old enough to decide for themselves. This all began when a 16-year-old Icelandic boy asked if his parents had the right to circumcise him when he was a baby. The matter was brought to the attention of Iceland’s children’s ombudsman (http://www.barn.is/), Margaret Maria Sigurðardottir.


“The leading health professionals here in Iceland, who also signed the Nordic statement, believe that circumcision without medical indication, of a person who is unable to provide consent violates fundamental medical-ethical principles,” Margaret told me over the phone. “They have therefore refused to perform such procedures.”


The children’s hospital (http://www.landspitali.is/tungumal/english/) in Reykjavik completely stopped circumcising boys in 2011.

Famous men have voiced their opinions and resentment on being circumcised (http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html), too—Ben Affleck, John F. Kennedy, and Jacques Derrida who, despite being Jewish, left his sons uncircumcised (http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html#derrida).

[pole_smoker]

Additional note here..maybe you can get hom to watch some of these babies being circumcised to get the low down. The screams are horrific and it is not normal. When I was in a protest recently to the mutilation, I cannot tell you the moms I had come up to me to give them information cause their sons were going to have their son cut to look like daddy. The moms knew what was going on

This is a blog you may like:
http://circregretstories.blogspot.com/

[cbb83]

My thoughts are this about religious circumcision: it's supposed to be a covenant between you and your deity (it's done in more than just Christianity). If this is done to you involuntarily as an infant - no covenant can possibly have been made. If your religious convictions are strong enough to drive you to alter your body, that should be a decision that you personally make, not your parents. Furthermore, you should be required to be at least the age of consent in your nation before you can actually have this done, as frankly, most minors don't have the wherewithal to know what the hell they are actually doing at any given moment.

That said, I personally don't understand why any religion would require you to mutilate what your creator has given you. I suspect a lot of the more odd things in religion are things that were sneaked in by random priests' own opinions rather than any direct revelation from their deity - but it's hard to tell where the line between madness/power-abuse and divine inspiration lay. Follow your heart and hope you're not a misguided crazy person is my best advice.

Additionally, I agree that involuntary mutilations (I include ear-piercing on the list) should be forbidden. If someone wants circumcision, piercings, tattoos, etc, etc - let them freely decide to do it as an adult. Just to point out here: I have no qualms with these practices, so long as it is the choice of the individual receiving them made while under no duress. Doing this stuff to an infant or naive child is unconscionable.

[salemite43]

Well said! Plus One to you!!

[JUSTLUVIN]

The GRADUATE STUDENT funding was through the institution and funded Principal Investigator. His unfunded, unapproved study was all on his own initiative.
MORE COMMENTS on this total nonsense study

As a graduate student working in the Dept. of Epidemiology, I was approached by a group of nurses who were attempting to organize a protest against male infant circumcision in Kinston General Hospital. They said that their observations indicated that babies undergoing the procedure were subjected to significant and inhumane levels of pain that subsequently adversely affected their behaviours. They said that they needed some scientific support for their position. It was my idea to use fMRI and/or PET scanning to directly observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain.

COMMENT:
SCIENTIST or graduate student with a biased agenda?


The operator of the MRI machine in the hospital was a friend of mine and he agreed to allow us to use the machine for research after normal operational hours. We also found a nurse who was under intense pressure by her husband to have her newborn son circumcised and she was willing to have her son to be the subject of the study. Her goal was to provide scientific information that would eventually be used to ban male infant circumcision. Since no permission of the ethics committee was required to perform any routine male infant circumcision, we did not feel it was necessary to seek any permission to carry out this study.
COMMENT:
GRADUATE STUDENT with a social/moral agenda has made an assumption that is TOTALLY WRONG!! You must have permission for a study such as that, You cannot steal time on a multimillion dollar machine for a bogus study. It MUST get institutional approval from a committee that determines the scientific merit and human rights and moral implications of the study. (THAT IS NEVER OPTIONAL)


We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumrestraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape.
COMMENT: They forgot to mention the horrific banging noise generated for many minutes during the study that the infant was subject to before and after surgery. DO YOU THINK THE RESTRAINS and HORRENDEOUS NOISE MIGHT HAVE INFLUENCED THE OUTCOME OF THE STUDY!!!



COMMENT: GOOD SCIENCE or GRADUATE STUDENT WITH AN AGENDA BEING TOTALLY UNETHIC

You need to be more critical of the sources of your facts to be credible as a spokesman for your extremely biased and self-righteous views

I beg to differ with your findings. Yes, maybe the ethics of using a multi million dollar machine may be in question but using a machine without permission will not affect the findings on the machine.

You speak of the graduate student being biased, one cannot say that the established medical community is not already biased. One will study to find what one wants to find. Phrenology was something that used to be thought of as good science until someone figured out that the size of one's head did not dictate the amount of intelligence one has. Of course we know better these days but that used to be accepted. I can see a graduate student of the day using an expensive device of its time and asking questions, maybe without permission, but whether he or she used it or not still would not change the facts. So with that in mind, there will be arguments good and bad on both sides. Yet I tend to lean toward leaving the penis alone unless absolutely necessary.

"Good science" keeps an open mind. It used to be that when science discovered something either by mistake or by intent, they studied the problem, not throw out the evidence because of how it was done.

The western medical community ( and I won't put them all in the same basket) has been influenced by money and power so I don't see how we can look at established medical procedures without some suspect. There are many cases to point out to this matter. So we should question the practice of circumcision, look at all the facts, do studies that are not biased either by graduate students supposedly biased or the established medical community that has been biased for years by money, politics, and power.

[pole_smoker]

So true pole_smoker. Unfortunately I lost the thousands of nerve endings in the foreskin that was cut off that I will never be able to experience, Only a truly uncut man will know. However, I am quite surprised that since my glans has been covered 24/ 7. I can actually feel it again. And what's more, I can actually just touch my glans and get an erection. Back some 5 years ago, it took more than that to get me hard. Plus the color has changed and looks healthy again.

As far as the AIDS study, the original one was flawed in that they had uncircumcised men go and have sex unprotected while the circumcised men wore condoms...sort of a no brainer. Also, it is being discovered that there are some healthy bacteria under the foreskin that help protect against disease.

Glands in the foreskin actually produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme that is also found in tears and breast milk. specialized cells in the foreskin's mucousal lining secrete antibodies that defend against infection.

It goes along the lines of western medicines philosophy to "fight" disease. Unfortunately this "fight" as the case is in antibiotics, kills the good bacteria from the system causing more problems. I am all for cleanliness but pardon the pun, we sometimes throw the baby out with the bath water.

I have been on doctors visits and they assumed I was intact and gave me the lectures on cleanliness. I never told them hehe.
That's very odd that the doctor mentioned that. A penis that's intact is not dirty, and it's like any other body part. You just wash it with soap and water like you would any other body part and that's it. There's no special requirement or anything like that.

I've never had any sort of medical professional mention about keeping my penis clean or anything like that.

If you were a woman do you think the doctor would have said, "Now make sure you douche, and clean under your labia, and all that skin or else you're dirty!"

Yes those studies about HIV and STDs and how male genital mutilation supposedly prevents infection or having the HIV neg partner of a cut man not get infected are highly flawed, and are actual "crappy science".

It's called assuming everyone who you're sexually active with is HIV+ or has another STD, not doing stuff involving blood to blood exchange, and using condoms. HIV is actually a lot more difficult to get than certain diseases are.

[Isitfun]

Ok truth be told I have NOT read all the comments. Just saying…
I’m circumcised and had my son circumcised and don’t regret it…
Now (truth be told) I always fantasied about being with a uncut dick.

[jem_is_bi]

I beg to differ with your findings. Yes, maybe the ethics of using a multi million dollar machine may be in question but using a machine without permission will not affect the findings on the machine.

You speak of the graduate student being biased, one cannot say that the established medical community is not already biased. One will study to find what one wants to find. Phrenology was something that used to be thought of as good science until someone figured out that the size of one's head did not dictate the amount of intelligence one has. Of course we know better these days but that used to be accepted. I can see a graduate student of the day using an expensive device of its time and asking questions, maybe without permission, but whether he or she used it or not still would not change the facts. So with that in mind, there will be arguments good and bad on both sides. Yet I tend to lean toward leaving the penis alone unless absolutely necessary.

"Good science" keeps an open mind. It used to be that when science discovered something either by mistake or by intent, they studied the problem, not throw out the evidence because of how it was done.

The western medical community ( and I won't put them all in the same basket) has been influenced by money and power so I don't see how we can look at established medical procedures without some suspect. There are many cases to point out to this matter. So we should question the practice of circumcision, look at all the facts, do studies that are not biased either by graduate students supposedly biased or the established medical community that has been biased for years by money, politics, and power.

Good Science keeps an open mind to good science not bad science of those 100% sure of the answer before the study, inadequately trained in the technical/scientific aspects of their field and willing to engage in unethical behavior.

[jem_is_bi]

Ok truth be told I have NOT read all the comments. Just saying…
I’m circumcised and had my son circumcised and don’t regret it…
Now (truth be told) I always fantasied about being with a uncut dick.

I agree with that. I am cut and don't regret it and my long time partner is uncut that is great too.

[pole_smoker]

There are countries where the men prefer their women circumcised, but that doesn't make it acceptable to cut parts off baby or young girls and mutilate their genitals.

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want their genitals mutilated as - it's *their* body.

[AGuyIKnow]

Apparently I have mutilated genitals but I'm okay with. Personality, I'm glad it was done long before I remember it. Even as a child, I was glad mine looked the way it does.

I've also sucked both cut and uncut and I definitely prefer cut. I can do either but I find it easier not to have to mess with the foreskin.

I'm also noticing that a lot of females are big proponents against circumcision and it not even their body part. What in the world would a female know about carrying one around anyway?

[chtampa]

Foreskin is just a fad for people that want to be trendy. What is unpopular now will return in the future as do all trends to be different. I see young guys walking around with their "hoodies" pulled over their faces. Ever notice it make their face look just like an uncut cock. It has that little face with a mouth looking back at you from the darkness. I lost my "hoodie" and have been happy with its function. Uncircumcised guys don't know what they are missing, just because they don't have anything missing! Seeing a cock with that little "poncho" on the end hides the prettiest part. If I have to choose between lips or skin rubbing over the head of my cock, guess what I will choose. Mark me as mushroomed and proud, smooth and pretty, when it gets hard it looks like a weapon. Your results may vary.

[pole_smoker]

Foreskin is just a fad for people that want to be trendy. What is unpopular now will return in the future as do all trends to be different. I see young guys walking around with their "hoodies" pulled over their faces. Ever notice it make their face look just like an uncut cock. It has that little face with a mouth looking back at you from the darkness. I lost my "hoodie" and have been happy with its function. Uncircumcised guys don't know what they are missing, just because they don't have anything missing! Seeing a cock with that little "poncho" on the end hides the prettiest part. If I have to choose between lips or skin rubbing over the head of my cock, guess what I will choose. Mark me as mushroomed and proud, smooth and pretty, when it gets hard it looks like a weapon. Your results may vary.
Foreskin is not a trend. The majority of men throughout history are not cut. Up until the 1950s most men in the United States were not cut or mutilated.

You do know that when an intact penis is hard or limp when the foreskin is pulled back, it looks exactly like a cut dick right?

Circumcision or genital mutilation reduces sexual pleasure, destroys nerve endings that can never be regrown or reattached, it makes a penis dry and with a gross looking scar, and causes impotence or ED later in life.

Actually it's men who are cut/mutilated who do not know what they are missing.

Studies have shown that sex with a partner that's not cut are far more pleasurable for both women and men, and that men who are intact with a foreskin experience far more sexual pleasure-as do their partners, that cut men will never experience.

Circumcision or male genital mutilation is not practiced by the majority of people, countries, and cultures around the world. The majority of men in the world are fully intact with a foreskin, and they and their sexual partners have no consequences.

Meanwhile in the United States men and their female sex partners have to use sex lubes, STDs and HIV rates are very high, a lot of men who are cut suffer from premature ejaculation, and once men reach a certain age they have lots of difficulty getting it up or preforming sexually. None of this is coincidental as the United States once had the highest rate for circumcision or involuntary male genital mutilation ever.

Circumcision also makes a man's penis smaller and less thick.



Length and Circumference
Circumcision removes some of the length and girth of the penis - its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is removed. A circumcised penis is truncated and thinner, and not as long than it would have been if left intact.



Thankfully the rates are decreasing as people are realizing that circumcision is nothing but genital mutilation, and that if someone wants to get their dick or vagina mutilated they can wait until they're an adult and choose to do it to their own body.

[pole_smoker]

Apparently I have mutilated genitals but I'm okay with. Personality, I'm glad it was done long before I remember it. Even as a child, I was glad mine looked the way it does.

I've also sucked both cut and uncut and I definitely prefer cut. I can do either but I find it easier not to have to mess with the foreskin.

I'm also noticing that a lot of females are big proponents against circumcision and it not even their body part. What in the world would a female know about carrying one around anyway?
Both women and me are against male genital mutilation. I wouldn't say one is more against it than the other gender.

For sucking dick and masturbatory sex a penis with a foreskin is far superior as there's a lot more you can do with it.

Even for anal or vaginal sex, sexual partners of mine find it more pleasurable than they do with cut men, and the foreskin gliding over the head of your dick gives them sexual pleasure that a cut dick can't. If they want to feel what it's like with a cut dick I can just hold the skin back and thrust like that if they really want it. Cut men don't have the first option.

I have also noticed that men who are cut tend to shoot their load very fast, and can't last that long at all.

Other gay and bi guys I have met told me the same thing that in their experience men who are cut shoot their cum way too fast. Some of them have been with a lot more men than I ever will be like 100 or 1,000 men.

[jem_is_bi]

Both women and me are against male genital mutilation. I wouldn't say one is more against it than the other gender.

For sucking dick and masturbatory sex a penis with a foreskin is far superior as there's a lot more you can do with it.

Even for anal or vaginal sex, sexual partners of mine find it more pleasurable than they do with cut men, and the foreskin gliding over the head of your dick gives them sexual pleasure that a cut dick can't. If they want to feel what it's like with a cut dick I can just hold the skin back and thrust like that if they really want it. Cut men don't have the first option.

I have also noticed that men who are cut tend to shoot their load very fast, and can't last that long at all.

Other gay and bi guys I have met told me the same thing that in their experience men who are cut shoot their cum way too fast. Some of them have been with a lot more men than I ever will be like 100 or 1,000 men.

That seems to cover everything except acne and psoriasis.:sleep:

[pole_smoker]

That seems to cover everything except acne and psoriasis.

It astonishes me that in talking about sex, pretty much nobody mentions that most adult men in the United States today have been deprived of the most pleasurable, sensitive part of their penises. Without a foreskin and its sensory feedback, a man has difficulty controlling the timing of his orgasm. Also, because he’s missing the very organ that serves a gliding and lubricating function—and because he has a scar where his foreskin used to be—his penis is calloused and dry, when compared to that of an intact man; this creates a friction during intercourse and compromises the pleasure of both sexual partners.


Don’t believe me? Then explain the uniquely American proliferation of lubricants and masturbation creams, the existence of which many Europeans—most of whom are intact—find strange.


Understandingcircumserum the history of American circumcision helps to explain all of this. In fact, when doctors began promoting circumcision in the Victorian era (late 1800s), the purpose was precisely to reduce pleasure and cause pain–to dissuade men from the “immoral” and “unhygienic” practice of masturbation. Among those who pushed the circumcision solution to masturbation were American physicians Abraham Jacobi (the organizer of the American Pediatric Society) and J.J. Moses (then-head of the New York State Medical Society and president of the Association of American Physicians).


Just as Jewish physician and philosopher Maimonides had recognized 800 years earlier that circumcision is genital mutilation that reduces sexual pleasure, these fathers of American medicalized circumcision believed that its physiological and psychological effects–aversive pain memory and loss of sensory tissue–would help to diminish sexual gratification, whether self-sought or through genital contact with a partner.


Should we be surprised, then, with findings such as those from Denmark, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in 2011, showing that circumcised men have greater difficulty reaching orgasm, and that female partners of circumcised men are less likely to feel sexually satisfied?


What is astonishing is that American doctors persist in a practice designed to ruin the natural pleasures of sex, and then deny that it in fact does so. Meanwhile, the vast majority of adult American men are living with scars instead of foreskins. Half of the couple is missing a most basic, sensual part of his anatomy, and we wonder why Americans find sex less than fulfilling.


Severing the penile nerve during circumcision or male genital mutilation is no doubt part of some men’s problem, but they didn’t mention that the skin that covers an unprotected (no foreskin there) glans (head) gets keratinized. This is sort of like a callous. Since the skin is mucosal tissue, like the inside of a woman’s labia, it’s supposed to be thin, moist, and kept covered. Take the covering away, and 2 things happen. The head is exposed to drying and constant nerve stimulus (nerves need periods of rest or they start to wear out) and the skin responds by growing protective layers and increasing the keratin (what makes hair, nails and some skin tough). Hence, the nerves then don’t receive signals they want as well. So they’re tired, and ‘hard of hearing’.


It’s time that we recognize that it doesn’t matter if circumcision is more good than bad in X % of the population’s eyes, or if a parent believes a dr. who is standing to make profit by cutting their son’s parts off AND by selling that part (look up fibroblasts). What matters is that a man deserves to know his healthy body parts, weigh the information according to his own values, and only give it up if HE wants to.


“Within minutes, three feet of veins, arteries and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves and more than 20,000 nerve endings are destroyed; so are all the muscles, glands, epithelial tissue and sexual sensitivity associated with the foreskin. Finally, what nature intended as an internal organ is irrevocably externalized.” – Circumcision In America – Debra S. Ollivier


Is it any wonder why so many women in the United States prefer masturbating with their fingers, getting oral sex, or a vibrator to vaginal sex? Circumcision affects sexual function, it’s time Americans catch up with the rest of the world and recognize that the male foreskin is a normal healthy functioning sexual organ not something that should be removed and that a man's penis is meant to be intact just like a woman's vagina.


If anyone tries to tell you that circumcision is safe, healthy and beneficial, they are mistaken, lying, or perhaps even professionals making money from continuing the procedure of involuntary male genital mutilation.

[Loki1]

I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........

[Tatuaje]

I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.

[cbb83]

I don't think it's a good idea to include circumcision in with "religious freedom".

There are other religious traditions, such as the mutilation of the clitoris in females that occur under some Islamic sects. There are a few cannibalistic tribes that still exist in the world, and said cannibalism is a part of their religious beliefs. There are a great many other examples of religious freedoms that inflict harm. To support one of them in the name of religious freedom is to support all of them in the name of religious freedom. Do you really want to go that far?

This isn't about antisemitism (there are other cultures/religions outside of a Judaic base that also use circumcision). This is about the secular, law-given right to not be subject to bodily harm against one's will. The religious freedoms of one individual should not supersede the freedoms of another. Children are individuals, they are not property. I believe that is an important factor in the changing of the laws - for a very long time children were considered very nearly property. They are acquiring ever-more protections and freedoms over the last few decades.

[pole_smoker]

I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.
There are many Jews both in North America, South America, Europe, and even Israel who do not practice circumcision or male genital mutilation yet they're still Jewish and choose to practice that religion.

Eventually circumcision or male genital mutilation will either become illegal or fall out of practice worldwide as the rates are decreasing at a fast rate.

Mutilating babies and young boys genitals is utterly unacceptable, whatever the purported reason. Would Jewish and Islamic people defend female genital mutilation because somewhere there's a religion and/or culture that demands it?

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/18/commentary-questioning-circumcision-isnt-anti-semitic/


Here are some relevant facts.

Jewish circumcision is not mandatory; it is a choice (http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/). Some Jews in North America, South America, Europe, and Israel do not circumcise their sons.
Circumcision is a topic of debate in the Jewish community and has been questionedhistorically (http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/info.htm) and in various Jewish publications (http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/news.htm) in recent years.
In actual practice, most Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons.
According to the “Encyclopedia Judaica,” “any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew, whether circumcised or not.”
According to Jewish values, the human body must not be altered or marked, and causing pain to any living creature is prohibited. Some Jews believe that circumcision is not ethical. Jewish values place ethical behavior above doctrine.

[pole_smoker]

I don't think it's a good idea to include circumcision in with "religious freedom".

There are other religious traditions, such as the mutilation of the clitoris in females that occur under some Islamic sects. There are a few cannibalistic tribes that still exist in the world, and said cannibalism is a part of their religious beliefs. There are a great many other examples of religious freedoms that inflict harm. To support one of them in the name of religious freedom is to support all of them in the name of religious freedom. Do you really want to go that far?

This isn't about antisemitism (there are other cultures/religions outside of a Judaic base that also use circumcision). This is about the secular, law-given right to not be subject to bodily harm against one's will. The religious freedoms of one individual should not supersede the freedoms of another. Children are individuals, they are not property. I believe that is an important factor in the changing of the laws - for a very long time children were considered very nearly property. They are acquiring ever-more protections and freedoms over the last few decades.
Exactly, it's child abuse, and involuntary genital mutilation as the infant or young boy does not have a choice.

[Tatuaje]

Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?

[pole_smoker]

Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?
Actually, male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation (AKA female circumcision), are done for the exact same reasons either excuses of hygene, religion, or cultural reason and both mutilate the genitals and are involuntary.

1. They are both practised on non-consenting children,
2. They both involve cutting, mutilating, and damaging the child's genitals,
3. they both take place because of the irrational dictates of ancient superstitions,
4. they are both often/always dangerous or damaging both in the short term and in the long term
5. they both reduce sexual functioning and pleasure
6. The effects of both are either irreversible or painfully reversible
7. They ensure that intense and prolonged pain are the first experiences a child has of his/her own genitals

More babies die of complications from circumcision than from vaccines. All circumcision deaths are avoidable, by simply not circumcising babies.

[chtampa]

Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".

[pole_smoker]

Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".
It's a myth that the foreskin is a "tip" it's a actual skin, and akin to a woman's clitoral hood or labia.

Once the foreskin is removed the penis is mutilated and becomes less sensitive, and smaller in length and width than it would have been had it remained intact with a foreskin.

People like to pretend that it's about preventing STDs/HIV, hygiene, and all sorts of other things. When there's such a thing a taking a shower daily and using condoms and practicing safer sex.

FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut.

The majority of pro-circumcision studies happen to come from America where the vast majority of doctors are already circumcised. It does seem a bit of a coincidence really, as though they are seeking affirmation that their parents made the right choice in mutilating their genitals.

Here's what it's really about:
1. It's a cash cow.
2. It's inescapable physical hazing. Hazing is designed to strengthen a person's ties to a group. This is an issue of conformity and the group's perpetuation of itself at the expense of its members' well-being.
3. It comes from the long tradition of pretending that denying physical urges (sexual pleasure in this case) is a path to righteousness. The primitive desire for control also refers to point 2. The foreskin has a huge amount of nerve endings and protects the most sensitive part of the penis from abrasion and burning.
The religious candy coating doesn't explain why so many American Christians, and Jews many of whom are not particularly devout, mutilate their boys. That can be explained, though, with the conformity and bodily denial points.America has a long history of insane butchery, such as that of Dr. Kellogg (of cereal fame) who sewed little boys' penises with silver sutures to prevent erection, burned little girls' clitorises with carbolic acid, and performed FGM. This is what is at the heart of "circumcision."

In the US they make 200 to 300 dollars for a 15 minute mutilation.

Then they flog the removed body parts on to cosmetic companies- no kidding. Oprah got into a pickle over this. Would you allow doctors to slice up baby girls, harvest their body parts and flog them on to cosmetic companies??

I hope not.

http://www.ecouterre.com/oprah-draws-criticism-for-endorsing-face-cream-made-from-foreskins/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/anti-circumcision-activists-to-protest-oprah-s-canadian-appearances-1.1321531
Mutilating a child's genitals (male or female) should always be illegal.

Circumcision is a barbaric and out-dated practice, with zero medical benefit. Time to ban it outright.
Besides, if you believe you were created by God, why would you want to cut off a bit of what God gave you? How is that in anyway a "covenant" with God? Sounds more like you've been tricked by the Devil, there.

It's quite simple really: a child, whether male or female, should not be forced to have their genitals mutilated. They'll still be free to get circumcised when they're mature adults. Nothing anti-Semitic here, "racist", (nor "Islamophobic", before you all start shouting about it).

Practicing your religion of choice is fine.
Mutilating children's genitals is not.
See, it's easy if you just give it some thought.

[chtampa]

"FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut."

Someone actually linking circumcision to HIV. Maybe cut guys are just more popular. I wonder if the public is ready for this announcement?

[cbb83]

I'm trying to figure out why you consider circumcision not equatable to clitoral mutilation. I mean I suppose on a technical level you could argue that it's equivalent to removing the clitoral hood, but that still results in a dried-out desensitized clitoris that will likely have issues - much like a penis, especially given that clitoral and penile tissues are basically identical. Also, the cannibalism bit was meant to be compared to religious freedoms that are questionable, not to circumcision.

Also - what science? There is no science that supports circumcision. There are just some poorly-drawn inferences from skewed statistical analyses that suggest you could avoid a few issues - which you avoid by NOT HAVING THE PART THEY AFFECT! That's hardly approving science. That's like saying you could never suffer from acne if we removed all of your skin.

Also, a vaccine doesn't surgically remove parts of your body - theymake you generate antibodies to achieve immunities. Although I am aware that some religions/cultures dislike vaccinations - and personally I feel that's horrifically unwise as well - it's not on the same level as genital mutilation in terms of doing harm (unless you happen to live in an area stricken with Polio or some such).

[Tatuaje]

I assume you would require a person reach the age of 18 (legal age for consent) regardless of parental decisions/consent for the following:
1) pierced ears (or any other piercing)
2) dental extraction or even braces (sorry, nature intended for you to have jacked teeth)
3) corrective surgery of any kind
4) participation in sports (especially football) that could result in injury or even death

I appreciate the debate regarding circumcision. I do believe it is a parental choice, but see your position.

[pole_smoker]

"FYI All the men I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut."

