POll: Did you circumcise your son, if he was born in the past 5 years?

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: DT4K

Originally posted by: moshquerade
wtf is pussy cheese????? and do you know a lot of girls who have it?

If you really want to know without clicking the NSFW wikipedia link that was posted:

Smegma (Greek smegma, "soap")[1] is a combination of exfoliated (shed) epithelial cells, transudated skin oils, and moisture. It occurs in both male and female genitalia. In males, smegma helps keep the glans moist and facilitates sexual intercourse by acting as a lubricant.

Both males and females produce smegma. In males, smegma is produced and accumulates under the foreskin; in females, it collects around the clitoris and in the folds of the labia minora (also called the clitoral hood).

Looks like we should remove the clitoral hood, as someone pages earlier mentioned.

Yes, it's really terrible that women have to go through the extra maintenance of washing themselves.

Since you have no rational response to men who prefer circumcision you choose to make assign and hysterical propositions. Maybe it's all that pent up rage against women who lol'd at your funny looking wang?

Do you mean asinine? I'm not really sure, but that seems to be the only thing that would make your sentence make sense.

It's not asinine or hysterical. It's a perfectly logical statement.

You are saying boys should be circumcised so they don't have to wash themselves to prevent a buildup of smegma. Since women also produce smegma and need to wash themselves to prevent this buildup, it only makes sense that people in favor of surgically removing skin from the male genitals for cleanliness reasons would also be in favor of surgically removing skin from female genitals for cleanliness reasons.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: MotionMan

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Or you could just be a crybaby? There must be a lot of estrogen in that useless bit of skin they clip off for as much as you clowns cry about being sensitive "down there".

Hey good for you that you can be happy with whatever penis you have. Still doesn't change the fact that cutting off a big piece of your kid's penis that nature gave us doesn't somehow defect it in any way.

Do you even know what a circumcision entails?

MotionMan

It seems that you dont, it is a significant portion of the skin.

 

[DT4K]

Summary of reasons given so far in favor of circumcision:

Cleanliness - this is easily solved by washing on a regular basis.

Increased risk of STD's - this is debatable, but even assuming it's true, safe sex is the solution.

Preference of women - obviously YMMV, but if a woman is going to say no to you because your penis has NOT been surgically altered, is this really a woman you want to be with?

Looking "normal" - The vast majority of the world does not circumcise. And even in the U.S., it's getting close to 50/50, so babies that are not circumcised now are certainly not going to be viewed as "abnormal" in the locker room or when they meet women.

So can anyone give me a valid reason to circumcise baby boys?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Dumac
There is nothing wrong with preferring to be circumcised. However, it is kind of weird to perform irreversible cosmetic surgery on your babies sexual organs because of your personal preferences.

Any other operation or action in the same line of thought is regarded as weird or even unthinkable, but circumcision is for some reason okay here, so much that people think you are weird for not wanting to mutilate your baby.

It's not mutilation. We're back in page 1 territory here, come on!

 

[randalee]

We did it with our one son. Only reason we did is so that he looked like 'Dad'.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: randalee
We did it with our one son. Only reason we did is so that he looked like 'Dad'.

I really dont mean to flame when I say this, but that isnt a really good excuse.

 

[GiggleGirl]

back in the day, circumcision was the norm to prevent young boys from masturbating because it was considered sinful and inappropriate. the reason is because having the foreskin DOES make the friction on the head of the penis much more sensitive (due to less exposure of the head to the "elements" lol), causing a higher inclination for masturbation because it felt BETTER. it just became so normal that doctors were just doing it to all the baby boys... until parents were just deciding against because it was deemed unnecessary.

i personally dont think it looks attractive at all but its not my place to decide to cut off your wang skin. my boyfriend and i have already agreed that if we had a son, he would keep his foreskin. he thinks its not right to cut it off and he deserves to have whatever maximum sensations the foreskin will bring in his future. am i super excited that he MIGHT face discrimination from the wimminz or that my opinion is that it looks weird? not really. but if OCN feels strongly about it, and my only reasons for doing it are probably aesthetics, then OCN wins.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Dumac
There is nothing wrong with preferring to be circumcised. However, it is kind of weird to perform irreversible cosmetic surgery on your babies sexual organs because of your personal preferences.

Any other operation or action in the same line of thought is regarded as weird or even unthinkable, but circumcision is for some reason okay here, so much that people think you are weird for not wanting to mutilate your baby.