Someone actually linking circumcision to HIV. Maybe cut guys are just more popular. I wonder if the public is ready for this announcement?
Actually, men who are not cut are more popular. Both among women and men as we are considered exotic at least in the United States.

I just don't like the gay men who get really obsessive over foreskin or want a man only because he's not cut.

Circumcision or genital mutilation does nothing to actually prevent HIV or STDs the way the people who are for it claim it does based on some faulty studies done in various African countries.

The guys I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are part of the generation that was pretty much all cut, and they were not all around or sexually active in the decades before HIV/AIDS was known about. They're both bottoms/passive, tops/active, and some are mainly into oral sex. But all are cut, and they became HIV+ or got infected with other STDs from unprotected sex.

[JUSTLUVIN]

I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........

I can attest to your feelings when it happened to you. I defintely remember mine but can;t remember the exact feeling I had when I had my skin since it was done as a baby. But for 2 years I suffered in baths. It took a while for my glans to toughen up before I was able to deal with being cut. Now that I am growing mine back, there is a marked difference in feeling and look

[pole_smoker]

FGM is a strawman... but it's a strawman propped up by those who support circumcision or male genital mutilation. Their argument is, effectively, that male humans should have no rights to a complete body and intact genitals because worse things are done by some people to females. Well, worse things ARE done by some people to females... and males; but that doesn't make it right to mutilate an infant or young boy's genitals.


Amusingly enough in all this is that Judaism is perhaps one of the BEST religions out there when it comes to reshaping itself to suit the modern world. It has shown time and again that if a religious practice actually harms people, it's the practice that has to stop. And contrary to what some people claim, there are a growing number of Jews, and even Muslims who do not support baby butchery - and more power to them.

The foreskin adds to sexual pleasure experienced by adult males, so therefore it's not dissimilar to FGM.

It's a form of brainwashing - once circumcised every boy and man will be confronted with the evidence of their


'Jewish/Muslim/Whatever Identity' every single time they go to the bathroom, get washed, get undressed, have sex.


Every single time.
'Your penis isn't yours, it belongs to us'.
Unbelievable.

In reality, it has nothing at all to do with any religion, let alone Judaism or Islam. It's about a child's right not to be butchered and have his/her genitals mutilated without consent.

At the end of the day what this boils down to is do we allow adults to cut off part of a child, and mutilate his or her genitals when the child isn't old enough to consent?

Being religious might be the reason that these adults want to mutilate the genitals of a child but that doesn't mean that it should be allowed.

What if there was a hypothetical religion that removed the lower eyelids of its children at 8 days old because it would help them to "see their God" and make a special covenant? Would that be allowed and accepted?

In the US, at least, the official line is that freedom of religion is a shield, not a sword. It defends you, personally, being able to make choices, but doesn't grant you the power to make choices for others. Now, religion keeps trying to sharpen the sword, and push the line in that direction. And parental rights have always been a thorny issue - where do parental rights end and personal rights begin for children? Which brings us to that thorny question, here: why should a male child have his genitals mutilated merely because he was born to a Jew or Muslim that's religious? Why should religious freedom for the parent result in reduced human rights for the child?
I think these are especially important questions to keep in mind when you're talking about doing something permanent, with no scientific benefit, which can be conducted at any point in the future should the male decide he wants his genitals mutilated later in life.


I don't have any problems with religions as long as they don't harm people and don't try to force others to join them.

The practice of circumcision (both male and female) violates my first concern and as such I believe it has no place in a modern society. If people want to be circumcised and mutilate their genitals they can choose to get it done at 18 if they want.


On another note, has anyone questioned how bizarre it is that some people believe god wants them to cut off part of their son's penis and mutilate his genitals to be closer to him?!

[pole_smoker]

Respectfully, it is inaccurate to compare circumcision to clitoral mutilation or, worse yet, cannibalism. Circumcision is grounded in science and culture and is not intended as a means of depriving the person of sexual rights or life.

Children are individuals. But that does not mean that their parents are not able to make decisions for them. Vaccinations, educations, religious upbringing are all decisions made without a child's input. Are you saying you would prefer a world with polio, tuberculosis, diptheria, tetanus because the children don't get a choice?
Many circumcised women say the exact same thing that it's grounded in medicine, science, and culture. The fact you're not aware of it is partly because you don't want to be and partly because the white western press doesn't find this a comfortable thing to report. FGM is still supported by a majority of woman in many countries, and the 2008 Interagency statement on FGM (WHO, UNICEF among the authors) acknowledged that a major problem in stopping FGM is the pride of cut women.

In Mayalsia they circumcise or mutilate the genitals of infant girls in hospitals much like they do to infant boys in the Western world, and both claim it's for medicine, science, hygiene, cultural reasons, or other BS that people use to advocate male genital mutilation.
I recommend you also read the writing of Dr Fuambai Ahmadu, an anthropologist who got herself mutilated as an adult (without anaesthetic) and sees it as culturally important and sexually positive. Here's one recent example, http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/defending-fgm-20130218-2em65.html

[pole_smoker]

I'm cut, obviously didn't have any say in the matter. don't know if it was painful, memory is a bit fuzzy, almost 60 yrs ago, but it must of hurt something terrible, as i couldn't walk for over a year.

know 2 people that got snipped as adults, and wasn't a pleasant experience. one dead now, the other out of touch with, so can't ask what the difference is that they noticed. HAS ANYONE ON HERE been snipped after enjoying life with a hoodie....???? an honest comparison would be interesting, as I sped read through all those technical posts.

didn't know the foreskin had a purpose, and still don't know if things would be better with. don't know how those with, can say we are missing something. except for anal, never needed creams or lubes, don't know if it would have helped, or hindered with non anal sex.

my ignorance abounds on the subject so much, i feel like a smuck.........

I've never been cut or mutilated.

I did find this quote though.


You do lose an enormous amount of sensitivity. It has no effect on ejaculation, or whether you can get an erection or not. Because you lose so much sensation you have to work much harder to get the same sensation which affects sex completely.Performance artist Peet Pienaar,
who filmed and exhibited his own circumcision in 2000

[chtampa]

"Peet Pienaar" has explained why cut men can last longer, and perhaps a reason that all the women I have been with, prefer cut guys. Never heard a woman say "I want an uncut guy". Could it be that the interest in uncut rather than cut is only important for alternate lifestyles. I am a grow'er rather than a show'er, so I look uncut until I get hard, and then nobody cares. Been with both kinds of guys and they each have had fun with what they have. Maybe I am lucky to have it both ways. A poncho for everyday wear and a missile when it matters. This is really a non-issue.

[pole_smoker]

"Peet Pienaar" has explained why cut men can last longer, and perhaps a reason that all the women I have been with, prefer cut guys. Never heard a woman say "I want an uncut guy". Could it be that the interest in uncut rather than cut is only important for alternate lifestyles. I am a grow'er rather than a show'er, so I look uncut until I get hard, and then nobody cares. Been with both kinds of guys and they each have had fun with what they have. Maybe I am lucky to have it both ways. A poncho for everyday wear and a missile when it matters. This is really a non-issue.

How many women have you actually asked? You'd be surprised if you asked women this in the United States who are in their 20s or 30s, or you asked any woman in Europe, Asia, Australia, or Central/South America and they would all reply that they prefer a man that's not cut and that a penis is supposed to be intact with a foreskin and unmutilated.

If you're cut and like you are that's not the same as being fully intact with a foreskin that has all the nerve endings that are not destroyed, stripped away, or "cut off" literally by genital mutilation. You don't have a foreskin that's designed to pleasure a man or woman's ass, vagina, or mouths during sex. It also makes masturbation a lot more fun and pleasurable.


Of course that performance artist is going to claim he "lasts longer" he's only doing that because his genitals are now mutilated, and I doubt that's the case.


In reality men who are not cut last far longer than men who are cut. That's been my experience when I've been with men who pretty much all were cut, and the experiences of other bi and gay men I know who are not cut who have been with a lot more cut men than I have been with, and with women I know who have been with cut men.


Then there's this study:



THE NEW ZEALAND
MEDICAL JOURNAL
Vol 116 No 1181 ISSN 1175 8716 shield
Effects of male circumcision on female arousal and orgasm


While vaginal dryness is considered an indicator for female sexual arousal disorder,1,2 male circumcision may exacerbate female vaginal dryness during intercourse.3 O'Hara and O'Hara reported that women who had experienced coitus with both intact and circumcised men preferred intact partners by a ratio of 8.6 to one.4 Most women (85.5%) in that survey reported that they were more likely to experience orgasm with a genitally intact partner: `They [surveyed women] were also more likely to report that vaginal secretions lessened as coitus progressed with their circumcised partners (16.75, 6.88–40.77).' 4


Presence of the movable foreskin makes a difference in foreplay, being more arousing to the female.4 Women reported they were about twice as likely to experience orgasm if the male partner had a foreskin.4 The impact of male circumcision on vaginal dryness during coitus required further investigation.


We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men.


Participants completed a 35-item sexual awareness survey. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men c 2 (df = 1, n = 20) = 5.0, p <0.05.5


Women who preferred a circumcised male sexual partner averaged 27.3 years of age (SD = 8.2), while those whose stated preference was for a genitally intact partner had a mean age of 36.4 years (SD = 13.7). Thus, the role of the male foreskin in preventing loss of vaginal lubrication during intercourse may become more discernible with increasing age among women. We reported:


`During intercourse, the skin of an intact penis slides up and down the shaft, stimulating the glans and the nerves of the inner and outer foreskin. On the outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin with more skin remaining inside the vagina than is the case with the circumcised penis. This `valve' mechanism is thought to retain the natural lubrication provided by the female because the bunched up skin acts to block the lubrication escaping from the vagina, which results in dryness.'5


Men need to realize that their 'bent' penis, their 'leaning' penis, their hairy shaft, scars, discoloration on the head or shaft of the penis, the odd skin bridges on their dicks, etc. are ALL because of circumcision or male genital mutilation.

Also, if circumcision is so great - why aren't more men who are intact with a foreskin choosing to be circumcised? I've yet to hear an argument that makes me want to chop part of my cock off. Why are so many men who were cut and mutilated restoring what little foreskin they have left as JustLuvin did?

[pole_smoker]

I assume you would require a person reach the age of 18 (legal age for consent) regardless of parental decisions/consent for the following:
1) pierced ears (or any other piercing)
2) dental extraction or even braces (sorry, nature intended for you to have jacked teeth)
3) corrective surgery of any kind
4) participation in sports (especially football) that could result in injury or even death

I appreciate the debate regarding circumcision. I do believe it is a parental choice, but see your position.

1.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


2.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


3.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.


4.It's not the same as involuntarily mutilating an infant or young boy's genitals for a silly religious, cultural, or cosmetic reason.

[pole_smoker]

I was circumcised in the Jewish tradition as were my sons. Theirs were performed by a pediatrician who is also a mohel. He used a local anesthetic and prescribed proper care.

I do not have a comparison to assess but have enjoyed the use of the cut penis I have. I do know several adults who had to have circumcision as adults due to medical reasons, so I do question the blanket assertion that circumcision serves no purpose. My guess is that like the Kosher laws, circumcision has its roots in the science of the day. Hygiene has not always been what it is now and infection was probably a problem.

My biggest problem is that, in many places, circumcision laws, might be used as a means of attacking the Jewish religion. Many governments throughout history have designed laws to perpetuate antisemitism. Any law that limits religious freedom (however noble the purpose) is far more castrating to humanity than circumcision.

How would being against circumcision or calling it what it is involuntary genital mutilation, be antisemitic? Anti-Judaic? Or Anti-Islam/Islamophobic?

If banning female circumcision is not racist against those cultures which favour it, why would banning male circumcision be anti-Semitic?

When a baby is born it's not jewish, catholic, or islamic. So how does to not circumcise it hurt it's religion?

It does however hurt it's body and mutilate the genitals involuntarily. In an unneccesary operation, doctors are not allowed by their oath.

You realize that in traditional African and even Arabic cultures, female genital mutiliation has exactly as much cultural and religious meaning for them as male genital mutilation does to you, right? According to you, their's isn't OK, but yours is.

Ancient superstitions are no excuse for child abuse and genital mutilation.

Mutilation is mutilation and playing the anti-Semitism card (although Arabs and Palestinians are also Semites) is irrational in cases of child protection. Presumably by the same logic it’s racist to advocate a ban on FGM in the many countries of sub-Saharan and North East Africa where it is culturally practiced.

Circumcision is an idiotic, barbaric act.

Reading out what's said on some "ancient" scrolls about it, is hardly a defense.

It seems like most commentators totally lose their marbles when it comes to issues of antisemitism. Also, circumcision isn't just exclusive to Jewish faiths.
Of course it's abusive and wrong. Identical to female mutilation. If the child wants to make in informed choice, post age 18 as a legal adult, to be circumcised then go for it.

Imagine the outrage if you tattooed your child's ears or other body parts at 8 days.


Israel’s chief rabbinate says oral suction at circumcision is preferred
The practice of 'metzitzah b'peh,' in which blood is sucked orally from the circumcision wound, is under scrutiny in
Germany, due to a complaint filed against a Berlin rabbi for allegedly committing bodily harm during a brit milah.
Link: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/israel-s-chief-rabbinate-says-oral-suction-at-circumcision-is-preferred-1.517349

According to the NYmag

Since 2000, thirteen babies in New York City have been infected with herpes during the metzitzah b'peh process. Two of them died, and two suffered brain damage.

But hey, all's fair when we're talking about a soul covenant with a bronze-age deity. But since when has logic been the bedrock of any religion?

I mean, in a sane world, is this acceptable?? Shall we bring back all forms of 3000 year old medieval religious practices???


Circumcision is not a strictly Jewish practice. It is also Muslim. In North America, it was widespread and standard across the population until recent decades.
It is also an unnecessary and very painful and permanent procedure on a newborn baby and in a day and age when we know this to be the fact, when we also know that children's rights and protection from trauma is one of the most important things we can do as societies for a better future. It's not that many of these abuses have been done out of maliciousness. It's just adult societies have put their own customs and beliefs and traditions and modern trends and wants and needs above those of the rights of children simply because we really have not recognized them as anything but extensions of the parents. They are their own little human beings.

You make it seem as if ALL Jews still circumcise their boys, and it's not the case. You make it seem as if without circumcision one cannot be a Jewish male. And that anyone against it is against it because they hate Jews, rather than because they have a profound commitment to children's rights and stopping so much in human societies and history that has ignored and trampled on children's rights. This goes across every ethnic group, every society, every religion.

Don't use anti-semitism as a strawman to shield the pathetic nature of your argument. Circumcision of children is mutilation without consent and if it is so important to the Jewish faith then adult Jews can go get themselves circumcised after makng an informed decision. Bleeding-heart religious and cultural sensitivity should not blind us to what is right and wrong.

Judaism is all about evolution. I know Jews who do not practice Kosher and who eat bacon, who have tattoos, and who did not mutilate the genitals of their sons or have their genitals mutilated.

In the Jewish faith animals are no longer sacrificed, and the practice has died out. Eventually this will happen with circumcision or male genital mutilation both among Jews and non-Jews.

[pole_smoker]

An interesting fact is that there is very little difference between female circumcision Types I and II (which are the large majority of female circumcision) and male circumcision.

Both remove ~80% of the nerve endings of the genitals, both are practiced on non-consenting children, and both are done for religious/cultural reasons.

The strongest advocates of female circumcisions in countries where it is practiced? ...Are in fact women. They do it for the same reasons that men circumcise their boys in the West ("it looks better", "it's cleaner", "it was done to me", "your private parts will look just like your mother's or other female relatives", "that's what we've always done to all girls in our family", "it prevents disease", "it's our religion", "it's our culture")

The only reason female circumcision is considered "worse" is because the majority of it is practiced in unsanitary conditions (as is, coincidentally, the male circumcisions practiced in these countries). But in Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia, female genital mutilation is done in a sterile and modern hospital, just like male genital mutilation is done here.
It all just comes down to culture, but in the end, both female and male genital mutilation (FGM/MGM) are both wrong, and both are mutilation because the unfortunate person who has them performed on them has no choice in the matter of having his or her genitals mutilated.

Also there are people who are born intersexed or what used to be called a hermaphrodite and many of these people they too have had their genitals mutilated or were assigned one gender by a doctor or surgeon when it was not their choice, and they wind up having the genitals or sex organs of both genders but identify as both or one or the other.

There's also the case of the boy in Canada who was cut and his penis was severed, and he was raised as a "girl" and then later once he found out what had happened he killed himself.

[pole_smoker]

Doctors get paid for this? I thought they just did it for "tips".

The foreskin is not a "tip" or anything like that like some Americans believe.

The foreskin comprises roughly one-third to one-half of the penile skin. On an intact adult, the foreskin is approximately fifteen square inches of tissue (about the size of an index card). It is not "a tip or flap of skin" but a substantial portion of the penis which comprises the most sensitive parts of the penis. It has multiple functions--both protective and sexual including increased sexual pleasure both for the man and his sexual partners either male or female--that are destroyed upon its amputation or the involuntary genital mutilation of the penis A.K.A. circumcision.

<font color="#1A1A1A"><span style="font-family: Helvetica Neue">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGlqzQf5Qvs

Infant circumcision means: He'll lose 50 to 80 percent of the erogenous nerve endings contained in the penis. The only moving part of the penis itself, is removed, completely changing the natural mechanics of sex. The penis is naturally an internal organ, much like the female vulva, circumcision renders it an external organ to callous and desensitize over time. In adulthood, he'll likely have scrotal and pubic skin covering part of his erection because the highly specialized, most innervated part of the male body that naturally accommodates for the erection has been amputated and his penis has been mutilated without his consent.

Why does this pointless and barbaric stone age ritual still go on?

[pole_smoker]

Just a harmless snip?100+ circumcision deaths each year in United StatesEach year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the journal Thymos (http://www.mensstudies.com/content/120393/), which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?
The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality. (Remember those red noses?) Why, the study asks, has the even greater number of deaths from circumcision not aroused the same response?
Part of the answer lies in the fact that most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem.
But another part of the answer lies in the unique place that circumcision occupies in American medical culture, as an entrenched cosmetic ritual that many parents feel they have to submit their baby boys to, and as a lucrative sideline that doctors are reluctant to abandon. American obstetricians can’t seem to rid themselves of the notion that circumcision of boys is somehow an integral part of childbirth. The study points out that “These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said ‘Yes,’ or lacked the courage to say ‘No.’” It further points out that because circumcision is a completely unnecessary operation, all these deaths are easily avoidable, and thus characterises the annual loss as neither a beneficial surgery nor a beneficent rite of passage, but as “an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.”
Because circumcision is unnecessary surgery (there being no pathology to treat in a normal male baby), the old calculus of surgical risk vs benefit is not nearly enough. “Risk assessment for an unnecessary surgery must be held to a higher standard than that for a life-saving surgery. We accept that a heart transplant carries with it a substantial risk of death, but without it there is a certainty of death. On the other hand, the risk from circumcision, which has no therapeutic value, needs to be zero for the infant’s sake, all the moreso because he is never consulted about whether he wishes to take his chances.”
Bollinger argues that the scale of the problem remains unrecognised because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and unwillingness on the part of the doctors who performed the surgery or the hospitals where it took place to admit responsibility, or even to acknowledge that circumcision is a surgical operation which, like all surgery, carries real risks. Too often they have tried to blame incorrect care on the part of parents, or even the peculiarities of the boy himself. As well as analysing the figures, the study runs through some of the few prominent instances where circumcision was recognised as the true cause of death, including the Ryleigh McWillis case in Canada, and several United States deaths that somehow made it into the news.
Some of these make chilling reading, as these excerpts from the article show:
The first known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858. Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination.
Allen Ervin, born 1985, was in a coma for more than six years before he died. He had been on life support after his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during his circumcision. Demetrius Manker was born in 1993 and died soon thereafter from blood loss. The coroner’s examination found a large, gaping wound on the underside of the boy’s penis extending almost to the scrotum. The coroner listed cause of death as blood loss due to penile circumcision; however, there is no mention of further action being taken. A West Virginia child, whose name was withheld, was born in 1996 without incident and circumcised prior to hospital release. A few days later, the parents rushed him to the emergency room because he was having seizures and his penis had turned green in color. He died the next day from septicemia.
Because the penis is highly vascularized, blood-loss is a risk even for boys circumcised past the neonatal period. In 2008, a 6-week-old Native American, Eric Keefe, died from massive blood loss. Hospital officials claimed that his circumcision was not to blame, but instead faulted the parents because they had administered over-the-counter pain medication that, they also claimed, thinned his blood.
Death sometimes occurs following repair of a circumcision complication. Dustin Evans Jr., was circumcised soon after being born in 1998. The surgeon took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a tight “collar” around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was later given an anesthetic in order to repair the damage, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest. His father lamented, “You think, ‘What could go wrong with a circumcision?’ The next thing I know, he’s dead.”
To stop killing boys, stop circumcising themThe solution to the problem, Bollinger suggests, does not lie in improving surgical techniques or giving operator better training. “The problem is this: circumcision is a killer of baby boys. No one, except for some human-rights activists, is trying to save them. It is unlikely that improving circumcision techniques would eliminate these deaths. No matter how skilled the physician is, some deaths will always occur.” The only effective way to eliminate this death toll and save these boys is to admit that circumcision is unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery and stop performing it on neonates and minors. This would give all boys the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised, and (if they do) would allow them to choose it for themselves as adults, when the surgical risks are so much less severe.

Source: Dan Bollinger, Lost boys: An estimate of U.S. circumcision-related infant deaths (http://www.mensstudies.com/content/120393/), THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 2010, 78-90.

[pole_smoker]

I agree with that. I am cut and don't regret it and my long time partner is uncut that is great too.

You will find a large number of men are extremely unhappy with the choice that was made for them without their consent too.


You will also find that most African, Middle Eastern, and Malaysian women who suffered FGM were mutilated by their female family members for whom
FGM was normalised, and they were happy with it.

The girls who had this happen have then said things, or were told things like:
"That's what women's genitals should like", "sex will be more pleasurable for you", "Now you look like your mother or other female relatives", "now your vagina looks like all the other womens does in this country", "now your genitals won't be considered dirty or unclean", "it prevents HIV and other STDs", "your genitals are now more hygienic", "now men will want you more sexually", "your genitals now look beautiful/aesthetically neat", "it's ok, you can still have children" etc etc etc. Revolting stuff really, and yes both FGM and MGM are just as bad as each other.


Victims of abuse often normalise their abuse. But we've seen the exact same thing happen with male genital mutilation or circumcision.

[chtampa]

Your next step, which is a bit more proactive than cut and pasting other quotes, would be to start mass producing magnetic skin colored loops that say "Save The Foreskin". Sell all you can and then donate the money to Washington Lobbyists to pass a federal law against it. Now is your chance to truly make a difference.

[JUSTLUVIN]

An interesting fact is that there is very little difference between female circumcision Types I and II (which are the large majority of female circumcision) and male circumcision.

Both remove ~80% of the nerve endings of the genitals, both are practiced on non-consenting children, and both are done for religious/cultural reasons.

The strongest advocates of female circumcisions in countries where it is practiced? ...Are in fact women. They do it for the same reasons that men circumcise their boys in the West ("it looks better", "it's cleaner", "it was done to me", "your private parts will look just like your mother's or other female relatives", "that's what we've always done to all girls in our family", "it prevents disease", "it's our religion", "it's our culture")

The only reason female circumcision is considered "worse" is because the majority of it is practiced in unsanitary conditions (as is, coincidentally, the male circumcisions practiced in these countries). But in Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia, female genital mutilation is done in a sterile and modern hospital, just like male genital mutilation is done here.
It all just comes down to culture, but in the end, both female and male genital mutilation (FGM/MGM) are both wrong, and both are mutilation because the unfortunate person who has them performed on them has no choice in the matter of having his or her genitals mutilated.

Also there are people who are born intersexed or what used to be called a hermaphrodite and many of these people they too have had their genitals mutilated or were assigned one gender by a doctor or surgeon when it was not their choice, and they wind up having the genitals or sex organs of both genders but identify as both or one or the other.

There's also the case of the boy in Canada who was cut and his penis was severed, and he was raised as a "girl" and then later once he found out what had happened he killed himself.

This makes a lot of sense when you think about how genitals are formed in the womb in the first place. For instance at the time the baby begins to form the genital sections, there is that genetic code that seperates that spot between our legs to determine if it is a boy or a girl. The scrotal tissue of a boy (if it is to be a girl) seperates starting to form the lips of the vagina and do much more. I think of it as the same type of tissue in areas, just shaped differently. More to it than that of course but the long and short of it

[pole_smoker]

This makes a lot of sense when you think about how genitals are formed in the womb in the first place. For instance at the time the baby begins to form the genital sections, there is that genetic code that seperates that spot between our legs to determine if it is a boy or a girl. The scrotal tissue of a boy (if it is to be a girl) seperates starting to form the lips of the vagina and do much more. I think of it as the same type of tissue in areas, just shaped differently. More to it than that of course but the long and short of it
Yes that is true that in the womb the fetus or baby has a stage where both the genitals of either gender are the same.

Either way circumcision of both genders is nothing but a mutilation of the genitals that they are not asking for.

[elian]

NPR had a story this afternoon about how Female Gential Mutilation is gaining a lot of focus in Britain and apparently public support is primarily against it. I do find it an interesting double standard..then again as far as I know a lot of blokes in Europe aren't circumsized to start with so that's probably not a concern on the public radar.

I get what you are saying, I really do - it's just a sore (literally) topic for a lot of folks.. As much as it would be nice to be "natural" I can't fault my parents for it but if I have my own son I don't think I would circumcize him. I don't know if that would lead to some awkwardness after gym class or not.

Yes, I have often thought about the idea that the genetic variation in the external genitals not being that different, one chromosome between male and female. Heck if you look at the right porn videos you can even see some ladies with extraordinarily large clitoris; one guy seemed to be having a heap of fun giving his female friend a "blow job" while he pleasured himself..

[goldenfinger]

Just had to post this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlScy3FZCzU

[elian]

Here's one I saw from collegehumor..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

[pole_smoker]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-leaf/why-i-didnt-choose-circum_b_5318636.html?utm_hp_ref=parents&ir=Parents

I'm a bit depressed. Our midwife gave me a book about circumcision. I've started the book and can't put it down. I'm not sure that I'll ever fully recover.
The book tells me that the foreskin is like an eyelid protecting the sensitive mucous membrane underneath. Circumcision removes this protective skin, so the skin underneath keratinizes, meaning it hardens and desensitizes, like a callus. Therefore, the book posits, circumcision removes length and girth from the penis and decreases enjoyment of sex.
You do not say these things to a man. I'm trying to climb out of the hole. I tell myself that most men in the United States are circumcised, so it's a level playing field. It just means that uncircumcised men are heroes and that we are at a disadvantage when we leave the country.
Now, keep in mind that whether or not sex is less pleasurable without a foreskin is, of course, very difficult to test. Nobody is lining up for a double-blind controlled study: Have sex. Rate it on a scale from 1 to 10. Then lose the foreskin, heal, have sex again with the same partner, and rate it again from 1 to 10. Any takers?
So it's difficult to test the reduced-pleasure hypothesis. And people don't talk about it much, so we don't gather much anecdotal evidence, either. Unless you are a professional sex worker or my friend Adeline, you probably rarely talk about sex, especially the specifics. I don't even know which of my friends have a foreskin and which don't. Maybe I'll ask the question on Facebook: "Share or Like if you have a foreskin."
We all know about circumcision's Jewish roots in the covenant between God and Abraham, but whom do we have to thank for the mass popularization of circumcision? When did it cross the gentile line? In Victorian England, of course. Yes, the same folks who made sex and farting socially unacceptable. Will Ferrell and Judd Apatow owe Queen Victoria big-time. What if nudity, masturbation, and farting weren't funny?
In the 1800s, germ theory was gaining attention and people believed circumcision could fight the ultimate germ demon, smegma. Sounds like a Batman villain. They incorrectly believed smegma to be a breeding ground of bacteria. This is hogwash. Smegma is actually found in most animal genitalia and, in fact, serves to clean and lubricate the genitals, moistening the sensitive mucous membrane between the foreskin and the penis. The word smegma itself is Greek for soap.
Circumcision was the new snake oil. It was touted to prevent or cure syphilis, epilepsy, hernia, headache, clubfoot, alcoholism, gout, and, god forbid, masturbation! As I read older parenting books, I am absolutely astonished at how often people bring up masturbation. They were obsessed. "We must stop this epidemic!" I suppose things have changed. Just last night I watched Seth Rogen masturbate right on screen at the cinema.
Lots of folks, these days, defer the decision of whether or not to circumcise to the thinking of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Seems sensible. But the AAP is about as reliable on the matter as Steve Martin's Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber. The AAP has flip-flopped its position at least four times. In 1971 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1477524/) the academy officially concluded that it was not a medical necessity. In 1989 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1477524/) they announced that there were good medical reasons for it. In 1999 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.short?rss=1) they were neutral, stating in a report that the health benefits of the procedure were slim. And most recently, in 2012 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989), the AAP changed their official stance, saying that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
One of the founders of the American Medical Association, Lewis Sayre, in the late 1800s started recommending circumcision to cure paralysis and gross motor problems. He believed that a tight foreskin threw off the nervous system. "Hmm, this patient is paralyzed. Must be a tight penis."
All this is another perfect example of why we must, in parenting as in life, gather data, but ultimately stay grounded and follow our own hearts and intuition.

In the end, my wife and I chose not to circumcise. People ask me, "What will you tell your son when he asks why his penis is different from yours?" I don't understand this concern. Why must his penis match mine? Our hair color is different. We have different noses and his teeth are better than mine. Should he get braces and a retainer to mimic my overbite?

[elian]

Your child is your child, and you love them for who they are.

I am amazed at the sense of trauma or violation people feel over this issue..if you truly feel that way I am sorry you are in so much pain. I guess it is normal to grieve a loss, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't speak your own opinion. I guess personally I sort of see it as in the past, what's done is done and I can't change it.

I personally don't think the surgery is necessary except maybe in a small number of cases where the foreskin does not retract properly.

Maybe you have to understand that in the 1800's people were just happy to have roof over their head and a full stomach..no internet research or youtube videos..I suspect that's probably true all the way up until at least 1940 or so.. We care about how people "feel" now, but back then just putting food on the table was good enough.

As far as religious purposes, I may be reading it wrong but my understanding is that circumcision was a covenant with the people of Israel, so how this "logic" applies to gentiles I'm not really sure.

[pole_smoker]

Your child is your child, and you love them for who they are.

I am amazed at the sense of trauma or violation people feel over this issue..if you truly feel that way I am sorry you are in so much pain. I guess it is normal to grieve a loss, and I'm not going to tell you that you can't speak your own opinion. I guess personally I sort of see it as in the past, what's done is done and I can't change it.

I personally don't think the surgery is necessary except maybe in a small number of cases where the foreskin does not retract properly.

Maybe you have to understand that in the 1800's people were just happy to have roof over their head and a full stomach..no internet research or youtube videos..I suspect that's probably true all the way up until at least 1940 or so.. We care about how people "feel" now, but back then just putting food on the table was good enough.

As far as religious purposes, I may be reading it wrong but my understanding is that circumcision was a covenant with the people of Israel, so how this "logic" applies to gentiles I'm not really sure.

I'm not cut or mutilated but I can understand why some men feel left out, jealous, or angry that their parents or some doctor mutilated their genitals permanently without their consent.

The large number of men I've met who don't like how they're cut or how they had that choice taken away from them are not happy that their penises have scars, reduced sexual pleasure for they and their partners, and that their penis is not the way a penis is supposed to look, function, and be with a foreskin. They told me how had it been up to them they would have left their genitals intact and kept their penis the way it is supposed to be.

It's akin to a woman that is cut discovering that the majority of women in the world have intact genitals and have no health consequences, and actually enjoy sex more than women who are mutilated do.

Even then if the foreskin does not retract, genital mutilation is not necessary. Some adult men have a foreskin that does not retract at all and they're fine.

BTW the foreskin is not supposed to retract for the first year or so, and it's never to be forced back, and only the owner of the penis is supposed to retract it when they are ready to.

In most societies and cultures including in the United States and Canada circumcision or male genital mutilation was not really that widespread until the 1950s or 1960s, as the majority of people and cultures worldwide do not mutilate the genitals of infant or young boys.

The youtube video you posted before explains why people who are not Jewish or Muslim got into genital mutilation in the United States.

There are a lot of Jewish doctors in the United States, and of course the majority of them are going to be for male genital mutilation even for people who are not Jewish or Muslim. Also, doctors make a lot of money from genital mutilation and if a doctor himself is cut or is a woman and mutilated the genitals of her sons they are probably for genital mutilation and spread the lies and myths about it like how it's "painless" or that "infants don't feel pain from it" which are not true.

I used to correspond with a gay German man who was cut. I asked him why he was cut if he was not Jewish or Muslim. He said how it was because some doctor wanted to make lots of money, and convinced his parents to do it to him. His parents did not mutilate his younger brother's genitals.

I also used to correspond with a man in South Africa and when I asked him if he had a foreskin he found the question silly as he was not cut/mutilated, and he said how unless you're part of some African tribe that mutilates the genitals of their males you're not cut. He was surprised when I told him how most men in the United States are cut/mutilated and he did not understand why.

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact

How did you get into foreskin restoration? A guy I know did try it and he was not successful. He did it with various methods, and then later a device for multiple years and it did not work for him.

[easytriker]

Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along

[pole_smoker]

Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along
True, circumcision of infants and young boys is nothing but genital mutilation.

If men who were involuntary mutilated or 'cut' could experience what it's like to not be cut they would never advocate male genital mutilation, or have wanted it for themselves.

[easytriker]

theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason

[pole_smoker]

theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason
Yes it prevents infections which happen when the boy's genitals are mutilated and there's an open wound there which does get infected, and then a mutilated penis with scars and decreased sexual sensitivity and pleasure for his future partners as an adult happens.

[pole_smoker]

theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason

Yes I found this article you will like.


I'm grateful to my parents for so many reasons, but near the top of that long list is their seeing fit to birth me as a low-class Protestant boy in 1970s London, which meant that it never even crossed their minds to cut off the end of my dick. Only Jews and Muslims and aristocrats mutilated male genitals in Europe back then.
Now there's public wondering, verging on debate, whether Baby Cambridge will be carved up by druids, his foreskin ground with a mortar and pestle and scattered into a north wind at Stonehenge, under the light of a full moon. All I would dare tell William and Kate is that their beautiful boy deserves to go through his blessed life exactly the way they've made him. Let his royal penis keep its crown.
I will confess that when we moved to North America, I grew up wondering whether my commoner's penis had something wrong with it, beyond the usual adolescent complaints. My mom and dad, bless them, had no idea that children were routinely butchered over here — because if you didn't already know that circumcision was something people did, would you ever imagine doing it? — and so they failed to prepare me for locker rooms, sex-ed films, and pornography filled with penises that looked like mine if it were trying to escape itself. To this day, I look at my penis and have no idea what would have been missing and what would have remained had I been born under a crueler star. It's like trying to picture my face without a nose on it.
The "argument" for circumcision, then and now, consists only of vague assertions of better hygiene, as though we still live in caves and rely on birds to pick us clean. If I stopped washing my penis, would it end up smelling like a cheese factory? Yes. I imagine an unwashed circumcised penis wouldn't be in tip-top shape, either. But here's how I avoid making trouser curds: I clean and maintain my penis, quite lovingly. I do the same thing with my fingernails, because sometimes dirt gets under them, too, and my parents also neglected to have them pulled out when I was born.
In fact, I'd wager my penis is cleaner than average because I'm mindful of its upkeep and rubbing soap on it feels amazing. Unlike the doorknobs of dead flesh wielded by so many of my American cousins, the head of my penis remains, almost forty years after its construction, spectacularly sensitive. I don't know what sex is like for circumcised men, but I know it's not as good as it is for me. They have rods; my full brothers and I have lightning rods.



Amy Schumer has a pretty great and true stand-up bit about uncut guys never broadcasting their extra wares in advance, just in case they've found a woman who far prefers a cut dick. (That same woman would no doubt raise almighty hell if men said that her vagina would look better with its labia hacked off.) I don't think I've told any of the women of my life what they were getting in advance of our hasty relations, partly because I didn't know which piece of bad news to break first, but mostly because it took me a while to get over those terrible teenage feelings of abnormality.
My boys, uncut both, will never bear that freak's burden. I will tell them again and again that their penises are perfect and divine — probably not in public very often — and besides, they are lucky enough to have been born in a more enlightened age, when fewer and fewer parents are taking scythes to their prized infant sons all the time. Like so many insane things we once did in the name of mindless tradition, circumcision is slowly being relegated to history and its last-gasp glories, to a time when we never dared to counsel our future kings and queens, and we never failed to bow before their mangled little princes.

[pole_smoker]

Their is so much information about circumcision "to do or not to do is the question". It's very confusing, so all I can say is, I am not cut, I was born at home, I'm 71 years old and no problems, and my friends love it too. So, I say, leave the male babies dick along

Yes even Jews are against male genital mutilation. I found this article. I also have met Jewish men who were not cut, and none of the males in their family were cut.

I'm not a circumcision fan, not as a Jew, not as a man. I belong to a branch of Judaism — Reconstructionist — that considers itself enlightened and progressive; no "Chosen People" stuff, no rules about matrilineal descent, and yet, thanks to the apparently intractable belief that humankind's covenant with God somehow specifically demands that each and every Jewish male must suffer ritual genital mutilation, Reconstructionists still insist upon the practice.

Ritual. Genital. Mutilation. That's precisely what circumcision is, and it is performed for no other reason than virgins were sacrificed to King Kong. The "health" reasons put forth on behalf of such routine disfigurement are unproved, including the belief, prevalent in the 19th-century U.S., that removing a foreskin would cut down on masturbation. As for the ethical and moral issues involved in performing elective surgery on a newborn — a situation where informed consent by the patient is an impossibility — well, hey, a covenant's a covenant. With the Lord!

What particularly galls me is the mealy-mouthed dishonesty practiced by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which oh-so-carefully crawls a tightrope spun of silken shite:

"New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn boys."

The procedure? Ritual genital mutilation.

[pole_smoker]

theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason

The vast majority of the medical organizations in the world are opposed to infant circumcision. This includes:

The Canadian Pediatric Society

Royal Australasian College of Physicians

British Medical Association

Royal Dutch Medical Society

The Netherlands Society of General Practitioners,

The Netherlands Society of Youth Healthcare Physicians,

The Netherlands Association of Paediatric Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association of Plastic Surgeons,

The Netherlands Association for Paediatric Medicine,

The Netherlands Urology Association,

The Netherlands Surgeons’ Association

Royal College of Surgeons of England

Swedish Pediatric Society

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons

Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

Australian Federation of AIDS Organizations

Australian Medical Association

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan Medical Association

Norwegian Medical Association,

Norwegian Nurses Organization,

Norwegian Ombudsman for Children,

Faculty of Medicine at the University of Oslo,

Norwegian Council for Medical Ethics,

Central Union for Child welfare in Finland,

Denmark National Council for Children,

German Association of Pediatricians,

British Association of Pediatric Urologists,

German Society for Pediatric Surgery,

French National Council on AIDS,

German Association of Child & Youth Doctors

[pole_smoker]

http://cphpost.dk/news/danes-want-circumcision-banned.11320.html

Danes want circumcision banned 75 percent want an end to the practice
by Christian Wenande
Three out of every four Danes want to ban the circumcision of boys, unless it's for medical reasons. AYouGov survey for Metroxpress newspaper revealed that 74 percent of the over 1,000 Danes asked want to completely or partially ban the circumcision of boys, while just 10 percent want the practice to remain legal.
“Circumcision is cutting a healthy part of the body from a boy,” Lena Nyhus, the founder of Intact Danmark, an association against the circumcision of children, told Metroxpress. “Denmark ought to be a pioneer when it comes to children's rights. We need an age limit of 18 years.”

[pole_smoker]

May 5, 2014
17:14
http://cphpost.dk/news/why-denmark-must-carry-the-courage-of-its-convictions-on-circumcision.9454.htmlWhy Denmark must carry the courage of its convictions on circumcision

by M Thomas Frederiksen
The Danish people should know that the world is watching your debate on underage ritual circumcision.

This is deeply personal and important to me, as I am myself a victim of this vile practice – due to my misfortune of being born in the United States. Although my young mother was not keen on the idea, a doctor insisted on doing it, and she relented.
What were this man's motivations? Why was it so important to him what my penis looked like? Why did he think that the most intimate part of my body, my 'private parts', my penis, was his prerogative? I'll never know what he wanted from me. But what ever it was, he took it. He had his way with me. He carved his pay-check into my penis. He carved his religion into my penis. He carved his tribal marking into my penis. He carved his custom into my penis. He carved his grotesque aesthetic preferences into my penis. He carved his obscene signature into my penis.
Without our consent
All over the world, boys, girls, and intersex children share stories like mine. The context varies, the method of mutilation varies, the language varies, but one thing thing cuts across all of these stories – we resent what was done without our consent. We have been forced to live our whole lives with the preferences of another permanently carved into our genitals – and we resent what was done without our consent. We have been treated as things, means to the ends of others – and we resent what was done without our consent. We are human beings with our own desires, our own religious sentiments, our own ways of expressing our sexuality – and we resent what was done without our consent.
I've watched the debate unfolding in Denmark with elation and frustration. The Danish people know what is right, and want to do the right thing: protect underage boys. However, the voices of the perpetrators have been allowed to dominate the discussion, while once again the screams of the victims have fallen on deaf ears. This is why I must speak out.
Americans fancy themselves the leaders of the world. We have the military might – so we must be right. We can bring more brute force to bare then any other country on the face of the earth. Sadly, most Americans do not realise that this brute force is not leadership – it is bullying.
Time for moral leadership
In sharp contrast, the Danish people have a chance to exercise true leadership: moral leadership. However, your politicians waver, wring their hands and drag their feet. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why their failure to protect boys is not blatant sexism. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why their failure to protect the sons of minorities is not blatant racism. I ask them to look me in the eye and tell me why our pain is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter if some parents defy the law. It doesn't matter if some boys are taken to other countries to be cut. Why? Because a Danish ban on underage ritual circumcision will send a clear signal to the whole world that boys deserve equal protection. Other countries will follow suit, and the debate will shift dramatically – even in countries like the United States. A ban in Denmark will ultimately protect boys and intersex children all over the world. You know what is right – have the courage of your convictions!
M Thomas Frederiksen is a machinist and toolmaker living in Florida, USA. Undergoing a years-long process of non-surgical foreskin restoration has given him first-hand experience of the difference that mobile skin makes to intimacy.

[pole_smoker]

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/

Genital Mutilation American StyleBy Rio Cruz


Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
"Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.
Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.


The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not allow us to see anything wrong.
I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.


My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor. Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state of complete and total shock.
The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp. He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to his mother. Welcome to America, little man.
"Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one child born in this country who has any condition requiring this procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.
Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability," said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on this issue and they flee into the shadows.
However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery. It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember, girls are protected by law from such parental requests.
Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons. It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed of this fact.


The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal, erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment. Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all ethical concerns are off.
It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to it."
Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual," says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First, Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr. Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."
Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs. Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the sensitivity of an old garden glove.

[pole_smoker]

Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:
***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops.
***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.
***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.
***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.
***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's corpuscles.
***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.
***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.
***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects from dirt and other contaminants.
***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.
***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.
***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.
***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.
***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.
***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.
***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.
***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.
*** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.
***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its growth.
*** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.
*** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.
And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every year from circumcision and related complications.

[JUSTLUVIN]

I get into this subject of circumcision a lot in mixed company and was talking about female circumcision when this one woman, a friend of mine, seemed rather curious about it all. She was asking how one would know. I tried to tell her the best way I could since I am not a woman. She went home and a couple of weeks later she saw me and told me that she had been circumcised when she was younger but didn't know it had happened to her till she asked her mom. They had tried to keep it a secret from her for some reason. She was obviously angry cause she wondered why her sexual experiences were not the same as some of the others she discovered

[Hypersexual11]

Well, my grandson was born a couple weeks ago. We were there. When they carted him off for mutilation, my son could see me hiding extreme frustration and anger and I had a hard time staying in the room without losing it. He said that the doctor had come in and spent about an hour with them prior to doing this. He never suggested they do it, just gave him information. Information I'm sure was designed to maximize the hospital bill. Oh yea, this was in a HEAVY mormon city. The information that stuck with her and the only reason they did this was that it looked better. I bet her nasty raged cunt would 'look better' hacked off too.

[pole_smoker]

Well, my grandson was born a couple weeks ago. We were there. When they carted him off for mutilation, my son could see me hiding extreme frustration and anger and I had a hard time staying in the room without losing it. He said that the doctor had come in and spent about an hour with them prior to doing this. He never suggested they do it, just gave him information. Information I'm sure was designed to maximize the hospital bill. Oh yea, this was in a HEAVY mormon city. The information that stuck with her and the only reason they did this was that it looked better. I bet her nasty raged cunt would 'look better' hacked off too.

Sorry to hear that this happened.

What does being in a heavy Mormon city have to do with things? I am not Mormon but I lived in a city where there are Mormons but you will find them in all cities around the world.

[Alex2200]

u right Mormon irrelevant. circumcension (sp) can be a health decision, less infections during life. if this not topic, i apologize.

[Alex2200]

i do know that circumsisized or not has little to do with sensitivity of penis.

[Hypersexual11]

I probably make assumptions about mormons based on my limited knowledge of the hundreds I have dealt with. Simply said, they seem to like 'sameness'. They are very easy to pick out in a crowd because they look like all the other mormons in the crowd. The hospital my grandson was born in is staffed by a lot of mormons, his nurse and doctor were both mormons. The decision to mutilate my grandson was based on 'being like everyone else', not dangerous, been done forever yadda yadda.

Living in a city with a few mormons is like living in a city with a few blacks. You don't get the full experience of living where they rule.

[pole_smoker]

I probably make assumptions about mormons based on my limited knowledge of the hundreds I have dealt with. Simply said, they seem to like 'sameness'. They are very easy to pick out in a crowd because they look like all the other mormons in the crowd. The hospital my grandson was born in is staffed by a lot of mormons, his nurse and doctor were both mormons. The decision to mutilate my grandson was based on 'being like everyone else', not dangerous, been done forever yadda yadda.

Living in a city with a few mormons is like living in a city with a few blacks. You don't get the full experience of living where they rule.

Have you ever lived in an area with mainly black people? What was that like for you?

No I have never lived in a city or town where it was mainly Mormon people.

In the places where I've lived there were Mormons but I never saw them except for the few times they would come to where I was living to hand out information.

[pole_smoker]

i do know that circumsisized or not has little to do with sensitivity of penis.


u right Mormon irrelevant. circumcension (sp) can be a health decision, less infections during life. if this not topic, i apologize.

Actually, that's not true. A penis that is cut or circumcised is less sensitive than one that's left intact with a foreskin, and a foreskin makes sex more pleasurable for the man and his male or female partners, and it makes masturbation more pleasurable as well. Secondly circumcision does not prevent infections or make the penis "clean" as some people think, and if a man is intact with a foreskin he's not going to get "infections". The majority of men around the world are not cut and have no problems or health issues with their penises.

[pole_smoker]

http://www.yourtango.com/experts/pleasure-mechanics/circumcision#.VFGVbfnF-BJ

To circumcise or not to circumcise: That is the question. There has been a long-running debate amongst public health officials and sex (http://www.yourtango.com/sex) educators on the subject, with major studies lending evidence to both sides.
Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis, usually performed on infants. Pro-circumcision advocates believe that circumcision improves public health by reducing transmission of infections. Meanwhile, those who are anti-circumcision believe that it is a form of genital mutilation whose health benefits can be easily attained through simple hygiene and safe sex practices.

But what about sexual pleasure? Does circumcision reduce sexual sensation (http://www.yourtango.com/sex) for men? Well, a new medical study from Belgium (http://forward.com/articles/171421/sex-study-finds-circumcision-reduces-mens-pleasure/) suggests that there is a small "but significant" difference in reported sexual pleasure, favoring men with intact foreskin. Additionally, the study reports that circumcised men report more incidents of "pain and numbness" during arousal due to the presence of scar tissue.
To those of us in the sex education (http://www.yourtango.com/experts/gina-binder/talk-to-your-kids-about-sex) field, there is not a whole lot of mystery about the relationship between circumcision and sexual pleasure. The foreskin has thousands of nerve endings and is an important part of the male sexual system. Removal of the foreskin also leaves the head of the penis — the most sensitive part of the male genitals — constantly exposed. Constant rubbing on clothing and exposure to temperature changes reduces the sensitivity and responsiveness of the nerve endings, creating the demand for more stimulation to trigger a pleasure response.
The head of the penis (http://www.pleasuremechanics.com/penis/) is the anatomical homologue (match) to the head of the clitoris (http://www.yourtango.com/experts/susun-weed/six-amazing-things-you-didn-t-know-about-your-clitoris). So for all the ladies reading this, imagine the very tip of your clitoris constantly exposed and rubbing against your clothes, and you can begin to imagine the desensitization that would occur over time. The clitoris (http://www.pleasuremechanics.com/clitoris/) is protected not only by the clitoral hood (the match to the foreskin), but also the fleshy labia (http://www.pleasuremechanics.com/labia/). The foreskin is nature's protective sheath for the sensitive head of the penis.
The foreskin keeps the glans of the penis moist and warm. During arousal, it slowly retracts to expose the glans and acts as a fleshy sheath through which you can stimulate the penis. Many uncircumcised men love (http://www.yourtango.com/love) the feeling of the foreskin being moved over their erect penis, just as many women love to have their clitoris stimulated from the side, using the hood to buffer direct stimulation.
Missing from the debate about male circumcision (http://www.yourtango.com/sex) has been the question about female pleasure. As a sex educator, I have spoken with thousands of women about their experience of intercourse with circumcised and uncircumcised men, and a clear pattern has emerged. It seems that circumcision not only effects male pleasure, it changes how they make love. Circumcised men tend to penetrate much more vigorously, in the jackhammer style that is so familiar from our cultural depiction of intercourse. This style of penetration comes from a desperate search for more stimulation and the need to concentrate sensations on the tip of the penis.
Uncircumcised men, on the other hand, often penetrate with more finesse, using a slower rhythm and more of an undulating motion. The intact foreskin acts as a sheath that glides over the penis with every thrust, creating more pleasure and reducing the need to thrust with as much force to create sensation.

[JUSTLUVIN]

I can attest to the fact that it reduces sexual satisfaction. Since restoring my erections are as hard as they were when I was a teen and I did nothing in my life but restore my forseskin

[chtampa]

I had a natural foreskin restoration. Got fat. Instant foreskin. No improvement from sex but an increase in maintenance. Here I have been an authority for years and never knew it!

[pole_smoker]

I had a natural foreskin restoration. Got fat. Instant foreskin. No improvement from sex but an increase in maintenance. Here I have been an authority for years and never knew it!
Getting fat is not good for your health or body.

That's not the same as having an actual foreskin, or doing what Justluvin did.

[pole_smoker]

I can attest to the fact that it reduces sexual satisfaction. Since restoring my erections are as hard as they were when I was a teen and I did nothing in my life but restore my forseskin

Yes that's true. Anyone who has had sex with both men who are cut, and who are intact can attest that male circumcision is nothing but involuntary genital mutilation and that it does reduce sexual pleasure for both women and men, and the man who is unfortunately mutilated.

[elmwood7]

I can't really say I have an opinion either way on this. I know there's a lot of debate and information out there on this subject. But information can be skewed to either side to support their opinions. I do have some thoughts and observations on the subject though. I know a few guys where when they get hard the have pain when sliding the foreskin over the head of their penis so they make sure it's back before it get's hard. My wife and a few of her friends say they can't really feel the difference in penetration. If the information is right then ALL the doctor's doing the procedure's are knowingly breaking their oath to first do no harm. Just a few thought's Personally if I had the choice I'd have stayed uncut.

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact
Indeed.

[pole_smoker]

You will find a large number of men are extremely unhappy with the choice that was made for them without their consent too.


You will also find that most African, Middle Eastern, and Malaysian women who suffered FGM were mutilated by their female family members for whom
FGM was normalised, and they were happy with it.

The girls who had this happen have then said things, or were told things like:
"That's what women's genitals should like", "sex will be more pleasurable for you", "Now you look like your mother or other female relatives", "now your vagina looks like all the other womens does in this country", "now your genitals won't be considered dirty or unclean", "it prevents HIV and other STDs", "your genitals are now more hygienic", "now men will want you more sexually", "your genitals now look beautiful/aesthetically neat", "it's ok, you can still have children" etc etc etc. Revolting stuff really, and yes both FGM and MGM are just as bad as each other.


Victims of abuse often normalise their abuse. But we've seen the exact same thing happen with male genital mutilation or circumcision.

This is the writing of a woman who underwent FGM/female circumcision. I happen not to agree with it but she does the same types of arguments that guys who are cut use to promote male genital mutilation.

http://www.fuambaisiaahmadu.com/blog/defending-fgm



Some twenty odd years ago, when I was just finishing university in the US, I chose to travel to my country of heritage – Sierra Leone – to undergo female initiation. This included female circumcision. My aunt, mother and grandmother approached me and said they wanted to take me, along with a slightly older aunt, my younger sister and cousin, to “join Bondo”. I was excited, recalling memories of my childhood in Africa, watching exuberant women dancing and singing during adolescent girls’ initiation ceremonies, called Bondo. These women would take over the town, while men and uninitiated children had to stay in the houses. The women flanked the awesome Bondo masquerade, a powerful representation of our female ancestors, dancing and entertaining the crowds.

We underwent several rites as part of our transition from girlhood to womanhood, the most significant being our excision operation – the reduction of the exposed clitoral hood, glans and labia minorae. My immediate experience was of pain and culture shock, while my eight year old sister felt nothing and was soon up and about with other young girls playing in the Bondo encampment. My initial fear – that I would never enjoy sex again and be scarred forever – turned into pride and amazement when I first held a mirror “down there”, saw a clean, smooth look, and experienced my first post-operation sexual orgasm with my then boyfriend back in the
US.

In December 2012, this practice – now condemned as Female Genital Mutilation – came under an official ban by a UN Resolution, at the same time that the Hastings Centre Report, a leading biotethics journal, published an advisory statement dispelling many of the popular myths about female genital surgeries. Yet, in recent years, all over the internet and in Western women’s magazines I see glossy advertisements of white women who have undergone what is now popularised as Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS). Doctors, including gynecologists
with no surgery background, can charge thousands of dollars for procedures very similar to what I underwent and which the World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies as Type II Mutilation. I do find this puzzling. African women have been berated for over thirty years now for “mutilating” our own and our daughters’ genitals. Medical practitioners are prohibited from performing these surgeries under clinical environments, even when requested by adult African women. But, white Australian girls as young as 14 and 11 can obtain “labiaplasty” underwritten by the National Health Service in local hospitals?

According to WHO, “Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. So, how can Western public health officials, global health institutions and feminist organisations maintain a straight face in condemning African female genital surgeries as FGM, yet turn a blind eye and even issue guidelines for the performance of very similar and sometimes more invasive procedures on Western (mostly white) women, under the guise of cosmetic surgery?

When I look at the before and after pictures on some FGCS websites, I can see that the aesthetic effects of surgeries on white vaginas are conspicuously similar to our supposedly mutilated black vaginas. Exactly who is kidding who – the doctors themselves, the female patients or WHO? Whether done with a laser or a razor; at a high-priced Beverly Hills plastic surgeon’s office or at a sacred women’s initiation grove in the heat of West Africa; whether no one will find out about our private cosmetic surgery or we join other face-painted initiates in a communal celebration of womanhood; whether we are anesthetised under the modern knife of a male plastic surgeon with fancy framed degrees across the walls of his office or our legs are held open as we display our courage before an experienced traditional Digba, these are “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia…for non-medical reasons”. Period. As long as women – whatever their race, ethnicity or motivations – are old enough to make these decisions for themselves, what purpose does making moral distinctions among these cultural practices serve?

At the time of my initiation, the concept of FGM had not quite gelled in Western psyche. I chose to identify with the African women who raised me, the powerful women I so admired; the financially independent, hard-working and self-sacrificing women who, at least back when we lived in Africa, seemed so empowered. I chose then to experience a cultural tradition that both honours our female ancestors and also ridicules men’s supposed sexual superiority.

I did not choose initiation for aesthetic and hygienic reasons or for sexual enhancement, though these have been the unintended psychosexual benefits of my operation, for me. I see no reason why a white woman can opt for genital surgery for cosmetic reasons or if she wants to change her gender, but African women must be labelled “mutilated” for even the slightest knick to the clitoris as part of our ancestral traditions. Why not the notion that all girls and women should be free to choose?

To begin with, we (meaning all of us concerned women) can rethink what we mean by genital aesthetics and stop using the invidious expression “mutilation.” We can push for acceptable ages of majority for all children – irrespective of gender, nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religion, perceived cultural depravity and so on – to consent to certain surgical procedures. We can impart accurate, evidence-based information that reflects actual risks and perceived benefits, devoid of moral judgment. We can stop infantilising, pathologising and criminalising African women for upholding their culture, while rewarding Western, predominantly male doctors who appropriate, rebrand and gain financially from African women’s ancestral traditions and at the expense of Western women’s own sexual insecurities.

[pole_smoker]

Being circumcised is neither a normal nor desirable condition. Circumcision is the amputation of a functioning body part which Nature has provided to make sex more pleasurable and fun!

[dunelm]

Good for Germany, eventually more countries will outlaw male genital mutilation like this or the practice will just die out like it has in most of the world.

http://rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Circumcision is a crime. It is involuntary genital mutilation. Let every child grow up with their genitalia intact, then let them decide as adults if they want to mutilate themselves.

why would you want a tight skin that hurts on retraction?

[dunelm]

i lost my foreskin during painful sex, and then an operation. now im so sensitive i cum when i walk. so whos complaining

[pole_smoker]

why would you want a tight skin that hurts on retraction? i lost my foreskin during painful sex, and then an operation. now im so sensitive i cum when i walk. so whos complaining
The majority of men have no issues with their foreskin, and even if they do have a tight foreskin that's not a reason to have their genitals mutilated.

Most of the time if someone has a tight foreskin they can just stretch it themselves and it will be fine, and genital mutilation is not necessary.

Since you're now mutilated your penis will not stay nearly as sensitive as it would have had you kept your foreskin.

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact

Exactly, circumcision of anyone of any gender is genital mutilation.

[pole_smoker]

Wow it is amazing how brainwashed we can get to believe anything. I am so sorry that you are going through that. You know back in the 50's it was not only approved by western medicine, but accepted by the public to have your tonsils taken out if you had a sore throat. Now it makes no sense whatsoever since the tonsils are key to the immune system.

There are many other body parts that western medicine deems unessential and can be removed. It is funny I guess the Creator made some mistakes huh...just joking

You know in some areas it is a felony to circumcise girls. Same principle here but I guess guys are dispensible. Again so sorry to hear what you are going through
Excellent post.

Eventually male genital mutilation will die off as a practice both culturally, and a silly religious practice.

[pole_smoker]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1606596/actor-alan-cumming-speaks-out-against-infant-circumcision/

“I think circumcision is genital mutilation,” Cumming said, in an interview withdot429 (http://dot429.com/articles/5261-alan-cumming-talks-about-his-abusive-father-bisexuality-monogamy-and-why-he-doesn-t-want-children). “There is a reason you have foreskin.”
The Tony Award-winning Cabaret star said he was surprised to discover how much more prevalent circumcision (http://globalnews.ca/tag/circumcision/) is in North America than in Europe.
“It was only when I came to America that I realized what a common practice circumcision is. I’d show my penis to people, and they’d go, ‘Oh my God! What’s that?’ They were so amazed and utterly unused to and unexposed to the natural body of a man,” Cumming, 49, recalled.
“I thought that was a shocking thing. I was gobsmacked by that.”
Cumming, who stars as Eli Gold on The Good Wife (http://www.globaltv.com/thegoodwife/index.html), has just published a memoir entitled Not My Father’s Son.
A self-described “intactivist,” he said it doesn’t make sense to remove foreskin.
“I mean, you lose sensation there if you’re circumcised,” he said. “From my point of view as a sexual and sensual person, the idea that you would hack away at that and lose sensitivity and nerve endings on the most pleasurable and sensitive part of your body is terrible.”

[pole_smoker]

Even more and more Jews are rejecting male genital mutilation.

http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.613096?v=A01265BE77D30A1AC667B74EF7FBEBF2

Is this the generation that rejects circumcision?

There is no Jewish death penalty. There are no rabbinic executioners, or people who amputate limbs for violations of Jewish law. Ritual circumcision is the only act of physical harm that remains.

by other rabbis and relatives as he holds a boy at his circumcision. / Photo by APBy Avraham Burg
Published 03:50 30.08.14
A debate has come into being quietly here about the place of Brit Milah (the ritual circumcision of Jewish baby boys on the eighth day after birth). The debate is not taking place abroad, not in “anti-Semitic” Germany, but here in the State of Israel. When one mother refused to have her son circumcised, the rabbinical court tried to force her to do so (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.560245), and the High Court of Justice countered the rabbis (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.602016) in the name of liberty.
This topic, which vanished when the fighting in Gaza broke out (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-conflict-2014), could have toppled governments at other times. I think the issue runs much deeper than a legal battle.
On the day that my fourth grandson was circumcised, I wondered whether the institution of circumcision would be the next one to fall. Observance of the Sabbath, kashrut (Jewish dietary laws), mikveh (family purity laws), and the religious prohibitions against same-sex relations have not been obligatory social conventions for quite some time. They became the preserve, and means of preservation, of a diminishing minority. Will the same processes cause circumcision to follow suit?
Something about the institution of ritual circumcision is no longer all that convincing for young parents of this generation. In my family, all the males were always circumcised, without exception. My parents never thought about it. My own heart was pained at my sons’ circumcision, though it was no more than a young father’s heartache over the pain of his newborn baby. The discourse is different among my children. “Maybe we won’t do it. What for, anyway?” they have asked themselves four times already. The first time we talked about it, I realized that many of their friends had the same questions. Although they did it in the end, their questions are still real and require thought.
I approached the topic with a great deal of curiosity, and conducted a kind of man-in-the-street poll for several weeks. I asked my questions with care and got detailed responses. The many answers I received all pointed in a single direction: that the institution of circumcision is coming to an end. Or, to be more precise, the institution of circumcision has no real hold among the segment of the Israeli population that is not conservative and religiously observant.
On what basis do I make these statements? Let us begin with the explanations that people give themselves and that were given to me. “It’s healthy.” “It’s hygienic.” “It’s aesthetic.” “Half of American Christian men are circumcised.” “So the kid won’t stand out.” “So he won’t be embarrassed in the shower, at the pool, on the annual school trip, in the army.”
My innocent question, “Is any one of these answers sufficient reason to maim a child?” was met with silence. I asked, “Would you take out a child’s appendix soon after birth? Or implant a pacemaker in his body in order to play it safe?” The answer, with an embarrassed smile, was, “Oh, I never thought about it that way.” Nobody, but nobody, cited religious obligation as justification for the act.
But the only reason to harm a defenseless child in that way is the religious reason: the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Besides all the difficult restrictions I mentioned above (the Sabbath, dietary laws and the Jewish family that does not contain only Jews or only heterogeneous relationships) that are violated in public, we would do well to take note of the common thread that underlies many of these nullified commandments, whose examples include an eye for an eye, the Jewish death penalty, the sorcerous ordeal whose purpose was the public humiliation of a woman suspected of adultery. They are all concerned with the physical aspect of the religious conventions.
Generations of Jews have lived since those ancient commandments were almost completely abolished. Here are the facts: there is no Jewish death penalty. We do not put out eyes or cut off hands. There are no rabbinic executioners, or people who amputate limbs for violations of Jewish law. All that are left are the mohalim – those who are specially trained to perform circumcisions.
Ritual circumcision is the only act of physical harm that remains. For how much longer?
The acts of physical harm I enumerated above, and many others, fell into disuse as the social and cultural conditions in which the Jews lived changed. Is our generation the one that is ripe for the abolition of ritual circumcision?
A challenging opponent has arisen against the ancient rite of circumcision: the concept of rights. Recent generations have deepened and broadened the discourse of rights – the rights of a human being to his body and dignity.
Rights and liberties are the true strength of Western society. This is a society that fights with all its might against female genital mutilation, which is customary in other parts of the world and still widespread among immigrants who refuse to assimilate and internalize the values of the new world to which they moved.
The fight against female genital mutilation is highly complex; the woman’s right to do as she pleases with her own body, her right to enjoy sexual relations at least as much as her male partner does, the freeing of the woman from any form of ownership by men (such as her father, brother, husband or pimp).
The way the fight against female genital mutilation radiates to the struggle against male circumcision is well known and extremely significant. After all, what exactly is the difference between them?
The difference is that male circumcision has positive branding compared with female genital mutilation, even though the issues are no different. On the one hand is the parents’ right to raise their children according to their faith. On the other is children’s inborn rights over their own bodies. On the strength of that right, violence against children was prohibited, and corporal punishment at home and in school utterly condemned.
It is likely that many people will continue circumcising their sons for religious or behavioral reasons, and many will look for other ways to express their membership in the Jewish collective without compromising on universal principles, which include the child’s right to an intact body.
Let us conclude with a paradox. An important part of the religious argument against abortion is the fetus’ right to life. According to this argument, the fetus is a living creature in every way. And, they claim, every child – inside or outside the womb – has the right to be born and to live.
So if the fetus, which is connected to the placenta, already has rights within the womb and may not be harmed for religious reasons, how is it possible to harm him, for religious reasons, from the moment he is born?

[pole_smoker]

Circumcision destroys sexuality, and sexual pleasure in both men, and women.

[pole_smoker]

A lot of people are against circumcision since it's involuntary genital mutilation, and pointless.

[pole_smoker]

Actually no it's not.

Circumcision or involuntary genital mutilation of infants is so painful it causes them to pass out from the pain and go into shock even if anesthesia is used.

ATLANTA (CNN) -- A new study found circumcision so traumatic that doctors ended the study early rather than subject any more babies to the operation without anesthesia.
The researchers discovered that for those circumcised without anesthesia there was not only severe pain, but also an increased risk of choking and difficulty breathing.

A lot of infants and young boys die each year because of involuntary genital mutilation.

[JaredT77]

I'm circumsized and my son is circumsized. I don't regret being a baby and being circumsized. I would rather had it done as a baby then have done as a adult. No spank you very much!

[pole_smoker]

I'm circumsized and my son is circumsized. I don't regret being a baby and being circumsized. I would rather had it done as a baby then have done as a adult. No spank you very much!

It's weird how people make up excuses for genital mutilation that was done to them, and that they've unfortunately done to their male child.

Then the old fallacy of "it's better to have it done as an infant/young child is OK since I, or my son wouldn't remember it, and I/my son would have to have it done as an adult, and involuntary genital mutilation was done to me, so it will be done to my son" gets argued.

The majority of men in the world are intact with a foreskin and they and their sexual partners have no health complications at all, or issues with their intact penis where they have to get it mutilated or "cut" as an adult or child.

Even in the United States involuntary male genital mutilation rates are decreasing and eventually it will die out here as more and more people are deciding not to mutilate the genitals of their sons.

[AGuyIKnow]

It's weird how people make up excuses for genital mutilation...
It's weird that you have to keep posting massive quantities of text to justify your foreskin.

[pole_smoker]

It's weird that you have to keep posting massive quantities of text to justify your foreskin.

No it's not.

People like myself, JUSTLUVIN, and others who post against male genital mutilation are doing so because circumcision or male genital mutilation destroys sexuality.

It's time for the United States and other countries where male genital mutilation happens to catch up to the rest of the world and its cultures that are all against involuntary male genital mutilation.

[AGuyIKnow]

Okay so supposedly cut is the minority in the world. This site is worldwide, along with several other sites. You can check profiles and a couple of cock picture threads and the majority are cut cocks.

So if the intact guys are so sexual, why aren't they the prevalent ones one the internet? Do you just have so much more sex that you don't have time to join the rest of us on the forums?

Maybe I'm just missing where all the uncut guys are all hanging out at. Or maybe us cut guy's just have to have that much more sex to keep up with the uncut guys.

IDK, just seems to be an unbalance to support how awful it is to be cut.

[pole_smoker]

Okay so supposedly cut is the minority in the world. This site is worldwide, along with several other sites. You can check profiles and a couple of cock picture threads and the majority are cut cocks.

So if the intact guys are so sexual, why aren't they the prevalent ones one the internet? Do you just have so much more sex that you don't have time to join the rest of us on the forums?

Maybe I'm just missing where all the uncut guys are all hanging out at. Or maybe us cut guy's just have to have that much more sex to keep up with the uncut guys.

IDK, just seems to be an unbalance to support how awful it is to be cut.
The majority of people on this site who are actually registered, have profiles, and who have uploaded dick pics and post here on a regular basis are from the United States where male genital mutilation is, or was at one time widespread. Plus, more than a few of the profiles on here are fake, and made up by trolls/spammers with fake pics that are not actually them that they found on the internet that have been spread all over various sites. For example I've seen guys who claim to be from the southern part of the United States, and who claim to know each other in person, write the exact same way, and both fake profiles use pics of guys who have done gay porn who are not bisexual; but they just took the pics off of one of the many free sites off the internet and used them here.

If you click on the profiles of men who are from countries where male genital mutilation is not the norm such as the UK, France, Italy, most other countries in the world, etc. on here or other sites, and they have dick pics they're not going to be cut/mutilated. Other guys who are not mutilated have posted in threads about involuntary male genital mutilation before both from the United States, and other countries.

You also will find some men on this site who are not cut who did upload pics. There are other guys like myself who are not mutilated, and we don't upload pics.

If you go to other sites where the majority of the members are not from the United States or who are not Canadian and didn't have Canadian parents who wanted to imitate parents in the United States you'll find that most men on those sites are not cut. Haven't you ever traveled outside of the United States at all? I don't mean going to Canada, or to a resort in Mexico, a resort in Jamaica, Aruba, or the Bahamas, or going to a resort on Caribbean islands either.

[AGuyIKnow]

I'm no denying that guy's are uncut in other parts of the world. You said that circumcision destroys asexuality but percentage wise, I'm not seeing that's the case. Where are all these highly sexual uncut guy's at? They're not well represented on the internet. I would expect to see nearly 100% uncut pictures on various sites. That's not the case.

Maybe uncut is not as sexual as you think.

[pole_smoker]

I'm no denying that guy's are uncut in other parts of the world. You said that circumcision destroys asexuality but percentage wise, I'm not seeing that's the case. Where are all these highly sexual uncut guy's at? They're not well represented on the internet. I would expect to see nearly 100% uncut pictures on various sites. That's not the case.

Maybe uncut is not as sexual as you think.
I didn't say that "circumcision destroys asexuality" I said that circumcision destroys sexuality, in that involuntary male genital mutilation makes oral sex, sex between men, and sex between a woman and man, and whatever other configuration you can imagine adults in less enjoyable both for the women and men if the man is cut, than if he's intact with a foreskin.

The penis is meant to have a foreskin on it, and be intact, as this greatly increases sexual pleasure both for the man who has the penis, and his male and/or female partners.

Which other sites are you going to? I explained why most men on this site are cut, and how a lot of the profiles on here are fake or use pics from the internet that are not themselves. If you go to sites that are in a country where the majority of men are intact you'll find that all the men posting ads who are from that country are intact. It's also like this with porn made in those countries.

http://theworstdrug.com/49649

[pole_smoker]

Circumcision is genital mutilation and kills sexual pleasure dead.

[Mike and Pam]

If your not cut..you are not coming anywhere near me! My preference and this is the female half talking. Uncut is nasty and gross!!!!

[darkeyes]

If your not cut..you are not coming anywhere near me! My preference and this is the female half talking. Uncut is nasty and gross!!!!This a less than nice statement.. it is one thing to say u prefer circumcised men, quite another to to say that men being uncircumcised is nasty and gross.. it is insulting for one thing and is a form of prejudice about which no one should feel pride and certainly should never "run off at the mouth" on line.. men are born with foreskins, and that is their natural form. We all prefer different things in the people with whom we have sex.. we are attracted to different aspects of their mind and body. U are attracted to men who have, in the main, been genitally mutilated without their consent by parents or guardians.. ur choice.. but I wouldnt shout your rejection of the uncircumcised too much from the roof tops in the manner u have done on this page.. it makes u sound very small, somewhat nasty and a tadge gross...

[pole_smoker]

If your not cut..you are not coming anywhere near me! My preference and this is the female half talking. Uncut is nasty and gross!!!!
Then the "female half" must find her own vagina to be gross, and disgusting, and the male half probably does as well but just doesn't tell her this so he won't be cut off from getting some pussy. A woman's vagina produces way more smegma than a man's foreskin does, produces yeast, and menstruates. Some women have large labia which men find gross, and nasty.

There are also a lot of men even bi and hetero men, who find the smell and taste of a woman's vagina to be disgusting and don't give women oral sex.

[JaredT77]

This whole conversation is just getting childish and stupid. "Ew, gross, disgusting!" What are we, 2 years old again?!!! Nothing wrong with a cut cock or a uncut cock. I have never sucked a uncut cock before, but that is not a preference, just not a opportunity I have had. I have never dated a black woman or black man either, but again, I just never had the opportunity. Personally, I would suck a man's cock even if he was cut or uncut, if he was white or black. Doesn't matter to me at all. All that matters is personal hygiene.

[AGuyIKnow]

I have never sucked a uncut cock before, but that is not a preference, just not a opportunity I have had.
I have and found it no different than a cut , or as prevalent in this thread, mutilated cock. I also found the guy no more sensitive to touching than a uncut guy. I do feel that a cut cock is more appealing, to me, than an uncut one.

I've never had the opportunity to to suck a black cock yet either but I can't imagine the color to matter in any way.

[pole_smoker]

I have and found it no different than a cut , or as prevalent in this thread, mutilated cock. I also found the guy no more sensitive to touching than a uncut guy. I do feel that a cut cock is more appealing, to me, than an uncut one.

I've never had the opportunity to to suck a black cock yet either but I can't imagine the color to matter in any way.

Obviously you're not masturbating or sucking the intact man correctly.

As a man who is intact I've found that most men who are mutilated or cut simply don't know how to suck my dick or jerk me off correctly the way another intact man with a foreskin does. I've been with one guy that's cut for oral sex, and I masturbated a few. Cut/mutilated guys are less sensitive than guys who are intact as they don't have a foreskin, and a guy that's mutilated his cock is dry and has gross scars on it, and some are even more disfigured than that. I also have noticed that guys who are cut tend to blow their loads way too fast, and don't last nearly as long as guys who are intact easily can and do.

Try taking up the ass from a guy that's not cut. All the women and men I've been with who I fucked were amazed at how different and better a penis that's intact feels in their pussy or ass, compared to a cut one that's dry and rough.

[AGuyIKnow]

Well obviously that must be it. Congrats on that amazing dick that you have by the way. It's clearly different than everyone else's.

Blowing your load too soon is because of lack of control. Anyone can learn to control their orgasmns, it just takes practice.

I've tried bottoming, it's just not something I enjoy. One guy was uncut, it didn't matter for me. I prefer to top anyway. My gross and rough, non sensitive cut cock seems please all of the asses that it's been in. Luckily for me, I must have got one of the good cut cocks.

[pole_smoker]

Well obviously that must be it. Congrats on that amazing dick that you have by the way. It's clearly different than everyone else's.

Blowing your load too soon is because of lack of control. Anyone can learn to control their orgasmns, it just takes practice.

I've tried bottoming, it's just not something I enjoy. One guy was uncut, it didn't matter for me. I prefer to top anyway. My gross and rough, non sensitive cut cock seems please all of the asses that it's been in. Luckily for me, I must have got one of the good cut cocks.

Actually, yes a penis that's intact is drastically different than one that's cut/mutilated.

A penis that's intact has a foreskin that glides back and forth over the head which feels good both to the man who is left intact, and whatever woman or man he's fucking. It even feels better if the intact man is using a condom.

When it comes to sex and being a "top", there's more to it than just sticking your dick into a woman's pussy, or a man's ass and humping away.

There's an indisputable fact that circumcision removes about 12 square inches of highly erogenous tissue on a [male] adult. It's obvious, if they're missing tissue of the penile shaft, anyone with common sense would agree that they, and their sexual partners are feeling less pleasure, because they don't have the thousands of nerve endings that went with the tissue that was thrown away.

Plus, the foreskin has various functions including being a removable 'sleeve.' The sleeve slides up and down the penile shaft, reduces friction and stimulates the glands and the head of the penis and it makes it more comfortable and pleasurable for his sexual partner.

You can't remove parts of the penis without effecting sex, or sexual pleasure. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.

If a man is circumcised, he faces an increased risk of experiencing delayed orgasm, no orgasm at all, or he has to work hard to have an orgasm and ejaculate, and his female partner has an increased risk of not feeling sexually fulfilled.

This is the conclusion of a new Danish research article, which has received international attention.

The circumcised man develops a thin layer of hard skin on his penis head, which decreases the sensitivity. This means that in order to reach an orgasm, he needs to work harder at it, and that can lead to a painful experience for the woman.

When the penis enters the vagina, anus, or mouth, the foreskin is pulled back. And on its way out again, the foreskin goes back to cover the penis head. This way the foreskin stimulates both the man and the woman, or the man and another man.


The gliding in-and-out movement of the foreskin, combined with the in-and-out movement inside the vagina, anus, or mouth, constitutes what is known as ‘the gliding movement’.


When a circumcised man moves in and out of a woman or man without 'the gliding movement' caused by the foreskin, it can have a painful effect on the woman or man's mucous membrane. This could explain the pain and the tendency towards dryness that women and men with circumcised men experience.”


Circumcision or male genital mutilation also is to blame for why so many men in North America take drugs like Viagra or Cialis for ED as circumcision is linked to Erectile dysfunction. It's also a reason why a lot of women who are partnered to cut/mutilated men need to use those nasty synthetic lubes during vaginal sex.

Having sex with a cut/mutilated man is akin to having sex with a woman who has had parts of her vulva or clitoris mutilated as both female and male circumcision are just as bad as each other, and both are done for the exact same reasons.

[Mike and Pam]

IF you don't like what people write on your message boards then maybe you should not be posting! Its MY OPINION...I DONT LIKE UNCUT MEN!


[ QUOTE=pole_smoker;277234]Then the "female half" must find her own vagina to be gross, and disgusting, and the male half probably does as well but just doesn't tell her this so he won't be cut off from getting some pussy. A woman's vagina produces way more smegma than a man's foreskin does, produces yeast, and menstruates. Some women have large labia which men find gross, and nasty.

There are also a lot of men even bi and hetero men, who find the smell and taste of a woman's vagina to be disgusting and don't give women oral sex.[/QUOTE]

[pole_smoker]

IF you don't like what people write on your message boards then maybe you should not be posting! Its MY OPINION...I DONT LIKE UNCUT MEN!


[ QUOTE=pole_smoker;277234]Then the "female half" must find her own vagina to be gross, and disgusting, and the male half probably does as well but just doesn't tell her this so he won't be cut off from getting some pussy. A woman's vagina produces way more smegma than a man's foreskin does, produces yeast, and menstruates. Some women have large labia which men find gross, and nasty.

There are also a lot of men even bi and hetero men, who find the smell and taste of a woman's vagina to be disgusting and don't give women oral sex.[/QUOTE]
Yes and we intact men don't want to have sex with you, or your husband either. ;)

Circumcision is a major alteration of how people have and enjoy sex, a fact that is unknown among circumcising people, and that has come to be appreciated only in the past 30 odd years.

The harm of circumcision is not at all evident, unless one knows how to look for it. The adverse effects of circumcision on adult sex life vary a lot by individual, partner and stage of life. These adverse effects are often blamed on aging alone and includes Premature ejaculation, painful/uncomfortable sex for the woman or man being fucked, and Erectile dysfunction.

The parts cut off are the MOST innervated parts of the HUMAN MALE. When you cut the parts off you shut down a huge part of the kid’s/man’s sensory system. That can never be returned (it is shut down for good). Also, many cut men have sexual function issues from the start of sexual activity. However, most will get ED at a much younger age than they would otherwise or at all.


EVERY HUMAN (male and female) has the RIGHT (a human right) to reach adulthood with all of the tissue (particularly all of their erogenous tissue, and their genitals) that THEIR genetic code provides.

Baby boys are not born with diseased organs, or an intact penis that has a foreskin that must be mutilated. There is no medical indication for such a permanent mutilation. Many states have stopped wasting taxpayer dollars on this unnecessary mutilation.


The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy. The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision (this was proven by a study in 2007 by Sorrells which measured the sensitivity of 17 places on the male body part).

As for hygiene, circumcision is an extreme and irreversible solution to a trivial problem. Have you ever seen smegma? Have you ever seen an intact man clean himself in the shower? Smegma is far less of a problem than cut Americans make it out to be. For one thing, it washes away very easily. Women like the original poster who is all butthurt produce way more smegma, and even yeast, yet nobody is saying they should get their genitals mutilated even though some women are opting to do this by getting a labia plasty to get rid of huge roast beef curtains on their pussy.

Genital autonomy for all. Her body, her rights; his body, his rights. We wouldn't even think of removing anything down there from a baby girl--who have more folds of skin and issues down there than boys do over the course of a lifetime--so why do we even consider removing something down there from a baby boy?


Where male genital cutting is not customary, the lifetime risk of ever needing it is one in hundreds of thousands. Cutting healthy babies on the basis of such a chance is ridiculous.


Ever been with a gal who had to get a labiaplasty later in life because of discomfort?


Also, the female bits are more of a bacteria trap than a foreskin. Do you propose we excise little girls' or womens' flaps to create a less moist environment?

[darkeyes]

IF you don't like what people write on your message boards then maybe you should not be posting! Its MY OPINION...I DONT LIKE UNCUT MEN!


Fine, u dont like uncircumcised men.. ther was no need to b offensive about it.. u wudnt have far to go to get laid in this country exactly, but u would be more or less restricted to 2 communities wich make up about 5 or 6 % of the population 'tween them...outside of those, circumcised men are few and far between... not saying u r but u wud b in queer street if u wer a racist, and/or religious bigot... mind u since wen did that stop some peeps fucking wiv the inferior races, hey? Lucky ole u living in the US, hey? Difference 'tween u and I is I dont like males to be circumcised without their consent.. which, if I read u correctly, is something u would force upon ur own sons against their will simply because u dont like sex with uncircumcised men and think it gross and nasty..don't want the lickle boys thought of as gross and nasty now do we??

Wot I will say 2 ya is the sex with the uncircumcised is far lufflier and more satisfying than sex with the circumcised. Opinion but most women in this part of the world wud agree.. not all.. just most.... of those who prefer cut guys outside of cultural, racial or religious reasons, how much is down to the novelty of it I have no idea... but some at least is down to that.... it is different as has been pointed out if in a rather peculiar way.. always found it far easier to cum with the uncut because of how they fuck... clitoral contact is better and more firm.. more consistent.. it just feels nicer and I always found much less rushed... not to say much more filling. Not saying u have difficulty in cumming or getting sated with cut men... am saying u would most likely have less difficulty with the uncircumcised... but since they are nasty and gross that isnt gonna happen so ur not gonna find out r ya?

Finally, as to not posting because peeps write things I dont like, what is this forum for? A gud ole argy bargy and difference of opinion... I do like a gud ole argy bargy an' difference of opinion.... am a gr8 believer in freedom of speech.. even speech wich is offensive and unpleasant to most of the men around the world... God knos I've upset enuff of the poor buggers in me time.. but I do usually try, tho not always with complete success, not 2 b offensive... 'cept wen I was much younger... but then wen young, we r daft and dont care 'bout the feelings of others 2 the same extent do we? But we grow up most of us... and develop some degree of sensitivity..some peeps sadly neva do.. some just like to b obnoxious all ther lives, don't they Poley, hmmmm:confused:

[pole_smoker]

Fine, u dont like uncircumcised men.. ther was no need to b offensive about it.. u wudnt have far to go to get laid in this country exactly, but u would be more or less restricted to 2 communities wich make up about 5 or 6 % of the population 'tween them...outside of those, circumcised men are few and far between... not saying u r but u wud b in queer street if u wer a racist, and/or religious bigot... mind u since wen did that stop some peeps fucking wiv the inferior races, hey? Lucky ole u living in the US, hey? Difference 'tween u and I is I dont like males to be circumcised without their consent.. which, if I read u correctly, is something u would force upon ur own sons against their will simply because u dont like sex with uncircumcised men and think it gross and nasty..don't want the lickle boys thought of as gross and nasty now do we??

Wot I will say 2 ya is the sex with the uncircumcised is far lufflier and more satisfying than sex with the circumcised. Opinion but most women in this part of the world wud agree.. not all.. just most.... of those who prefer cut guys outside of cultural, racial or religious reasons, how much is down to the novelty of it I have no idea... but some at least is down to that.... it is different as has been pointed out if in a rather peculiar way.. always found it far easier to cum with the uncut because of how they fuck... clitoral contact is better and more firm.. more consistent.. it just feels nicer and I always found much less rushed... not to say much more filling. Not saying u have difficulty in cumming or getting sated with cut men... am saying u would most likely have less difficulty with the uncircumcised... but since they are nasty and gross that isnt gonna happen so ur not gonna find out r ya?

Finally, as to not posting because peeps write things I dont like, what is this forum for? A gud ole argy bargy and difference of opinion... I do like a gud ole argy bargy an' difference of opinion.... am a gr8 believer in freedom of speech.. even speech wich is offensive and unpleasant to most of the men around the world... God knos I've upset enuff of the poor buggers in me time.. but I do usually try, tho not always with complete success, not 2 b offensive... 'cept wen I was much younger... but then wen young, we r daft and dont care 'bout the feelings of others 2 the same extent do we? But we grow up most of us... and develop some degree of sensitivity..some peeps sadly neva do.. some just like to b obnoxious all ther lives, don't they Poley, hmmmm:confused:

True. Sex with a man that's intact who has a foreskin is a lot more lovely, and fun.

While sex with a cut guy is boring, and more "meh". I feel bad for cut men they had their genitals mutilated without their consent, and the majority of them would have, had they had the choice kept their penis intact and without scars, unmutilated, far more sensitive to them and their sexual partners (both male and female), and the way a penis is supposed to be or with a foreskin.

[JaredT77]

A cut cock is not mutilation. It's just a matter of opinion and preference.

[pole_smoker]

A cut cock is not mutilation. It's just a matter of opinion and preference.

Yes it is mutilation.

You're forcing genital mutilation onto someone who can't say yes, or no.

It's so painful that infants and young boys go into shock when the mutilation happens.

It also completely changes the penis making it far less sensitive, smaller in circumference and length than it would have been had the penis been left intact, it does nothing to make the penis "clean" or promote "hygiene" since there's such a thing as showering daily with soap and water, and the claims it prevents HIV/STD transmission are BS since if this were true you would not have had an entire generation or two of bi and gay men in the United States who were all cut get infected with HIV and die from AIDS or complications from HIV, and get infected with HIV.

Plus, there are things such as using condoms and having safer sex correctly that are far more effective at preventing HIV/STD transmission and infection than mutilating a man's penis is.

Each year a lot of infants die from having their genitals mutilated, and there's no actual need for anyone to get their genitals mutilated.

Either way, let them wait until they're an adult and then they can decide for themselves if they want their dick mutilated or not.

All the guys I know who are HIV+ or who have other STDs are cut. Guys who are intact keep their dicks clean. But guys who are cut for the most part don't, and think that because their dick is mutilated that there's no need for this. :rolleyes;

If you think that male circumcision or male genital mutilation is "a matter of opinion and preference" then you support female genital mutilation, and you should know that the women and men who promote FGM think of it as "A matter of opinion and preference".

[pole_smoker]

The vast majority of circumcised males in Europe are post-WWII Moslem immigrants and their male descent. Circumcision is distasteful to many in Europe because it is perceived as Islamic, not as Jewish. Most European Jews are are intact, and not blinded by silly religious dogma that says they have to mutilate an infant boy's penis.


The winds of cultural change have turned against the forced circumcision of children solely at the request of parents, and the excuse of religion to mutilate someone's genitals. There is a growing revulsion directed at the notion that parents have the right to decide how a son and his eventual partners experience sex. The reason is that adults who are unhappy with their own circumcisions or that of their partners, are sharing their unhappiness via social media. This is one of the many ways in which social media are game changers. The frank talk about how the tip of the penis performs in masturbation, foreplay and penetrative sex have exploded the unspoken assumption that circumcision has no effect on sexual function and pleasure which is not true since circumcision or genital mutilation does change sex and the penis making the penis far less sensitive/thinner/smaller in length, and sex with a man that's intact with a foreskin is more pleasurable for women and men when they do sex acts like mutual masturbation, giving oral sex, or vaginal and anal sex. This change in the culture of human sexuality is a raw fact that even the most frum Jews will have to take on board, and Muslims too.

[pole_smoker]

A cut cock is not mutilation. It's just a matter of opinion and preference.
I feel bad for guys who are 'cut' or mutilated and their sex partners.

Being circumcised is neither a normal nor desirable condition. Circumcision is the amputation, and mutiltion of a functioning body part which Nature has provided to make sex more pleasurable and fun!

[AGuyIKnow]

Yeah know, the rest of us circumsized guy's don't feel that it's that big of a deal. We still have sex and have great time doing it.

It's kind of like telling a guy with one eye how much better the color red would be if he had both eye's. He still see's red, it's all he's ever known and he still see it like everyone else.

Look around pole, we're all still having sex. According to the few of your somewhat useful poll's, we seem to be having more sex than you are too.

I don't feel bad and neither did anybody that I've had sex with. Not even one time has anyone ever said, gee that was great sex we had but it sure could have been better if you would have had foreskin.

I think you're overrating this much more that it really is. I understand that you're in love with your own penis, it shows in nearly every post you make. We all love ours too.

[JaredT77]

Yeah know, the rest of us circumsized guy's don't feel that it's that big of a deal. We still have sex and have great time doing it.

It's kind of like telling a guy with one eye how much better the color red would be if he had both eye's. He still see's red, it's all he's ever known and he still see it like everyone else.

Look around pole, we're all still having sex. According to the few of your somewhat useful poll's, we seem to be having more sex than you are too.

I don't feel bad and neither did anybody that I've had sex with. Not even one time has anyone ever said, gee that was great sex we had but it sure could have been better if you would have had foreskin.

I think you're overrating this much more that it really is. I understand that you're in love with your own penis, it shows in nearly every post you make. We all love ours too.

Pay no attention to that guy. He just has issues and then tries to project his issues on everybody else instead of being held accountable for his own actions. A cock is a cock and a pussy is a pussy. If it works then it's good. If you practice good hygiene then it's good. I've sucked cock before and eaten pussy and I enjoyed both.

This jerkoff is probably jerking off to the attention he's getting and from everybody revealing their sexual experiences probably because he is too ugly to get any so he makes up lies about his male partner and his make believe sex life.

[AGuyIKnow]

Pay no attention to that guy.Actually it's okay, everyone has a right to their opinion. Even when he say's I'm wrong or he doesn't believe what I post is true. I don't believe everything he posts either. I just don't think he has the wonder cock that he thinks he has but that's okay too. I think mines pretty cool too and so do other people.

If my cock was as spectacular as pole's apparently is, I'd be using a lot more than he does though.

Notice: Even though pole_smoker arrogantly say's a few things that aren't very popular, I've not once said anything that was meant to purposely be harsh about him. He does seem to be a bit voyeuristic but this is a sex site after all.

[JaredT77]

Actually it's okay, everyone has a right to their opinion. Even when he say's I'm wrong or he doesn't believe what I post is true. I don't believe everything he posts either. I just don't think he has the wonder cock that he thinks he has but that's okay too. I think mines pretty cool too and so do other people.

If my cock was as spectacular as pole's apparently is, I'd be using a lot more than he does though.

Notice: Even though pole_smoker arrogantly say's a few things that aren't very popular, I've not once said anything that was meant to purposely be harsh about him. He does seem to be a bit voyeuristic but this is a sex site after all.

Very true, everybody does have a right to their own opinion, no matter how unpopular it might be. I should know from experience a few months ago when I was bad mouthing people on this site for being married and not being truthful with their bisexuality with their wife and then going out cheating. I can imagine that I was very unpopular with a lot of people who have been on this site for years. I was on this site several years ago, but I left. But one thing I must respectfully disagree with you. This site may seem to be perceived as a sex site, but I'm sure that there are those that might disagree with you. This site could be mistaken for a sex site because of perverts like pole_smoker, who posts a ridiculous amount of his polls for his own amusement. A lot of people are sick and tired of these sex polls because it clutters up the Threads with useless crap when people out there have real topics to discuss.

At first, I thought there was no harm to his sex polls but then it got personal when he started getting too personal with my sex life. When I told him that it was none of his business, he decided to push more and make his own accusations about my sex life when I decided not to "feed" his perverted desires. I will bad mouth that piece of shit, punk muthafucker until the day he leaves this site. He is nothing but a plague and a parasite.

Back to this not being a sex site as some people might perceive it to be. I see as a community for bisexual men and women to come to this site and talk about their issues. Or it's for the people that find out that their lover, who turns out to be bisexual, and come to this site to seek answers from people that are willing to help out. No, I see this as a community for bisexual people, but yes there are times when people come here looking for sex.

[AGuyIKnow]

This site may seem to be perceived as a sex site, but I'm sure that there are those that might disagree with you.
I meant that this was a place to talk about sex not that it was a place to hook up. Though it is possible to PM people to meet up and I've had some request's but the distance was too great. It seems though a lot of issues have already been discussed, so it's more of a search and read place instead

I hate those polls too and wish they in a question format and something that pole_smoker was actually wanting to know and not things for him to jerk off to.

On a positive note, site activity is actually increasing. Even if a portion is discussing displeasure of the childish like polls. A lot of it is not.

[pole_smoker]

Yeah know, the rest of us circumsized guy's don't feel that it's that big of a deal. We still have sex and have great time doing it.

It's kind of like telling a guy with one eye how much better the color red would be if he had both eye's. He still see's red, it's all he's ever known and he still see it like everyone else.

Look around pole, we're all still having sex. According to the few of your somewhat useful poll's, we seem to be having more sex than you are too.

I don't feel bad and neither did anybody that I've had sex with. Not even one time has anyone ever said, gee that was great sex we had but it sure could have been better if you would have had foreskin.


Stop getting all butthurt just because your dick is mutilated.

Granted you do have a reason to be angry at your parents and whatever quack of a nurse or doctor mutilated your dick but unless you do foreskin restoration you'll only keep decreasing your limited sensitivity, and develop premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction because of your mutilated genitals. Foreskin restoration is not going to actually give you an unmutilated penis like an intact penis; but it's a start at regaining some sensitivity in your mutilated penis.

Yes it is true that guys who are mutilated don't know what they're missing. The way you assume or want to make it into a contest that "cut guys have more sex" because of what you see simply on this site is laughable. Try spending time in the real world, and travel outside of the United States, and see different cultures besides one where most men get their dicks mutilated and don't know any difference.

No they don't say that after sex with a cut guy; but they certainly do think it and just don't tell you how they wished that you were intact and not mutilated. Fortunately not all cut/mutilated guys and their partners are as ignorant as some people here are. Less and less people, including guys who are cut/mutilated are choosing to mutilate the genitals of their children and this is a good thing.

This site and the gay male hookup sites you go to do not represent the real world where the majority of men are intact, and their sexual partners both male and female love that they're intact with a foreskin and not mutilated.

Actually, if you had not noticed myself and other people here who are against male genital mutilation or circumcision simply want genital integrity for everyone both women and men, boys and girls since nobody should have their genitals involuntarily mutilated as this completely changes their sexuality, and the way their future partners experience sex with them.

I actually do have a wonderful sex life but it only includes having frequent sex with my partner and not other people. Unlike some people here we are monogamous and do not lie or cheat on each other.

[AGuyIKnow]

Stop getting all butthurt just because your dick is mutilated.
I'm not hurt in anyway since I have pretty tough skin. Maybe it's circumsision taking over my entire body.

I'm more bored of your insistent need to menipulate my words to satisfy your own agenda. You don't know me don't know the guy's I have sex with.

I seem to be about the only one here that will even respond to you anymore but I'm about and RCH from acting upon the PM's that I've been receiving and block you too. Not because I'm offended but because of the pile of polls that that you are dumping on here. There are 136 of them that nobody has responded to.

[JaredT77]

Ok truth be told I have NOT read all the comments. Just saying…
I’m circumcised and had my son circumcised and don’t regret it…
Now (truth be told) I always fantasied about being with a uncut dick.

Who gives a fuck, right Isitfun? I'm circumcised and so is my son too. Who gives a fuck if a dick is circumcised or uncut? Just some people making a big deal out of nothing. My cock is beautiful and cut and if someone said it was mutilated then that's their problem. They can always kiss my ass instead, or better yet my hole!

(Just because I might be a bottom to men, I ain't passive. If someone tried to rape me, I would break their dick off in my ass, pole_smoker!)

[pole_smoker]

Who gives a fuck, right Isitfun? I'm circumcised and so is my son too. Who gives a fuck if a dick is circumcised or uncut? Just some people making a big deal out of nothing. My cock is beautiful and cut and if someone said it was mutilated then that's their problem. They can always kiss my ass instead, or better yet my hole!

(Just because I might be a bottom to men, I ain't passive. If someone tried to rape me, I would break their dick off in my ass, pole_smoker!)
Your dick is not beautiful. It's mutilated, and has nasty looking scars and other deformities as that's what happens with circumcision to both women and men.

Most circumcised women, too, are happy with how they are, and will claim that their vulvas are "beautiful" and not mutilated but this is again denial just like cut men have about their cocks.

I'm not into rimming as it's disgusting, and if you are a bottom yeah you are passive as that's what the term means. No your ass is not that tight.

There should be no “debate” on genital cutting or genital mutilation. It all is a violation of human rights and needs to be protected against with legislation and enforcement. There should be no legal amount of oppression one can withstand at the hands of others, or encouraged. It's also very fucked up when a guy gets his own genitals mutilated and then does the same thing to his son. But women who have been 'cut' or who have their genitals mutilated do the same thing to their daughters, and sons.

I truly don’t understand how anyone could defense genital mutilation of infants in any way. There might be studies on each side, but reality shows that there are no valid health benefits: The majority of Europeans including Jewish people do not mutilate infants after birth and they have less UTI’s, less infections, less penile cancer rates, less infant deaths and less STD’s than cutting eager USA.

On the contrary, circumcised men are more prone to STD’s because they are less likely to use condoms: either due to the lack of feeling or because they are fooled to think they are safe now!

Circumcision has been linked with premature ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction.

I've been with guys who are cut and they all came very fast; but the guys I was with who were not cut had control over when they wanted to orgasm/ejaculate, and did not have PE.

Dicks that are cut look gross and odd to me since they don't have a foreskin and have a scar and other deformities on them. It's akin to being with a woman who has had her vulva and clit mutilated.

[pole_smoker]

Why Most Circumcised Men Seem Satisfied
Circumcised men do not know what they are missing.
Why don't we hear a lot more from circumcised men about how they truly feel about being circumcised? Here are the possible reasons.
Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to a severe form of female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost. See Men Circumcised as Adults.
Young circumcised men may not notice the negative sexual effects of circumcision until they are older, because of the progressive desensitization of the exposed glans (head of the penis) from exposure and rubbing against clothes. See Functions of the Foreskin. It is possible that circumcision is an unrecognized factor in the high rates of impotence in older American men.
Accepting circumcision beliefs and cultural assumptions prevents men from recognizing and feeling their dissatisfaction. A typical response is “When I was young I was told it was necessary for health reasons. I guess I just didn’t question that. I assumed that was so.”
The emotions connected with circumcision that may surface are very painful. Repressing them protects men from this pain. A circumcised man recalled, “It was something I just didn’t examine. I put it away in the back of my mind like a lot of guys do.” If the feelings do become conscious, they can still be suppressed. After learning about circumcision, another man said, “I don’t want to be angry about this.”
Those who have feelings about their circumcision are generally afraid to express them because their feelings may be dismissed or ridiculed. When asked why he had not revealed his circumcision feelings before, one man said, “I would be looked upon as strange or else people would toss it off lightly.” Another said, “It’s not something that anyone talks about. If it is talked about, it’s in a snickering, comical way which I find disturbing. People laugh about it as if there is something funny going on.”
Verbal expression of feelings requires conscious awareness. Because early traumas are generally unconscious, associated feelings are expressed nonverbally through behavioral, emotional, and physiological forms. Attitudes about people, life, and the future may also be affected. An example of an attitude resulting from childhood trauma is “You can’t count on anything or anyone to protect you.”


http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

[look4one]

I think this is a very subjective discussion... there is no right or wrong answer as to how each individual feel.

I was circumcised when I was 21 yrs old, on my own free choice. There are differences between before and after circumcision, less sensitive glans to name one.

If I could go back in time, would I change my decision? Hell NO!

Just like Yin and Yang, there are two sides to each coin. There are good and bad things about everything.

Arguing, complaining, debating etc will not change anything.

This is the great thing about the freedom of speech, where everyone has the right to his/her opinion.

[JUSTLUVIN]

So true Look4one. It is highly subjective. I just wish the decision to do it to children was held off until they can make the decision for themselves. Adults can make up their own minds. Some may say why not do it when they are younger so they won't feel the pain, well they do feel the pain since no matter if they apply a local, they cannot desensitize the entire area as an infant.

As Pole Smoker stated, you don't know what you are missing until you lose it. If you lost it as a baby, you would never really know. I can say as one who has restored his foreskin that I am glad I did restore. The sensitivity I have regained helps me to understand why it is so vital a part of male anatomy. With that said I am definitely against circumcision unless absolutely necessary. But for those who are fine with theirs cut, I have no problems with it, it is their choice like mine is as well

[JaredT77]

Pole_smoker needs help because he is a fucktard with mental issues. I really don't give a fuck what he says on here, I'm too busy laughing at his dumbass. I think it's funny getting him all riled up about stupid meaningless issues. I really don't pay attention to what he says. He is beneath me.

[JaredT77]

Your dick is not beautiful. It's mutilated, and has nasty looking scars and other deformities as that's what happens with circumcision to both women and men.

Most circumcised women, too, are happy with how they are, and will claim that their vulvas are "beautiful" and not mutilated but this is again denial just like cut men have about their cocks.

I'm not into rimming as it's disgusting, and if you are a bottom yeah you are passive as that's what the term means. No your ass is not that tight.

There should be no “debate” on genital cutting or genital mutilation. It all is a violation of human rights and needs to be protected against with legislation and enforcement. There should be no legal amount of oppression one can withstand at the hands of others, or encouraged. It's also very fucked up when a guy gets his own genitals mutilated and then does the same thing to his son. But women who have been 'cut' or who have their genitals mutilated do the same thing to their daughters, and sons.

I truly don’t understand how anyone could defense genital mutilation of infants in any way. There might be studies on each side, but reality shows that there are no valid health benefits: The majority of Europeans including Jewish people do not mutilate infants after birth and they have less UTI’s, less infections, less penile cancer rates, less infant deaths and less STD’s than cutting eager USA.

On the contrary, circumcised men are more prone to STD’s because they are less likely to use condoms: either due to the lack of feeling or because they are fooled to think they are safe now!

Circumcision has been linked with premature ejaculation, and erectile dysfunction.

I've been with guys who are cut and they all came very fast; but the guys I was with who were not cut had control over when they wanted to orgasm/ejaculate, and did not have PE.

Dicks that are cut look gross and odd to me since they don't have a foreskin and have a scar and other deformities on them. It's akin to being with a woman who has had her vulva and clit mutilated.

You can talk all the bullshit you want because I know you're full of shit and a fucktard. You don't know shit about me other than if I saw you in person, I will beat the hell out of you old fart. Call me passive then when you are laying in a pool of your own piss, shit, vomit, and blood. After I'm done beating your weak ass, I'm shoving a Louisville Slugger bat up your ass until you taste wood. Bring your partner too. I will take you both on and you can share a hospital bed together. So go ahead and call me "passive." How's Viagara working out for you, by the way?

[pole_smoker]

You can talk all the bullshit you want because I know you're full of shit and a fucktard. You don't know shit about me other than if I saw you in person, I will beat the hell out of you old fart. Call me passive then when you are laying in a pool of your own piss, shit, vomit, and blood. After I'm done beating your weak ass, I'm shoving a Louisville Slugger bat up your ass until you taste wood. Bring your partner too. I will take you both on and you can share a hospital bed together. So go ahead and call me "passive." How's Viagara working out for you, by the way?
Suite melt. Men who are bottoms for anal sex are passive.

My partner and I don't need Viagra or anything like that since we are not cut. But we know cut men who are our age or even younger who do.

[pole_smoker]

You are cutting a part of your son's dick off, and mutilating his penis. It can NEVER be replaced. He will never feel the full sexual pleasure that a human man can feel.

Think about that before you perform genital mutilation on your son's penis because YOU are insecure about being different. Be strong for you son.

[JaredT77]

You are cutting a part of your son's dick off, and mutilating his penis. It can NEVER be replaced. He will never feel the full sexual pleasure that a human man can feel.

Think about that before you perform genital mutilation on your son's penis because YOU are insecure about being different. Be strong for you son.

Whatever, fucktard. Your Threads are meaningless. Your polls are meaningless. Your arguments are meaningless. You being on this site is meaningless. Take all your meaningless Threads, your polls, your arguments, and bend over, NO lube, ok? NO Lube. AND STICK IT UP YOUR STUPID FUCKTARD ASS!!! You meaningless old BITCH!!!

[JaredT77]

Suite melt. Men who are bottoms for anal sex are passive.

My partner and I don't need Viagra or anything like that since we are not cut. But we know cut men who are our age or even younger who do.

That's not what your partner and your doctor told me. It's ok for a old man at your age to go on Viagara. It's ok.

[pole_smoker]

Whatever, fucktard. Your Threads are meaningless. Your polls are meaningless. Your arguments are meaningless. You being on this site is meaningless. Take all your meaningless Threads, your polls, your arguments, and bend over, NO lube, ok? NO Lube. AND STICK IT UP YOUR STUPID FUCKTARD ASS!!! You meaningless old BITCH!!!
I'm not old. Your post makes no sense. You do not actually know either my partner, or my doctor. Get some help.

A cut dick looks normal in the Muslim world (near-universal), parts of Southeast Asia and of Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. That's it. Everywhere else, a cut dick is abnormal and considered mutilated since that's what circumcision is: involuntary genital mutilation.

Great company we keep here. Reminds me of the list of countries that still practice capital punishment.

[AGuyIKnow]

Your post makes no sense. Get some help.
In a nutshell, I believe this summarizes most of what you've been posting on this site.

[pole_smoker]

In a nutshell, I believe this summarizes most of what you've been posting on this site.
Nope. Either way I was describing the troll Jared, and not myself.

I have had people email me or private message me telling me how they do like my posts and polls.

You are not healthier by missing healthy and normal body parts or by having your penis mutilated. That is ridiculous. It’s like saying you are healthier if you don’t have testicles since you may get cancer in one or both. Or you are healthier by not having eyelids since then you won't get eye infections.

Suffice it to say that every society that practices female genital mutilation also mutilates the genitals of boys. The reasons African women give for having their genitals mutilated are quite similar to the reasons American parents give for mutilating the genitals of their sons.

[chtampa]

Nope. Either way I was describing the troll Jared, and not myself.

I have had people email me or private message me telling me how they do like my posts and polls.

You are not healthier by missing healthy and normal body parts or by having your penis mutilated. That is ridiculous. It’s like saying you are healthier if you don’t have testicles since you may get cancer in one or both. Or you are healthier by not having eyelids since then you won't get eye infections.

Suffice it to say that every society that practices female genital mutilation also mutilates the genitals of boys. The reasons African women give for having their genitals mutilated are quite similar to the reasons American parents give for mutilating the genitals of their sons.

What is this guys obsession with "young boys" and their circumcised penises? Doesn't he know the difference between being bi and being a pedophile? Next he will start a poll on "Do you like young boys with hair or without".

[AGuyIKnow]

Most of the poll's have nothing to do with bisexuality.

[JUSTLUVIN]

Non sequitur. An interest in boys not being circumcised does not correlate to pedophilia just as an interest in being a pediatrician does not correlate to being a pedophile. Also, circumcision is usually dealt with at an early age so the topic of "young boys" as you out it would be a logical conclusion. Many fathers and mothers take interest in this subject from the aspect of protecting their children from harm.

[JaredT77]

I'm not old. Your post makes no sense. You do not actually know either my partner, or my doctor. Get some help.

A cut dick looks normal in the Muslim world (near-universal), parts of Southeast Asia and of Africa, the United States, the Philippines, Israel, and South Korea. That's it. Everywhere else, a cut dick is abnormal and considered mutilated since that's what circumcision is: involuntary genital mutilation.

Great company we keep here. Reminds me of the list of countries that still practice capital punishment.

Maybe we should do a poll on you poll_smoker on how many people think that you belong in a mental institute. I don't want to know you or your partner but maybe should discuss with your doctor to increase the dosage. AND STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM LITTLE BOYS, YOU FUCKTARD!!!!!!

[AGuyIKnow]

JaredT77, I'm not sure that tossing dagger's out on the public thread is the right thing to do either. This just makes you just as annoying. I can't disagree with what you're saying though. It would be great if you would stop trashing this site also.

I'm certainly not condoning pole's method. I do understand his point of view, I just think he's been beating his drum way beyond what was nessesary.

Pole may actually be a great guy in person. The internet gives people the ability to be someone they normally can't be in person.

[JaredT77]

JaredT77, I'm not sure that tossing dagger's out on the public thread is the right thing to do either. This just makes you just as annoying. I can't disagree with what you're saying though. It would be great if you would stop trashing this site also.

I'm certainly not condoning pole's method. I do understand his point of view, I just think he's been beating his drum way beyond what was nessesary.

Pole may actually be a great guy in person. The internet gives people the ability to be someone they normally can't be in person.

You're right. I agree with you totally. This has gone on way too long.

[pole_smoker]

If you hate your sons and want them to have an ugly mutilated penis, that's a lot less sensitive, and that will cause their female and/or male sexual partners pain or discomfort during intercourse and won't be as fun to masturbate or give oral sex to then by all means mutilate their dick and all this will happen when they're an adult.


Eventually they'll get Erectile Dysfucntion and guys who are cut can get it at all ages; but it should be no surprise that the majority of men who have ED even younger men, are all cut and from countries that practice routine genital mutilation.


It's also no surprise that in the United States where lots of men are cut you constantly see TV advertisements for sex lubes that cut guys think feel good but in reality they don't feel that good, and medications for women who have painful intercourse with men. Both my partner and myself have experienced that cut guys tend to ejaculate way too fast and have premature ejaculation-while men who are intact and not cut don't.


Fortunately, the majority of younger men in the United States in the 18-early 30s age range are not having their genitals mutilated by their parents, and are not doing it to their sons. Eventually the United States will catch up to the rest of the world where genital mutilation is not practiced on boys or men at all.

[JaredT77]

If you hate your sons and want them to have an ugly mutilated penis, that's a lot less sensitive, and that will cause their female and/or male sexual partners pain or discomfort during intercourse and won't be as fun to masturbate or give oral sex to then by all means mutilate their dick and all this will happen when they're an adult.


Eventually they'll get Erectile Dysfucntion and guys who are cut can get it at all ages; but it should be no surprise that the majority of men who have ED even younger men, are all cut and from countries that practice routine genital mutilation.


It's also no surprise that in the United States where lots of men are cut you constantly see TV advertisements for sex lubes that cut guys think feel good but in reality they don't feel that good, and medications for women who have painful intercourse with men. Both my partner and myself have experienced that cut guys tend to ejaculate way too fast and have premature ejaculation-while men who are intact and not cut don't.


Fortunately, the majority of younger men in the United States in the 18-early 30s age range are not having their genitals mutilated by their parents, and are not doing it to their sons. Eventually the United States will catch up to the rest of the world where genital mutilation is not practiced on boys or men at all.

Nobody said anything about hating their own sons. I do think your information is false. You can say whatever you want, but you are mistaken.

[pole_smoker]

Nobody said anything about hating their own sons. I do think your information is false. You can say whatever you want, but you are mistaken.
Just because you want to put your head into the sand and claim what I'm writing is false does not make it true, or not factual.

Do your own research about circumcision or male genital mutilation and you'll see what I've posted about the subject of male genital mutilation is all completely true.

Keep in mind that there are lots of completely biased and false pro-mutilation studies and claims that have since been completely refuted, and shown to be false and junk science.

[JaredT77]

Just because you want to put your head into the sand and claim what I'm writing is false does not make it true, or not factual.

Do your own research about circumcision or male genital mutilation and you'll see what I've posted about the subject of male genital mutilation is all completely true.

Keep in mind that there are lots of completely biased and false pro-mutilation studies and claims that have since been completely refuted, and shown to be false and junk science.

Ok, I will keep that in mind. I'm just saying that I don't consider my cock "mutilated" like you claim it is. It works just fine and works great and I have had plenty of great sex. I don't have any STDs either. I never had any complaints about my cock as I cum multiple times during sex and still stay hard. You may say otherwise but I'm happy with my cock and I don't regret my son getting circumcised either.

If yours and your partner's cocks are so great, why don't you fly down to Florida and stick them in my mouth? I never sucked a uncut cock before.

[JaredT77]

Ok this is what I got from WebMD (m.webmd.com):

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
-A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
-A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
-Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
-Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
-Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean. (Have you ever changed your son's diapers, pole_smoker? I have.)

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will prevent STDs and other infections.

What are the risks of circumcision?
-Pain
-Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
-Irritation of the glans
-Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
-Risk of injury to the penis

So I do not regret being circumcised or having my son's penis circumcised. What you call "mutilation" I call it "necessary." I think the benefits outweigh the risks. Just my opinion. This is a highly debatable subject but I am all for circumcision.

[pole_smoker]

Ok, I will keep that in mind. I'm just saying that I don't consider my cock "mutilated" like you claim it is. It works just fine and works great and I have had plenty of great sex. I don't have any STDs either. I never had any complaints about my cock as I cum multiple times during sex and still stay hard. You may say otherwise but I'm happy with my cock and I don't regret my son getting circumcised either.


If yours and your partner's cocks are so great, why don't you fly down to Florida and stick them in my mouth? I never sucked a uncut cock before.
Why even ask or beg us to go see you for sex, when you know the answer will be no?

[JaredT77]

Why even ask or beg us to go see you for sex, when you know the answer will be no?

I'm not begging. Not at all. It was a rhetorical question, because I already knew the answer. I was just calling you out.

[pole_smoker]

Ok this is what I got from WebMD (m.webmd.com):

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
-A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
-A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
-Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
-Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
-Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean. (Have you ever changed your son's diapers, pole_smoker? I have.)

Note: Some studies show that good hygiene can help prevent certain problems with the penis, including infections and swelling, even if the penis is not circumcised. In addition, using a condom during sex will prevent STDs and other infections.

What are the risks of circumcision?
-Pain
-Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
-Irritation of the glans
-Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
-Risk of injury to the penis

So I do not regret being circumcised or having my son's penis circumcised. What you call "mutilation" I call it "necessary." I think the benefits outweigh the risks. Just my opinion. This is a highly debatable subject but I am all for circumcision.
See, now that's a biased source. There are no real benefits to circumcision or male genital mutilation since very few intact men actually experience any of what you posted like balanitis, penile cancer, UTIs, an STD, or phimosis.

Cervical cancer is caused either by cancer spreading to the cervix, or from a man having HPV and not from foreskin.

Cancer of the male and female reproductive organs is as common among the American and Israeli middle class as it is among the European and Japanese middle class. In societies where a daily shower is the norm, where phimosis is attended to, and where condoms are sold in every supermarket, being intact is no handicap.
Girls have 3-4x more UTIs than intact boys do. These UTIs are seldom devastating, for either gender. Quite a few women, experience chronic UTIs lifelong. UTIs in western women very seldom have tragic outcomes, because they get antibiotics / sulfa drugs. This suggests that boys can be treated the same as girls, which is in fact the case in Europe and Japan, and is increasingly the case in the USA.

As for hygiene, circumcision is an extreme and irreversible solution to a trivial problem. The only westerners who circumcise for nonreligious reasons that may
include hygiene, are most Americans and South Koreans, and 30% (10%) of
Canadians (Australians). The AAP in 2012 said that there is no evidence
that the natural penis is a hygienic problem for men who take daily
showers.


Have you ever seen smegma? Have you ever seen an intact man clean himself in the shower? Smegma is far less of a problem than cut Americans make it out to be. For one thing, it washes away very easily. Brushing and flossing your teeth takes more effort than cleaning your foreskin.

Circumcision does nothing to actually prevent HIV and other STDs from infecting a man or from a man infected with HIV or other STDs from infecting his partners. Or, it's not as effective as using condoms and having proper safer sex. Also, the studies that claimed that guys who are cut don't get STDs or HIV are highly flawed and junk science. They had the cut guys use condoms for one thing, and the study was actually stopped when it should have ran a lot longer.

The HIV claim is just another desperate attempt to justify an outdated ritualistic tribal practice as these excuses have been following another for the last two centuries.

Myself and many other actual medical professionals don't buy the BS about circumcision and its benefits the same way I would reject the idea that if you sew up a girl's vagina it will certainly reduce the risk of cancers and HIV.

Also, if the theory about circumcision preventing HIV and STD infection and transmission were remotely true you would not have had an entire generation or two of gay and bisexual men who were all cut get infected with HIV and other STDs, and die from AIDS or complications of HIV. Plus, even today the USA where most men of a certain age are cut we still have a very high number of people who are infected with HIV and other STDs.

I strongly suspect that circumcised men are more reluctant to use condoms.

[JaredT77]

See, now that's a biased source. There are no real benefits to circumcision or male genital mutilation since very few intact men actually experience any of what you posted like balanitis, penile cancer, UTIs, an STD, or phimosis.

Cervical cancer is caused either by cancer spreading to the cervix, or from a man having HPV and not from foreskin.

Cancer of the male and female reproductive organs is as common among the American and Israeli middle class as it is among the European and Japanese middle class. In societies where a daily shower is the norm, where phimosis is attended to, and where condoms are sold in every supermarket, being intact is no handicap.
Girls have 3-4x more UTIs than intact boys do. These UTIs are seldom devastating, for either gender. Quite a few women, experience chronic UTIs lifelong. UTIs in western women very seldom have tragic outcomes, because they get antibiotics / sulfa drugs. This suggests that boys can be treated the same as girls, which is in fact the case in Europe and Japan, and is increasingly the case in the USA.

As for hygiene, circumcision is an extreme and irreversible solution to a trivial problem. The only westerners who circumcise for nonreligious reasons that may
include hygiene, are most Americans and South Koreans, and 30% (10%) of
Canadians (Australians). The AAP in 2012 said that there is no evidence
that the natural penis is a hygienic problem for men who take daily
showers.


Have you ever seen smegma? Have you ever seen an intact man clean himself in the shower? Smegma is far less of a problem than cut Americans make it out to be. For one thing, it washes away very easily. Brushing and flossing your teeth takes more effort than cleaning your foreskin.

Circumcision does nothing to actually prevent HIV and other STDs from infecting a man or from a man infected with HIV or other STDs from infecting his partners. Or, it's not as effective as using condoms and having proper safer sex. Also, the studies that claimed that guys who are cut don't get STDs or HIV are highly flawed and junk science. They had the cut guys use condoms for one thing, and the study was actually stopped when it should have ran a lot longer.

The HIV claim is just another desperate attempt to justify an outdated ritualistic tribal practice as these excuses have been following another for the last two centuries.

Myself and many other actual medical professionals don't buy the BS about circumcision and its benefits the same way I would reject the idea that if you sew up a girl's vagina it will certainly reduce the risk of cancers and HIV.

Also, if the theory about circumcision preventing HIV and STD infection and transmission were remotely true you would not have had an entire generation or two of gay and bisexual men who were all cut get infected with HIV and other STDs, and die from AIDS or complications of HIV. Plus, even today the USA where most men of a certain age are cut we still have a very high number of people who are infected with HIV and other STDs.

I strongly suspect that circumcised men are more reluctant to use condoms.

You are biased about this subject in general so how can you say that a website like WebMD is being biased? Another rhetorical question. You do not have too many people convinced that their cock is mutilated, but we know that you are narcissistic.

[pole_smoker]

Part 1 - Circumcision Surgery Myths


Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.


Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html


Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.


Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997).


Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.


Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.


Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.


Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest - does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?


Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.


Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?


Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.


Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later). Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects. There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990). Here is a short list potential complications.


Meatal Stenosis: Many circumcised boys and men suffer from meatal stenosis. This is a narrowing of the urethra which can interfere with urination and require surgery to fix.


Adhesions. Circumcised babies can suffer from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to heal to the head of the penis in an area they are not supposed to grow on. Doctors treat these by ripping them open with no anesthesia.


Buried penis. Circumcision can lead to trapped or buried penis - too much skin is removed, and so the penis is forced inside the body. This can lead to problems in adulthood when the man does not have enough skin to have a comfortable erection. Some men even have their skin split open when they have an erection. There are even more sexual consequences, which we will address in a future post.


Infection. The circumcision wound can become infected. This is especially dangerous now with the prevalence of hospital-acquired multi-drug resistant bacteria.


Death. Babies can even die of circumcision. Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).


Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby's penis clean.


Reality check: In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger. It is harder to keep circumcised baby's penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment.


Myth: Little boys won't clean under their foreskins and will get infections.


Reality check: The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty. Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger. After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy's shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else! It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises. (Camille 2002)


Myth: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma.


Reality check: Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years. Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.


Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult."


Reality check: Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby's foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change. Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection.


Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria. Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures. The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care.


Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised.


Reality check: Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children's foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. Any such diagnoses in infants are based on misinformation, and are often made in order to secure insurance coverage of circumcision in states in which routine infant circumcision is no longer covered.


Even some adult men have foreskins that do not retract, but as long as it doesn't interfere with sexual intercourse, it is no problem at all, as urination itself cleans the inside of the foreskin (note that urine is sterile when leaving the body.)


Phimosis can also be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003) These treatment decisions can and should be made by the adult man.


Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)


Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.


Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.


Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.


In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).


What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.


In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.


It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.


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?


Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.

[JaredT77]

Part 1 - Circumcision Surgery Myths


Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.


Reality check: Not true. The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap. In an adult man, the foreskin is 15 square inches of skin. In babies and children, the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis with the same type of tissue that adheres fingernails to their nail beds. Removing it requires shoving a blunt probe between the foreskin and the head of the penis and then cutting down and around the whole penis. Check out these photos: http://www.drmomma.org/2011/08/intact-or-circumcised-significant.html


Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.


Reality check: Wrong. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies' pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997).


Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.


Reality check: Not necessarily. Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do. The most common reasons why they don't? They didn't think the procedure warranted it, and it takes too long (Stang 1998). A circumcision with adequate anesthesia takes a half-hour - if they brought your baby back sooner, he was in severe pain during the surgery.


Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.


Reality check: The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later (Taddio 1997, Anand 2000). Circumcision also can cause post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anger, low self-esteem and problems with intimacy (Boyle 2002, Hammond 1999, Goldman 1999). Even with a lack of explicit memory and the inability to protest - does that make it right to inflict pain? Ethical guidelines for animal research whenever possible* - do babies deserve any less?


Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.


Reality check: Not possible without total anesthesia, which is not available. Even the dorsal penile nerve block leaves the underside of the penis receptive to pain. Babies go into shock, which though it looks like a quiet state, is actually the body's reaction to profound pain and distress. Nurses often tell the parents "He slept right through it" so as not to upset them. Who would want to hear that his or her baby was screaming in agony?


Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.


Reality check: Incorrect. Removal of healthy tissue from a non-consenting patient is, in itself, harm (more on this point later). Circumcision has an array of risks and side effects. There is a 1-3% complication rate during the newborn period alone (Schwartz 1990). Here is a short list potential complications.


Meatal Stenosis: Many circumcised boys and men suffer from meatal stenosis. This is a narrowing of the urethra which can interfere with urination and require surgery to fix.


Adhesions. Circumcised babies can suffer from adhesions, where the foreskin remnants try to heal to the head of the penis in an area they are not supposed to grow on. Doctors treat these by ripping them open with no anesthesia.


Buried penis. Circumcision can lead to trapped or buried penis - too much skin is removed, and so the penis is forced inside the body. This can lead to problems in adulthood when the man does not have enough skin to have a comfortable erection. Some men even have their skin split open when they have an erection. There are even more sexual consequences, which we will address in a future post.


Infection. The circumcision wound can become infected. This is especially dangerous now with the prevalence of hospital-acquired multi-drug resistant bacteria.


Death. Babies can even die of circumcision. Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).


Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby's penis clean.


Reality check: In babies, the foreskin is completely fused to the head of the penis. You cannot and should not retract it to clean it, as this would cause the child pain, and is akin to trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina. The infant foreskin is perfectly designed to protect the head of the penis and keep feces out. All you have to do is wipe the outside of the penis like a finger. It is harder to keep circumcised baby's penis clean because you have to carefully clean around the wound, make sure no feces got into the wound, and apply ointment.


Myth: Little boys won't clean under their foreskins and will get infections.


Reality check: The foreskin separates and retracts on its own sometime between age 3 and puberty. Before it retracts on its own, you wipe the outside off like a finger. After it retracts on its own, it will get clean during the boy's shower or bath. Once a boy discovers this cool, new feature of his penis, he will often retract the foreskin himself during his bath or shower, and you can encourage him to rinse it off. But he should not use soap as this upsets the natural balance and is very irritating. There is nothing special that the parents need to do. Most little boys have absolutely no problem playing with their penises in the shower or anywhere else! It was harder to teach my boys to wash their hair than it was to care for their penises. (Camille 2002)


Myth: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma.


Reality check: Actually, smegma is produced by the genitals of both women and men during the reproductive years. Smegma is made of sebum and skin cells and lubricates the foreskin and glans in men, and the clitoral hood and inner labia in women. It is rinsed off during normal bathing and does not cause cancer or any other health problems.


Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult."


Reality check: Medical advice may have promoted infection in uncircumcised males. A shocking number of doctors are uneducated about the normal development of the foreskin, and they (incorrectly) tell parents that they have to retract the baby's foreskin and wash inside it at every diaper change. Doing this tears the foreskin and the tissue (called synechia) that connects it to the head of the penis, leading to scarring and infection.


Misinformation was especially prevalent during the 1950s and 60s, when most babies were circumcised and we didn't know as much about the care of the intact penis, which is why the story is always about someone's uncle. Doing this to a baby boy would be like trying to clean the inside of a baby girl's vagina with Q-tips at every diaper change. Rather than preventing problems, such practices would cause problems by introducing harmful bacteria. Remember that humans evolved from animals, so no body part that required special care would survive evolutionary pressures. The human genitals are wonderfully self-cleaning and require no special care.


Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised.


Reality check: Phimosis means that the foreskin will not retract. Since children's foreskins are naturally not retractable, it is impossible to diagnose phimosis in a child. Any such diagnoses in infants are based on misinformation, and are often made in order to secure insurance coverage of circumcision in states in which routine infant circumcision is no longer covered.


Even some adult men have foreskins that do not retract, but as long as it doesn't interfere with sexual intercourse, it is no problem at all, as urination itself cleans the inside of the foreskin (note that urine is sterile when leaving the body.)


Phimosis can also be treated conservatively with a steroid cream and gentle stretching done by the man himself, should he so desire it, or, at worst, a slit on the foreskin, rather than total circumcision. (Ashfield 2003) These treatment decisions can and should be made by the adult man.


Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)


Reality check: This claim is based on one study that looked at charts of babies born in one hospital (Wiswell 1985). The study had many problems, including that it didn't accurately count whether or not the babies were circumcised, whether they were premature and thus more susceptible to infection in general, whether they were breastfed (breastfeeding protects against UTI), and if their foreskins had been forcibly retracted (which can introduce harmful bacteria and cause UTI) (Pisacane 1990). There have been many studies since which show either no decrease in UTI with circumcision, or else an increase in UTI from circumcision. Thus circumcision is not recommended to prevent UTI (Thompson 1990). Girls have higher rates of UTI than boys, and yet when a girl gets a UTI, she is simply prescribed antibiotics. The same treatment works for boys.


Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.


Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.


In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).


What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010). Even in the study with the most favorable effects of circumcision, the protective effect was only 60% - men would still have to wear condoms to protect themselves and their partners from HIV.


In the USA, during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s and 90s, about 85% of adult men were circumcised (much higher rates of circumcision than in Africa), and yet HIV still spread.


It is important to understand, too, that the men in the African studies were adults and they volunteered for circumcision. Babies undergoing circumcision were not given the choice to decide for themselves.


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?


Science and data do not support the practice of infant circumcision. Circumcision does not preclude the use of the condom. The adult male should have the right to make the decision for himself and not have his body permanently damaged as a baby.

Garbage. I didn't feel like reading it.

[pole_smoker]

Myth: You have to circumcise the baby so that he will match his dad.


Reality check: The major difference that boys notice is that dad's penis has hair, and is larger. When a boy notices the difference between his foreskin and his father's lack of one, just tell him, "When your father was born, they thought that you had to cut off the foreskin, but now we know better." Since when does parent/child bonding require a matching set of genitals? If it did, could mothers and sons bond, or fathers and daughters? The real issue at play here is protecting the father: if it is okay for his son to not be circumcised, then he did not have to be circumcised, and so he is missing something from his penis. It is not right to harm the child's body to spare the father's emotions.


Myth: My husband is the one with the penis, so it is his choice.


Reality check: If your husband is circumcised, he has no idea what having a foreskin is like, and he is likely operating from a psychological position of needing to believe that what was done to him was beneficial and important. (See here for an extended discussion of pre and post circumcised adult men and much more by Marilyn Milos, director of NOCIRC.) The baby is the one who is going to have to live with the decision for the rest of his life, not your husband. The baby will be the one who has to use the penis for urination and sex -- it should be his decision.


Myth: Everyone is circumcised.


Reality check: Actually, world-wide, only 30% of men are circumcised, and most of these men are Muslim (WHO 2007). Most modern, Westernized countries have rates well below 20%. In the United States about 25 years ago, around 85% of babies were circumcised. The rates have dropped substantially to 32% in 2009, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control (El Becheraoui 2010).


Myth: Circumcision is an important tradition that has been going on forever.


Reality check: In the United States, circumcision wasn't popularized until Victorian times, when a few doctors began to recommend it to prevent children from masturbating. Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877). Circumcision caught on among the sex-negative Victorians, but only wealthy parents could afford it. In 1932, only 31% of men were circumcised; this peaked around 85% in 1980, and has been dropping ever since (Laumann 1997, Wallerstein 1980). Far from an ancient tradition, it was only popular in post-war America; think of it as "your parent's body mod."


Myth: The other boys will make fun of him.


Reality check: What other cosmetic surgeries will we perform on our children to prevent them from being teased? Should a "flat" girl get implants? What about the boy with a small penis? What surgery would be recommended for him? Circumcised babies are the minority now, and so intact will not be mocked. Plus, as our husbands say, "You just don't look at or comment on another man's penis in the locker room."


Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.


Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.


Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.


Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).


Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."


Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are a lot more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).


Myth: "If I were any more sensitive, it would be a problem."


Reality check: The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis (Sorrells 2007). In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band (Cold 1999). This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing.


It may feel like the penis is overly sensitive to a circumcised man because there is little sensation left to indicate excitement, leading to unexpected premature ejaculation (a common problem with circumcised young men). However, as circumcised penises age they become calloused and much less sensitive.


No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. None.


The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Circumcision says:


"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." (AAP 1999)


The British Medical Association says:


"[P]arental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child." (BMA 2006)


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians says:


"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand." (RACP 2010)


The Canadian Paediatric Society says:


"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." (CPS 1996)


The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG - Netherlands) policy statement is wonderfully clear:


"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene... circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications... Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." (KNMG 2010)


Circumcision wastes money.


Medicaid spends $198 million each year on routine infant circumcision in the 33 states that still pay for it, a procedure its own guidelines consider to be medically unnecessary. Private insurance programs are reimbursing an additional $677 million, raising prices for us all (Craig 2006.) In addition to the cost of circumcision itself, correcting its complications are said to double the cost, bringing the total bill to $1.75 billion each year. Is this what we should be spending money on during a recession and at a time when healthcare costs are skyrocketing?


Circumcision violates the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm."


Doctors have an ethical duty to treat the patient by the most conservative means possible, but removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need absolutely harms the patient. In the case of routine infant circumcision, nothing was diseased, and thus nothing justifies its removal. Medical personnel who support infant circumcision in any way should reexamine their ethical duties to the child.


Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.


This is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As babies cannot speak for themselves, they need special protection. Balancing the potential benefits of circumcision with the definite risks can be difficult decision, but the only person qualified to make this decision is the owner of the penis, as he is the one who is going to have to live with the results, not his parents.


Parents' aesthetic preferences are not valid reasons for circumcision.


If a mother thinks her daughter's nose is too big, should she force her to get a nose job? If a father prefers large breasts, can he force his daughter to get breast implants? If a woman prefers circumcised men, can she force her son to be circumcised?


Even if you are fine with being circumcised, your son may not be.


If you have never had a foreskin, you cannot possibly know what having one would feel like. You only know what it feels like to not have a foreskin. You cannot know now how your son will feel in 20 or 30 years. If you have your son circumcised, he may grow up to regret the decision you made for him, but circumcision is irreversible. (Yes, men can partially restore their foreskins, but it is difficult and the sensitive nerve endings are gone forever.) Leave the decision to your son. It is his penis. He deserves to decide for himself.


The future


Circumcision is ending with the generation being born now - only 32% of babies born in 2009 in the USA were circumcised. Boys born today who keep their foreskins are not going to be mocked, because they're in the majority, and because people now are more informed. Uncircumcised boys are not going to be scarred because their penises do not match their fathers'. The myths are dying - more and more people are realizing that leaving children's penises intact is better.

[JaredT77]

Myth: You have to circumcise the baby so that he will match his dad.


Reality check: The major difference that boys notice is that dad's penis has hair, and is larger. When a boy notices the difference between his foreskin and his father's lack of one, just tell him, "When your father was born, they thought that you had to cut off the foreskin, but now we know better." Since when does parent/child bonding require a matching set of genitals? If it did, could mothers and sons bond, or fathers and daughters? The real issue at play here is protecting the father: if it is okay for his son to not be circumcised, then he did not have to be circumcised, and so he is missing something from his penis. It is not right to harm the child's body to spare the father's emotions.


Myth: My husband is the one with the penis, so it is his choice.


Reality check: If your husband is circumcised, he has no idea what having a foreskin is like, and he is likely operating from a psychological position of needing to believe that what was done to him was beneficial and important. (See here for an extended discussion of pre and post circumcised adult men and much more by Marilyn Milos, director of NOCIRC.) The baby is the one who is going to have to live with the decision for the rest of his life, not your husband. The baby will be the one who has to use the penis for urination and sex -- it should be his decision.


Myth: Everyone is circumcised.


Reality check: Actually, world-wide, only 30% of men are circumcised, and most of these men are Muslim (WHO 2007). Most modern, Westernized countries have rates well below 20%. In the United States about 25 years ago, around 85% of babies were circumcised. The rates have dropped substantially to 32% in 2009, according to a report by the Centers for Disease Control (El Becheraoui 2010).


Myth: Circumcision is an important tradition that has been going on forever.


Reality check: In the United States, circumcision wasn't popularized until Victorian times, when a few doctors began to recommend it to prevent children from masturbating. Dr. Kellogg (of Corn Flakes fame) advocated circumcision for pubescent boys and girls to stop masturbation: "A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anæsthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement" (Kellogg 1877). Circumcision caught on among the sex-negative Victorians, but only wealthy parents could afford it. In 1932, only 31% of men were circumcised; this peaked around 85% in 1980, and has been dropping ever since (Laumann 1997, Wallerstein 1980). Far from an ancient tradition, it was only popular in post-war America; think of it as "your parent's body mod."


Myth: The other boys will make fun of him.


Reality check: What other cosmetic surgeries will we perform on our children to prevent them from being teased? Should a "flat" girl get implants? What about the boy with a small penis? What surgery would be recommended for him? Circumcised babies are the minority now, and so intact will not be mocked. Plus, as our husbands say, "You just don't look at or comment on another man's penis in the locker room."


Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.


Reality check: The function of the foreskin for women in intercourse is to seal the natural lubrication inside the vagina and provide a gentle internal massaging action. The intact penis moves in and out of its foreskin, which provides a frictionless, rolling, gliding sensation. Intact men tend to make shorter strokes that keep their bodies in contact with the clitoris more, thus aiding female orgasm (O'Hara 1999). On the other hand, the circumcised penis functions like a piston during intercourse - the head of the penis actually scrapes the lubrication out of the vagina with each stroke. As the man thrusts, his skin rubs against the vaginal entrance, causing discomfort, and sometimes pain (O'Hara 1999, Bensley 2001). Far from making sex better for women, circumcision decreases female satisfaction.


Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.


Reality check: In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).


Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."


Reality check: Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are a lot more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).


Myth: "If I were any more sensitive, it would be a problem."


Reality check: The foreskin contains several special structures that increase sexual pleasure, including the frenulum and ridged band (the end of the foreskin where it becomes internal), both of which are removed in circumcision. The LEAST sensitive parts of the foreskin are more sensitive than the MOST sensitive parts of the circumcised penis (Sorrells 2007). In other words, if you wanted to decrease a penis' sensitivity the most, circumcision would be the ideal surgery. The foreskin has nerves called fine-touch receptors which are clustered in the ridged band (Cold 1999). This type of nerve is also found in the lips and fingertips. To get an idea of the sensation these nerves provide, try this experiment: first lightly stroke your fingertip over the back of the other hand. Now stroke your fingertip over the palm of your hand. Feel the difference? That is the kind of sensation the foreskin provides, and the circumcised man is missing.


It may feel like the penis is overly sensitive to a circumcised man because there is little sensation left to indicate excitement, leading to unexpected premature ejaculation (a common problem with circumcised young men). However, as circumcised penises age they become calloused and much less sensitive.


No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. None.


The American Academy of Pediatrics Policy Statement on Circumcision says:


"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." (AAP 1999)


The British Medical Association says:


"[P]arental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child." (BMA 2006)


The Royal Australasian College of Physicians says:


"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand." (RACP 2010)


The Canadian Paediatric Society says:


"Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." (CPS 1996)


The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG - Netherlands) policy statement is wonderfully clear:


"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene... circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications... Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." (KNMG 2010)


Circumcision wastes money.


Medicaid spends $198 million each year on routine infant circumcision in the 33 states that still pay for it, a procedure its own guidelines consider to be medically unnecessary. Private insurance programs are reimbursing an additional $677 million, raising prices for us all (Craig 2006.) In addition to the cost of circumcision itself, correcting its complications are said to double the cost, bringing the total bill to $1.75 billion each year. Is this what we should be spending money on during a recession and at a time when healthcare costs are skyrocketing?


Circumcision violates the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm."


Doctors have an ethical duty to treat the patient by the most conservative means possible, but removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need absolutely harms the patient. In the case of routine infant circumcision, nothing was diseased, and thus nothing justifies its removal. Medical personnel who support infant circumcision in any way should reexamine their ethical duties to the child.


Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.


This is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As babies cannot speak for themselves, they need special protection. Balancing the potential benefits of circumcision with the definite risks can be difficult decision, but the only person qualified to make this decision is the owner of the penis, as he is the one who is going to have to live with the results, not his parents.


Parents' aesthetic preferences are not valid reasons for circumcision.


If a mother thinks her daughter's nose is too big, should she force her to get a nose job? If a father prefers large breasts, can he force his daughter to get breast implants? If a woman prefers circumcised men, can she force her son to be circumcised?


Even if you are fine with being circumcised, your son may not be.


If you have never had a foreskin, you cannot possibly know what having one would feel like. You only know what it feels like to not have a foreskin. You cannot know now how your son will feel in 20 or 30 years. If you have your son circumcised, he may grow up to regret the decision you made for him, but circumcision is irreversible. (Yes, men can partially restore their foreskins, but it is difficult and the sensitive nerve endings are gone forever.) Leave the decision to your son. It is his penis. He deserves to decide for himself.


The future


Circumcision is ending with the generation being born now - only 32% of babies born in 2009 in the USA were circumcised. Boys born today who keep their foreskins are not going to be mocked, because they're in the majority, and because people now are more informed. Uncircumcised boys are not going to be scarred because their penises do not match their fathers'. The myths are dying - more and more people are realizing that leaving children's penises intact is better.

Obsessed, a bit much? Rhetorical question.

[pole_smoker]

Garbage. I didn't feel like reading it.
See now you're just in denial, don't want to look at the facts about how circumcision or male genital mutilation is pointless and without actual benefits, and simply want validation for having your own genitals mutilated, and for mutilating your own son's genitals. :rolleyes:


Obsessed, a bit much? Rhetorical question.

Nope. I'm simply posting the facts about circumcision or male genital mutilation that completely refute all of the "benefits" that you posted above.

[JaredT77]

See now you're just in denial, don't want to look at the facts about how circumcision or male genital mutilation is pointless and without actual benefits, and simply want validation for having your own genitals mutilated, and for mutilating your own son's genitals. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=JaredT77;277603]Obsessed, a bit much? Rhetorical question.[/QUOTE


Nope. I'm simply posting the facts about circumcision or male genital mutilation that completely refute all of the "benefits" that you posted above.

Nah, I just don't give a fuck about your meaningless debate like everyone else here.

[pole_smoker]

^
Not true. There are lots of people on this site who are against male genital mutilation, and you'll see them in this thread and others.

I've noticed that guys who mutilate their son's genitals just because it was done to them, do this means to validate the scars and mutilation on their genitals.
If they suddenly learned to think for themselves, and realized their centuries old crime of male infant genital mutilation, they would have to own up to the fact that they are nothing more than promoters of child abuse, and not inflict the same abuse and mutilation onto their sons that was inflicted upon them without their choice. They have to find excuses to keep cutting in order to make mutilation okay in their superstitious minds.

[JUSTLUVIN]

Guys..just agree to disagree and move on

[JUSTLUVIN]

Mike and Pam, I would rather see that as a preference of yours. I would never want to call someone's privates nasty or gross (unless they haven't bathed)

[Melody Dean]

^
Not true. There are lots of people on this site who are against male genital mutilation, and you'll see them in this thread and others.

I've noticed that guys who mutilate their son's genitals just because it was done to them, do this means to validate the scars and mutilation on their genitals.
If they suddenly learned to think for themselves, and realized their centuries old crime of male infant genital mutilation, they would have to own up to the fact that they are nothing more than promoters of child abuse, and not inflict the same abuse and mutilation onto their sons that was inflicted upon them without their choice. They have to find excuses to keep cutting in order to make mutilation okay in their superstitious minds.

I don't know so much about superstitious as much as societal norms. In America, a cut cock is the norm. I know lots of women, luckily now less than there used to be, who think that an uncut cock is weird or gross just because that's not what they're used to. (No, that doesn't make it right.) Personally, I've only encountered two uncut, and both of those men were under 35.

So parents have their sons circumcised when they are born, because they just think that's what you do. The thing is, if they change their minds later, they have to come to terms with the guilt of what they did, it's not something that can be reversed. It's easier to convince themselves that it was the correct decision.

I'm not having children, but if I did, I would chose not to have my son circumcised. As you can see here, there's a debate on feeling and sexual abilities, but there's one thing you can't deny: it's irreversible. I'd rather let my son make that choice himself.

[JaredT77]

I don't know so much about superstitious as much as societal norms. In America, a cut cock is the norm. I know lots of women, luckily now less than there used to be, who think that an uncut cock is weird or gross just because that's not what they're used to. (No, that doesn't make it right.) Personally, I've only encountered two uncut, and both of those men were under 35.

So parents have their sons circumcised when they are born, because they just think that's what you do. The thing is, if they change their minds later, they have to come to terms with the guilt of what they did, it's not something that can be reversed. It's easier to convince themselves that it was the correct decision.

I'm not having children, but if I did, I would chose not to have my son circumcised. As you can see here, there's a debate on feeling and sexual abilities, but there's one thing you can't deny: it's irreversible. I'd rather let my son make that choice himself.

I have NO REGRETS about having my son circumcised and I'm sure my parents had no regrets when they had me circumcised. I will never consider myself or son being mutilated. NEVER. That is just someone's biased opinion and NOT based on facts. It is better to be circumcised as an infant when the child is only 2 days old, than making the decision for himself to have it done as an adult. I would rather have my wisdom teeth taken out again than go through the agony of a circumcision. Also, circumcision can be based off religious believes. I agree that I disagree with pole_smoker's believes and he can throw out any "knowledge" that he can muster, but in the end, I don't care what he says.

Also, I want more children and if I have another son, then yes, he will be circumcised too. I am against abortion but I am for circumcision. I would make an exception on abortion on pole_smoker's case. The 60s era was full of free people having sex and smoking weed and acid which explains pole_smoker being the way he is.

[pole_smoker]

I have NO REGRETS about having my son circumcised and I'm sure my parents had no regrets when they had me circumcised. I will never consider myself or son being mutilated. NEVER. That is just someone's biased opinion and NOT based on facts. It is better to be circumcised as an infant when the child is only 2 days old, than making the decision for himself to have it done as an adult. I would rather have my wisdom teeth taken out again than go through the agony of a circumcision. Also, circumcision can be based off religious believes. I agree that I disagree with pole_smoker's believes and he can throw out any "knowledge" that he can muster, but in the end, I don't care what he says.

Also, I want more children and if I have another son, then yes, he will be circumcised too. I am against abortion but I am for circumcision. I would make an exception on abortion on pole_smoker's case. The 60s era was full of free people having sex and smoking weed and acid which explains pole_smoker being the way he is.
Nice try. I was around in the 60s but did not smoke pot then or take LSD, and I was not even sexually active then.

Have you ever even seen a 'circumcision'? It's pretty vile and disgusting, and it is genital mutilation since the infant or young boy can't consent to it at all.

But, knowing you, if you have seen a circumcision you probably liked the fact that it caused your son so much trauma, pain, and don't care that it's involuntary genital mutilation.

[pole_smoker]

I don't know so much about superstitious as much as societal norms. In America, a cut cock is the norm. I know lots of women, luckily now less than there used to be, who think that an uncut cock is weird or gross just because that's not what they're used to. (No, that doesn't make it right.) Personally, I've only encountered two uncut, and both of those men were under 35.

So parents have their sons circumcised when they are born, because they just think that's what you do. The thing is, if they change their minds later, they have to come to terms with the guilt of what they did, it's not something that can be reversed. It's easier to convince themselves that it was the correct decision.

I'm not having children, but if I did, I would chose not to have my son circumcised. As you can see here, there's a debate on feeling and sexual abilities, but there's one thing you can't deny: it's irreversible. I'd rather let my son make that choice himself.
True.

If parents hate their children, and want they and their future sexual partners (this includes men and/or women) to have a horrible sex life, and health problems like Premature ejaculation and erectile dysfunction as an adult then they get their genitals mutilated as a child.

If a person wants to get his or her genitals mutilated they should have to wait until they're an adult to do this, since then it will be their personal choice.

The idea that "circumcision or male genital mutilation is OK when the person is an infant or young kid since then they won't remember it" is laughable since some people do remember it, and when genital mutilation happens to an infant the pain from the mutilation is so traumatizing that they go into shock.

There's also no actual need to mutilate anyone's genitals as the supposed "health benefits" actually do not happen, someone's genitals are involuntary mutilated, and it does not prevent HIV/STD infection or transmission at all.

[JaredT77]

Nice try. I was around in the 60s but did not smoke pot then or take LSD, and I was not even sexually active then.

Have you ever even seen a 'circumcision'? It's pretty vile and disgusting, and it is genital mutilation since the infant or young boy can't consent to it at all.

But, knowing you, if you have seen a circumcision you probably liked the fact that it caused your son so much trauma, pain, and don't care that it's involuntary genital mutilation.

You don't know a goddamn thing about me, you sick twisted son of a bitch! Go seek help. I will mutilate you if you ever have the balls to show up to Florida. Chainsaw. You chickenshit coward!

[pole_smoker]

You don't know a goddamn thing about me, you sick twisted son of a bitch! Go seek help. I will mutilate you if you ever have the balls to show up to Florida. Chainsaw. You chickenshit coward!
:rolleyes: And you seriously wonder why women and men don't want you?

It's not a surprise that you're pro-genital mutilation of defenseless infants and boys.

[JaredT77]

:rolleyes: And you seriously wonder why women and men don't want you?

It's not a surprise that you're pro-genital mutilation of defenseless infants and boys.

Just goes to show that you know nothing about me. You are just all talk and a coward, bitch!

[pole_smoker]

Just goes to show that you know nothing about me. You are just all talk and a coward, bitch!
Keep trolling, and spouting your pro-mutilation BS elsewhere. Nobody here cares that you're creepy and all for genital mutilation for the pointless and silly reasons you claim to be.

[pole_smoker]

One mother's unfortunate experience with pointless involuntary male genital mutilation on her son. Even the nurses lied!! covering for the "doctors" and the hospital. disgusting.


Hi, I just wanted to tell my experience about when I had my son. I have one child, he's 11 years old now. He was five weeks early when he was born. He was 5 lbs, 12 oz, which is still kind of tiny for a baby.The second day after he was born, the doctors came in like it was routine to them to do the circumcision. He left the room for a couple of hours, I can't remember exactly how long it was, but when they brought my son back, it was almost like as if they brought a different child back to the room. I mean, he looked the same so I knew it was my son, but his emotions, how he cried, he just had a very faint infant cry in the beginning after he came back from the circumcision he was, you know, screaming to the top of his lungs, he was in so much pain.It just seemed like it was kind of a brutal experience. I don't even know If they put my son to sleep or if he was awake during the circumcision. It just seemed like, you know, very tormenting for him. He was only two days old, and you know, as a mom I feel like I had dome something wrong by getting him circumcised.Even the way his penis looks afterward, from the time in the beginning when I had him, from the time that he came back, he actually has a syndrome called buried penis. What happened, I believe, through the pain of circumcision, his penis retracted, and it's actually retracted into his body. He could make it come out, but this is something even still, he's 11 year old, that he experiences. It wasn't like that before the circumcision. I do believe the circumcision had something to do with that.I do remember the first time that I had to change his diaper when he came back from getting circumcised the nurse had to come in because he was just screaming to the top of his lungs. I had no idea what was wrong with him. I didn't know if he was hungry. I'm a new mom and it was very scary and frightening for me. The nurse came in and she's like, "Oh, he just needs his diaper changed," like as if it was nothing. But I was almost even scared to touch him, I was scared to clean the area, because it just seemed like it was just so, so painful for him. I just wanted to share my experience with circumcision.

[JaredT77]

Keep trolling, and spouting your pro-mutilation BS elsewhere. Nobody here cares that you're creepy and all for genital mutilation for the pointless and silly reasons you claim to be.

At least I'm not some disgusting fuck like you. You are a piece of shit and a fucking turd that needs to be flushed from society and this website. NOBODY LIKES YOUR DUMBASS!! YOU ARE TOO MUCH A NARCISSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT TO READ WHAT OTHER'S SAY ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING CREEP WITH YOUR PERVERTED, STUPID, MEANINGLESS POLLS AND THREADS! YOU ARE A WASTE OF MY TIME AND A WASTE OF SPACE! YOU'RE PROBABLY JACKING OFF YOUR LITTLE, TINY, WORTHLESS, UNCUT WEEWEE TO THESE ARGUMENTS! SEEK HELP, PLEASE! GET YOUR DOCTOR TO INCREASE YOUR DOSAGE! COME OUT OF THE DENIAL STAGE OF YOUR CRAZY MENTALITY! YOU ARE SICK AND TWISTED AND NEED A LOBOTOMY! SOCIETY WILL THANK YOU! WHO GIVES A GODDAMN FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORTHLESS SORRY ASS AND YOUR STUPID WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS?! I AM DONE ARGUING WITH A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU!

[JaredT77]

I am done with this pointless argument and I am done with you

[pole_smoker]

At least I'm not some disgusting fuck like you. You are a piece of shit and a fucking turd that needs to be flushed from society and this website. NOBODY LIKES YOUR DUMBASS!! YOU ARE TOO MUCH A NARCISSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT TO READ WHAT OTHER'S SAY ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING CREEP WITH YOUR PERVERTED, STUPID, MEANINGLESS POLLS AND THREADS! YOU ARE A WASTE OF MY TIME AND A WASTE OF SPACE! YOU'RE PROBABLY JACKING OFF YOUR LITTLE, TINY, WORTHLESS, UNCUT WEEWEE TO THESE ARGUMENTS! SEEK HELP, PLEASE! GET YOUR DOCTOR TO INCREASE YOUR DOSAGE! COME OUT OF THE DENIAL STAGE OF YOUR CRAZY MENTALITY! YOU ARE SICK AND TWISTED AND NEED A LOBOTOMY! SOCIETY WILL THANK YOU! WHO GIVES A GODDAMN FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORTHLESS SORRY ASS AND YOUR STUPID WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS?! I AM DONE ARGUING WITH A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU!

Have you looked in the mirror lately?

I don't "need" help as I'm what's called neuro-normative and free from mental illnesses and rage unlike someone else.

My penis happens to be large and intact, and all the women and men I've been with loved the fact I'm not cut or mutilated.

Circumcision or involuntary male genital mutilation is America's shame. Cruel, barbaric, pointless, and backward American quack/sham "medicine". Involuntary genital mutilation or circumcision is medical fraud. Doctors/surgeons who circumcise/mutilate infants should lose their licenses to practice medicine and go to jail. Nurses who assist in involuntary genital mutilation of infants should also go to jail. First do no harm!

[pole_smoker]

At least I'm not some disgusting fuck like you. You are a piece of shit and a fucking turd that needs to be flushed from society and this website. NOBODY LIKES YOUR DUMBASS!! YOU ARE TOO MUCH A NARCISSISTIC PIECE OF SHIT TO READ WHAT OTHER'S SAY ABOUT YOU! YOU ARE A FUCKING CREEP WITH YOUR PERVERTED, STUPID, MEANINGLESS POLLS AND THREADS! YOU ARE A WASTE OF MY TIME AND A WASTE OF SPACE! YOU'RE PROBABLY JACKING OFF YOUR LITTLE, TINY, WORTHLESS, UNCUT WEEWEE TO THESE ARGUMENTS! SEEK HELP, PLEASE! GET YOUR DOCTOR TO INCREASE YOUR DOSAGE! COME OUT OF THE DENIAL STAGE OF YOUR CRAZY MENTALITY! YOU ARE SICK AND TWISTED AND NEED A LOBOTOMY! SOCIETY WILL THANK YOU! WHO GIVES A GODDAMN FUCK ABOUT YOUR WORTHLESS SORRY ASS AND YOUR STUPID WORTHLESS ARGUMENTS?! I AM DONE ARGUING WITH A PIECE OF SHIT LIKE YOU!
There's a reason for your silly meltdowns, tantrums, and rages.

You're projecting your own issues and are jealous that your penis was mutilated without your choice, and that you mutilated your son's penis.

This is actually pretty common among cut/mutilated men when they find out what they're missing and how a man's penis is supposed to be intact with a super sensitive foreskin, and that a penis is not supposed to be cut or mutilated at all.

[pole_smoker]

Circumcision is an assault on maleness. Spare your son.

The foreskin DOES have a sexual function. You can't argue with that. Unless you have or had a foreskin you'll never know, but it is not a dead piece of surplus skin like many Americans have been led to think it is. Any man who has been cut either at birth or later in life will notice less feeling during sex. The foreskin has close to 20,000 nerve endings, facilitates stimulation of the frenulum as it glides back and forth and naturally prevents vaginal dryness during intercourse, and it makes oral sex between men, receptive oral sex from a woman, and anal sex between men, and masturbatory sex between a woman and man or two/multiple men more pleasurable than if the guy is cut or mutilated.

[JaredT77]

Doesn't change the fact that you are obsessed with my son's penis, fucking pedophile!

[pole_smoker]

Doesn't change the fact that you are obsessed with my son's penis, fucking pedophile!

It does not make anyone a ped0 to simply state the fact that circumcision of an infant or minor is nothing but involuntary genital mutilation-since that's what it is.

Keep in mind that you're the one who wrote about how you had your son's penis mutilated involuntarily, simply because it was done to you involuntarily.

People can tell themselves the lies like "oh circumcision of a boy isn't genital mutilation", or other BS; but they do this just to make themselves feel better about having their genitals involuntarily mutilated, or having their own son's genitals mutilated if they made the choice to mutilate his genitals.

[pole_smoker]

How could circumcision not be genital mutilation? It removes functional tissue. If circumcision weren't already established in our culture, there's no way that we would institute it for any of the false proposed benefits it offers.

Have a UTI: take antibiotics. No need to remove anatomy or mutilate someone's genitals.

Want to sleep with someone of questionable HIV status? Use a condom. No need to alter the body or mutilate anyone's genitals.

Want to "keep clean?" Bathe!

Steroid creams, or just stretching the foreskin are effective in about 99.9% cases of phimosis.

Any doctor who introduced this type of genital mutilation for those supposed BS benefits would be fired on the basis of ethics immediately.

Even if those benefits were larger, which they are not, it still doesn't give parents the right to cut off parts of their children. Let the man decide if he wants to get his genitals mutilated You could make a better case for preventive mastectomies being justified for health reason, especially in high-risk families. It's still a human rights violation for parents to remove normal tissue and mutilate someone's genitals without immediate medical benefit.

It's not a family penis.

Despite what people will claim, there are no medical benefits to male circumcision.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. Circumcision alters sex dramatically. Informed adults can decide for themselves about their own bodies.

[pole_smoker]

Circumcision is by definition genital mutilation. Child and infant circumcision is forced genital mutilation. It most certainly is not safe.

Maimonides, the renowned physician, philosopher, and rabbi, wrote, "Circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment." The medical evidence is overwhelmingly against this severe but now traditional circumcision in infancy. Studies show that neonatal circumcision causes significant pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes in infants, potential parental stress from persistent crying (colic) of infants, disrupted bonding between parent and child, and risk of surgical complications. Other consequences of circumcision include loss of a natural, healthy, functioning body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, premature ejaculation, erectile dysfunction, and many other unknown negative effects that have not been studied.

Infants and boys even die from having their genitals mutilated.

[AGuyIKnow]

This horse has been beat so many times, its dead.

[pole_smoker]

This horse has been beat so many times, its dead.

Circumcision is male genital mutilation, and it does change male sexuality, and changes sex for the worse between the man and whatever women and/or men he has sex with.

What's really dead are the destroyed nerve endings in a cut/mutilated man's dick.

[pole_smoker]

than making the decision for himself to have it done as an adult.

When a guy is intact and has a foreskin very few men who are intact actually decide to get it done as an adult, and suffer no consequences at all.

A person that's an intact adult male deciding to get their penis mutilated is akin to an adult woman deciding to mutilate her vulva.

Either way though if someone does want their genitals mutilated it should be their choice and not the choice of their idiot parents, a doctor/surgeon, or a rabbi/mohel or someone who decides to mutilate an infant or young boy's genitals because of their silly religion.

[pole_smoker]

This should not be a surprise to anyone, since circumcision is involuntary genital mutilation, and it does reduce sexual pleasure both for the man who owns the penis, and his sexual partners.



Study Confirms Male Circumcision is Genital Mutilation A new study in the British Journal of Urology International shows that men with normal, intact penises enjoy more sexual sensitivity — as much as four times more — than those who have been circumcised. Circumcising slices off more of a male’s sensitivity than is normally present in all ten fingertips.
In every site tested, intact men have as much or more fine-touch skin sensitivity on their penis and foreskin than a man who has been circumcised. Circumcision removes the most sensitive portions of the penis.
This new study demonstrates what we have suspected for decades, that circumcision’s result — if not its intent — is reduced sexual pleasure for men. As such, it is a violation of a male’s right to bodily integrity. In large part, female circumcision does the same; even the mildest forms remove the most sensitive portions of the female genitalia. Females in the USA and many other countries are protected by law from all forms of genital cutting.
The mistaken belief behind circumcision is that it is cleaner, healthier, protects against disease, and will make males more tractable in a society.
Because circumcision has such a drastic effect on sexuality later in life, no infant or child should ever experience a non-therapeutic circumcision.
Parents should not be allowed to control their son’s level of sexual sensitivity because of personal bias or prejudice, just as no parent should be allowed to request for their son or daughter any other sensitivity-reducing surgery; for example, eye surgery that would limit vision from color to black-and-white.
In addition, circumcised men, with one-fourth the sensitivity of intact men, might decline to wear further-desensitizing condoms. Some may consider themselves “safe” because of circumcision, adding to their determination to have sex without a condom.

http://i0.wp.com/www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/07/Circ.jpg?resize=508%2C334
This graph indicates a 75% loss of sensitivity (http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/03/20/512999/touchtest3.jpg)reflected in the area of the two penises shown. The lost sensitivity is comparable to the sensitivity that would be lost if all the skin was sliced off all ten fingertips. This graphic is available copyright free to media reporting on the “Fine-touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis” article by Sorrells et al. published in the BJUi provided credit is given and they are not altered or used in such a fashion as to misrepresent the data or conclusions in the article. Credit: www.icgi.org

[pole_smoker]

I will kill you dead! That, is a promise! I will mutilate you if you ever have the balls to show up to Florida. Chainsaw. You chickenshit coward!

You're the only troll and bully here.

what's it like to be completely obsessed with someone you don't even really know?

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact
Well said. Nobody needs to have their genitals mutilated as an infant or young boy, or girl.

[pole_smoker]

Looks like you beat me to the punch pole_smoker. This is a damaging story for the circumcisers out there and they would love this to stay hidden. I have marched with intactivists trying to talk parents from cutting their boys and you would be surprised at the cut males who get so defensive over the whole issue. Mostly moms and wives of husbands were approaching me for information because their husbands or sons were going to have their boys snipped
Excellent point.

[charles-smythe]

Good for Germany, eventually more countries will outlaw male genital mutilation like this or the practice will just die out like it has in most of the world.

http://rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Circumcision is a crime. It is involuntary genital mutilation. Let every child grow up with their genitalia intact, then let them decide as adults if they want to mutilate themselves.
.
...truer words were never spoken...I'm un-cut and wouldn't have it any other way...

[pole_smoker]

.
...truer words were never spoken...I'm un-cut and wouldn't have it any other way...
Quoted for truth.

[chtampa]

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/) and a reduced risk of cervical cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/) in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/sexual-health-male-reproductive-problems-penis-disorders) (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).


Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.

[charles-smythe]

...don't know who jaredt77 is...but he needs to learn to relax...he gets to stirred up about the opinions of others that really have no impact on his life...I'm not sure what his deal is about circumcision is...BUT he got way too stirred for such a miner disagreement with a stranger on line...I can only surmise that there is something in his personal life that he's not telling us that explains his illogical rage over nothing...

[darkeyes]

What are the benefits of circumcision?


There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:


A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/) and a reduced risk of cervical cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/) in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/sexual-health-male-reproductive-problems-penis-disorders) (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).


Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.


Interesting... funny how most European medics dont think these are of sufficient magnitude or seriousness for them to consider circumcision of any real benefit.... we have thousands of disease far more serious and dangerous and yet we do not generally have recommended removal of the (potentially) offending body part as a preventative... if we did we would cease to exist.. but no one is saying that we should ban circumcision.. not for anyone old enough to decide for themselves after considering all the available evidence.. the only exception to that should a child or infant having a pressing medical need to be circumcised..

... and as for it being easier to keep a penis clean.. that is arguable to say the least... having helped clean up (one way or t'other) quite a few in me lickle life ( men were not always unwelcome in my bed) it is no more difficult really whichever, but I always found the uncircumcised much more fun..:)

[chtampa]

"yet we do not generally have recommended removal of the (potentially) offending body part as a preventative."

Appendix
Tonsils
Wisdom Teeth
Breasts
Body Hair
Adenoids
Gall Bladder

All have been widely removed as preventative measures.
The opinion to perform surgeries is just as valid as an opinion to not do them.

We also spay and neuter cats and dogs, and declaw cats, castrate farm animals.

It is more common than we may want to accept.



The following is not directed toward "darkeyes". We should remember that part of maturity is the ability to accept that people have their right to an opinion. Opinions are healthy, but the condemnation of someone else's beliefs and believing only yours is right is insecurity.

[pole_smoker]

What are the benefits of circumcision?


There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:


A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/) and a reduced risk of cervical cancer (http://www.webmd.com/cancer/cervical-cancer/) in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/sexual-health-male-reproductive-problems-penis-disorders) (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).


Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.


Those so called "benefits" do not happen because of circumcision or genital mutilation.

Cut guys can and do get UTIs, have dirty cocks, get STDs, penile cancer, give women cervical cancer if they have HPV, and get Balanitis.

Phimosis and the other issue mentioned are extremely rare in intact men, and are resolved on their own.

Circumcision or genital mutilation does not reduce or prevent STDs in men as well as using condoms and having safer sex does.

[darkeyes]

"yet we do not generally have recommended removal of the (potentially) offending body part as a preventative."

Appendix
Tonsils
Wisdom Teeth
Breasts
Body Hair
Adenoids
Gall Bladder

All have been widely removed as preventative measures.
The opinion to perform surgeries is just as valid as an opinion to not do them.

We also spay and neuter cats and dogs, and declaw cats, castrate farm animals.

It is more common than we may want to accept.



The following is not directed toward "darkeyes". We should remember that part of maturity is the ability to accept that people have their right to an opinion. Opinions are healthy, but the condemnation of someone else's beliefs and believing only yours is right is insecurity.
Ur quite right.. although in this day and age in this part of the world at least we are long past preventative surgery for all but removal of wisdom teeth which are removed for good reason but not generally until close to the time healthy wisdom teeth are expected to begin decay... I did have a giggle about body hair... preventative? More cosmetic methinks. I have no objection to anyone deciding FOR THEMSELVES ANY PRECAUTIONARY SURGERY THEY WISH.. their biz methinks... I do however have objection to that choice being taken away and others deciding what should and should not be done and a decision being forced on perfectly healthy infants or children.

One body part u did not mention was female breasts... there is some movement among women to have breasts removed as a preventative for breast cancer.. usually these women are considered high risk because of family history. As one who had a malignant tumour removed from a breast I can understand why some women decide to take such a drastic step.. yet it is not one I could bring myself to undertake even although it is all too possible that the cancer could recur. The women in my family are not exceptionally at risk, and my own case came as a bolt from the blue. However.. even had I known I was high risk, removal of my breasts as a precaution is not something I would have contemplated.. if I get another cancer then that may be time to re-appraise but not before.

I brush my teeth regularly, have good hygeine altogether, exercise, eat a balanced diet, gave up smoking over a decade ago, and generally look after meself... me lifestyle is me preventative, and me diet... however, I do drink wine and cognac probably too much in normal times... but at present, I am not quite in normal times and so while my booze intake isn't nil, it is not so much many people would notice... but none of the aforesaid precautions can be classed as preventative surgery.. merely wise(in my opinion) efforts to stay as healthy as I am able and live a long healthy life... People have the right to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies.. just let them grow up and exercise that right fully informed for themselves unless their is a pressing medical need that must be attended to..

[tenni]

For those of us who are circumcised, most of us are fine with it in North America. I suspect that a very small group of cut guys try foreskin restoration. I wonder why all the fuss. NO, I don't need to read your propaganda. Pole and his ancestor trolls have this as an identification marker...lol

[chtampa]

You did miss the breast mentioned on the list. Although I didn't specify female.

I have heard about using foreskins for eyelid reconstruction.

So we the have Crips, the Bloods, and now the Uncuts? What color handkerchiefs will they carry? "Plaid"? Would it hang out of the zipper? What will be their hand signal? "One finger without a nail"? What would be their motto? "We don't tip"? Maybe also a secret handshake. Shake more than twice and you are playing. Excuse me, I must be venting all of my childhood circumcision anger. Will I next hate everyone? Maybe my parents knew that with my genetic background, no one would have sex with me unless they wacked off some of the extra length. Maybe that is the answer, if you are bigger than most, they cut some off so you don't get laughed at in gym class. I still got laughed at because of my eyelid reconstruction. They called me cock eyed.

[pole_smoker]

For those of us who are circumcised, most of us are fine with it in North America. I suspect that a very small group of cut guys try foreskin restoration. I wonder why all the fuss. NO, I don't need to read your propaganda. Pole and his ancestor trolls have this as an identification marker...lol
Actually Tenni, a lot of men who have had involuntary genital mutilation done at birth are restoring what's left of their foreskin.

It's not going to give them an actual foreskin or restore the nerve endings that are now completely gone but it's better than being cut/mutilated.

Secondly, yes you do have an issue with being cut or mutilated since you obsess over wanting to dock with a guy that's not cut.

No not everyone that writes against circumcision or male genital mutilation is a "troll". :rolleyes:

[darkeyes]

You did miss the breast mentioned on the list. Although I didn't specify female..
So u did...soz. Teach me 2 try and do haff a doz things at 1ce:eek2:.. I am aware men can get cancer of the breast, but it is more rare which is why I didn't mention it.. sorry for that too. Men are also less likely to try and get preventative breast surgery in their breasts... and those that do, chose to based on the best information available, rightly or wrongly. They do not have it forcibly inflicted upon them as infant or child, at least not in Europe, unless there is that pressing medical need I keep on bleating about:)..

As 2 the rest of ur post...ho de ho... I might find it funny if the issue was not so serious.... :)

[pole_smoker]

You did miss the breast mentioned on the list. Although I didn't specify female.

I have heard about using foreskins for eyelid reconstruction.

So we the have Crips, the Bloods, and now the Uncuts? What color handkerchiefs will they carry? "Plaid"? Would it hang out of the zipper? What will be their hand signal? "One finger without a nail"? What would be their motto? "We don't tip"? Maybe also a secret handshake. Shake more than twice and you are playing. Excuse me, I must be venting all of my childhood circumcision anger. Will I next hate everyone? Maybe my parents knew that with my genetic background, no one would have sex with me unless they wacked off some of the extra length. Maybe that is the answer, if you are bigger than most, they cut some off so you don't get laughed at in gym class. I still got laughed at because of my eyelid reconstruction. They called me cock eyed.
Typical replies from an ignorant American troll who thinks that because his genitals are mutilated and he wasn't given this choice that it's OK to mutilate someone else's genitals, and who has no idea at all what it's like to have a penis that's intact with a foreskin. The majority of men in the world are intact with foreskins, and only 15-20% of the world's population has their genitals mutilated, and that number is going down as less people are doing it to their boys and girls.

[chtampa]

Typical replies from an ignorant American troll who thinks that because his genitals are mutilated and he wasn't given this choice that it's OK to mutilate someone else's genitals, and who has no idea at all what it's like to have a penis that's intact with a foreskin. The majority of men in the world are intact with foreskins, and only 15-20% of the world's population has their genitals mutilated, and that number is going down as less people are doing it to their boys and girls.

Intact mind with a mutilated cock or a mutilated mind and an intact cock. I came out ahead.

[pole_smoker]

Intact mind with a mutilated cock or a mutilated mind and an intact cock. I came out ahead.
No you didn't but you're a troll in all definitions of the word. Your post just showed how ignorant you are when it comes to actually understanding male and female genital mutilation, and the basic anatomy of a penis that's intact which is how all men are supposed to be unless they've had involuntary genital mutilation done to them.

[chtampa]

Typical replies from an ignorant American troll who thinks that because his genitals are mutilated and he wasn't given this choice that it's OK to mutilate someone else's genitals, and who has no idea at all what it's like to have a penis that's intact with a foreskin. The majority of men in the world are intact with foreskins, and only 15-20% of the world's population has their genitals mutilated, and that number is going down as less people are doing it to their boys and girls.

Why do people insult other people?
Most people who insult other people are insecure. They think that it will make them feel better if they put someone else down, or they insult the other person to take attention off of themselves. Sometimes people who are angry insult other people because they are not mature enough to think of a different way to handle their anger except to try to start a fight or to try to make the other person feel bad.

Mature people can communicate with others without insulting them. Any ideas can be discussed between mature adults without fighting or insulting each other. Mature people can "agree to disagree" and give each other the right to have different opinions.

The best way to handle an insult is to ignore it, because what the immature person wants is to make you upset. If you cannot ignore the insult, you can say something like, "Mature people don't have to insult each other to communicate," and walk away. Walking away is always best because the immature person is not going to change and suddenly stop acting immature.


Other reasons could include boredom; desire to be funny, genuine or learned hatred of another person or culture. Insults could depend on the situation, and it could be a person's way of taking their anger out on one person instead of the thing they are angry at.

Insults can also be used as a form of control, whether it is to control another person, to control a conversation. Insulting outbursts are often used by people who are angry that their lives are out of control in other ways.

[pole_smoker]

Why do people insult other people?
Most people who insult other people are insecure. They think that it will make them feel better if they put someone else down, or they insult the other person to take attention off of themselves. Sometimes people who are angry insult other people because they are not mature enough to think of a different way to handle their anger except to try to start a fight or to try to make the other person feel bad.

Mature people can communicate with others without insulting them. Any ideas can be discussed between mature adults without fighting or insulting each other. Mature people can "agree to disagree" and give each other the right to have different opinions.

The best way to handle an insult is to ignore it, because what the immature person wants is to make you upset. If you cannot ignore the insult, you can say something like, "Mature people don't have to insult each other to communicate," and walk away. Walking away is always best because the immature person is not going to change and suddenly stop acting immature.


Other reasons could include boredom; desire to be funny, genuine or learned hatred of another person or culture. Insults could depend on the situation, and it could be a person's way of taking their anger out on one person instead of the thing they are angry at.

Insults can also be used as a form of control, whether it is to control another person, to control a conversation. Insulting outbursts are often used by people who are angry that their lives are out of control in other ways.

You started the insults first chtampa but you're a troll.

[chtampa]

You started the insults first chtampa but you're a troll.

Why Do Some People Criticize All the Time and Put Others Down? Are you wondering why this one person in your life is such a thorn in your side, criticizing your every move, telling you how everything you do is wrong, that you look awful and so on. Perhaps they are always putting you down and shouting down ideas that you have. This person may be a work colleague, boss, partner, friend or neighbor. The constant bombardment of negative feedback gets you down, leads to anxiety, reduced self esteem and you cannot for the life of you work out why they are so nasty and targeting you for their criticism.

Why do they behave like this and should you fight back?

My experience of people that are always criticizing others is that they are deeply unhappy, have a low self esteem and perhaps even depressed. When people are depressed, sad or insecure often the world becomes very dark and they do see the enemy everywhere. Some people are very jealous of other people's success and deeply resent it. They then start to 'act' out.

It can also be a form of projection. They project onto others what they feel about themselves. When they call you a loser, really this is a direct reflection of how they feel about themselves. It is likely too that they consider this how you think about them so they get the insult out there first. The more unkind they are to you, the more distance you create between you, and this results in them trying harder to get your attention.
They feel rejected and try with inappropriate means to re-establish a connection. Look at how 'naughty children' behave when trying to get attention. The attention grabbing efforts are always negative and not positive. Is it possible this person has yet to learn these methods are not effective!

If you are an attractive, bubbly, successful, wealthy person with a nice happy home, great relationship, lovely children, nice car or any number of other things that this person does not have then this is in itself is reason for them to resent you if they are unhappy about what they lack in their own life.

When people take these pot shots at me, I generally see it for what it is. Insecurity and jealousy. I pity them and as such bear them no ill feeling. I may try to help them feel better about themselves or to gain what it is they want but do not have but ultimately if they can't quit their griping which can in the end drive even the strongest person down, then I will distance myself from them, perhaps indefinitely.

Do not let people like this get you down and remember if you are in any way at an advantage when compared to them their level of insecurity may make you their target.

If this person is complaining about your ideas perhaps in a work environment, then ask them for their ideas and suggestions. This tends to politely highlight the fact to them that they are complaining but not being at all productive it may also reveal surprising results in that in fact they perhaps do have ideas that may have been overlooked or gone unheard for risk of taking away someone else’s lime light.

Either way, they are the ones who are unhappy, depressed, insecure, suffering from low self esteem issues. You can either elect to ignore them or help them but it is perhaps best not to fuel their misery by fighting back and slam dunking them with clever reprisals.


I love you pole and I hope you find what you are looking for here.

[chtampa]

Question: What Is 'Trolling'?
Answer: Internet 'trolling' is the anti-social act of causing of interpersonal conflict and shock-value controversy online. Named for the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, trolling is purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls themselves are emotionally-immature users who thrive in any environment where
they are allowed to make public comments, like blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat.


Do you think that 1160 posts in eight months might be considered considered thriving?

I still love you! Maybe we could try a group hug! Or a trip to the "Harmony Hut". Just don't hate me because I am an American.

[pole_smoker]

Question: What Is 'Trolling'?
Answer: Internet 'trolling' is the anti-social act of causing of interpersonal conflict and shock-value controversy online. Named for the wicked troll creatures of children's tales, trolling is purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls themselves are emotionally-immature users who thrive in any environment where
they are allowed to make public comments, like blog sites, news sites, discussion forums, and game chat.


Do you think that 1160 posts in eight months might be considered considered thriving?

I still love you! Maybe we could try a group hug! Or a trip to the "Harmony Hut". Just don't hate me because I am an American.
Nice try. I'm not a troll.

[pole_smoker]

It's so awkward being with a cut guy they shoot off immediately, and the poor bastard doesn't know what he's missing.

Quoted for truth.

I feel bad for cut guys since their dicks are dry, are far less sensitive, and women and men do not prefer a dick that's cut.

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact
Indeed. There's no need to circumcise any boy, girl, woman, or man as it's genital mutilation.

[pole_smoker]

http://40.media.tumblr.com/44280bf30c68b4c48a3ee5bb32798c45/tumblr_my775exKu61svfp30o1_500.png

[pole_smoker]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/2534e70d78c293ab9675ac6c7be5efc7/tumblr_mlccp2xkWK1rj8subo1_r1_500.gif

[pole_smoker]

http://33.media.tumblr.com/153b5c38a57e78dcc1fa552f88f85fac/tumblr_njaxi6xSmf1slfrmoo1_250.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/94304bf481bcf9bcd4467d79be4ac48b/tumblr_njaxi6xSmf1slfrmoo2_250.gif

[charles-smythe]

…you know if I didn’t know better…I’d think ‘pole’ was against circumcision…

[Fresia]

There's that freaky looking Pig in a Blanket again!
Would you like mustard with that?;)

[pole_smoker]

There's that freaky looking Pig in a Blanket again!
Would you like mustard with that?;)
Women who prefer a circumcised penis are idiots and are the absolute equivalent of a man preferred a circumcised woman. Fucking gross.


Hey ladies, go get your parts lopped off so men don't think your pussy is icky.

[pole_smoker]

…you know if I didn’t know better…I’d think ‘pole’ was against circumcision…




Indeed I am, just like you and lots of people are against involuntary male and female genital mutilation.

http://41.media.tumblr.com/abe9698fc88eb342cd4ddaa6371c363e/tumblr_nmxi6r46zH1s7jjl7o7_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

This is how a man's penis is supposed to look: Intact, and unmutilated, as circumcision is nothing but pointless genital mutilation.

http://36.media.tumblr.com/9cdd2f5d9f5062fe5de0fd841bee8d84/tumblr_mufeblvmq41ssd5d8o1_500.jpg

[charles-smythe]

http://imagehost.thasnasty.com/?di=YXBL

[pole_smoker]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/6f1a251d9c86df08718a538a9773260f/tumblr_nnamthBbnI1u2hlrko1_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/d2d4fa5efd0deac3967924c9455a517e/tumblr_nmsz4dKb0f1rgpjgjo1_500.jpg

[charles-smythe]

http://imagehost.thasnasty.com/?di=AWAZ

[pole_smoker]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/68ecfef8129345a5884d1daf878f18b4/tumblr_nm0zksxi2t1s2cuhao2_r1_400.gif

[pole_smoker]

http://36.media.tumblr.com/c9191259dea3b42f3ea02961e5830c77/tumblr_nn8qltg0L51tg53qoo1_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/e6a3add57ed3b1425f0d9ab99dc70357/tumblr_ms77lqdU7c1s6blrxo1_500.gif

[pole_smoker]

http://www.manhuntdaily.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/alpha/r/Riley-Tess-gets-an-enema-from-Jordan-Fox-on-gay-porn-site-UK-Naked-Men-6.jpg

[pole_smoker]

YEAH!! I agree. If they want it cut, let them decide when they are older. But I personally think all men should keep there penises intact

I agree circumcision is nothing but pointless involuntary genital mutilation that happens to both sexes/genders.

[pole_smoker]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/e88f85bd08c8e378db398cf1d3ce2780/tumblr_npff416OE51tsnnf6o1_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/d2d4fa5efd0deac3967924c9455a517e/tumblr_nmsz4dKb0f1rgpjgjo1_500.jpg

[pole_smoker]

My husband and I feel bad for any guy who unfortunately had his genitals mutilated.

[pole_smoker]

theirs something else you have to remember,male babies are born with the foreskin for a reason
Indeed. A cut dick is mutilated and the foreskin is not supposed to be removed via genital mutilation.