It's not mutilation. We're back in page 1 territory here, come on!

Yes it is. This was solved earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: JM Aggie08
The word mutilate is thrown around all too much in this thread.

I bet ya'll think spanking = abuse as, as well.

uh..

mu·ti·late
/'myutl?e?t/ [myoot-l-eyt]

?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

That sounds about right. Nice troll attempt, however. The ya'll made it even better.

That pretty much fits the bill.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: randalee
We did it with our one son. Only reason we did is so that he looked like 'Dad'.

Do you pull it out an compare?

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: DT4K
Summary of reasons given so far in favor of circumcision:

Cleanliness - this is easily solved by washing on a regular basis.

Increased risk of STD's - this is debatable, but even assuming it's true, safe sex is the solution.

Preference of women - obviously YMMV, but if a woman is going to say no to you because your penis has NOT been surgically altered, is this really a woman you want to be with?

Looking "normal" - The vast majority of the world does not circumcise. And even in the U.S., it's getting close to 50/50, so babies that are not circumcised now are certainly not going to be viewed as "abnormal" in the locker room or when they meet women.

So can anyone give me a valid reason to circumcise baby boys?

I like the reasons you gave. Enough for me to snip-snip.

And between my friends, circumcised is preferred.

 

[MotionMan]

I blame the Jews.

Wait...
Oh...
nm.

MotionMan

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
back in the day, circumcision was the norm to prevent young boys from masturbating because it was considered sinful and inappropriate. the reason is because having the foreskin DOES make the friction on the head of the penis much more sensitive (due to less exposure of the head to the "elements" lol), causing a higher inclination for masturbation because it felt BETTER. it just became so normal that doctors were just doing it to all the baby boys... until parents were just deciding against because it was deemed unnecessary.

i personally dont think it looks attractive at all but its not my place to decide to cut off your wang skin. my boyfriend and i have already agreed that if we had a son, he would keep his foreskin. he thinks its not right to cut it off and he deserves to have whatever maximum sensations the foreskin will bring in his future. am i super excited that he MIGHT face discrimination from the wimminz or that my opinion is that it looks weird? not really. but if OCN feels strongly about it, and my only reasons for doing it are probably aesthetics, then OCN wins.

This. And I would say the main reason is the lack of need for lube.
I'm not circumcised and I started masturbating before I could remember. I could easily masturbate just by squeezing my crotch over my pants.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Dumac
There is nothing wrong with preferring to be circumcised. However, it is kind of weird to perform irreversible cosmetic surgery on your babies sexual organs because of your personal preferences.

Any other operation or action in the same line of thought is regarded as weird or even unthinkable, but circumcision is for some reason okay here, so much that people think you are weird for not wanting to mutilate your baby.

It's not mutilation. We're back in page 1 territory here, come on!

Yes it is. This was solved earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: JM Aggie08
The word mutilate is thrown around all too much in this thread.

I bet ya'll think spanking = abuse as, as well.

uh..

mu·ti·late
/'myutl?e?t/ [myoot-l-eyt]

?verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.

That sounds about right. Nice troll attempt, however. The ya'll made it even better.

That pretty much fits the bill.

No, it doesn't

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
back in the day, circumcision was the norm to prevent young boys from masturbating because it was considered sinful and inappropriate. the reason is because having the foreskin DOES make the friction on the head of the penis much more sensitive (due to less exposure of the head to the "elements" lol), causing a higher inclination for masturbation because it felt BETTER. it just became so normal that doctors were just doing it to all the baby boys... until parents were just deciding against because it was deemed unnecessary.

i personally dont think it looks attractive at all but its not my place to decide to cut off your wang skin. my boyfriend and i have already agreed that if we had a son, he would keep his foreskin. he thinks its not right to cut it off and he deserves to have whatever maximum sensations the foreskin will bring in his future. am i super excited that he MIGHT face discrimination from the wimminz or that my opinion is that it looks weird? not really. but if OCN feels strongly about it, and my only reasons for doing it are probably aesthetics, then OCN wins.

This. And I would say the main reason is the lack of need for lube.
I'm not circumcised and I started masturbating before I could remember. I could easily masturbate just by squeezing my crotch over my pants.

We don't need to know this.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does

It can't be put any more clearly. It is like you are arguing that water isn't a liquid. Rather than argue with a specific part, you just vomit "nuh uh!"

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: astroidea

Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
back in the day, circumcision was the norm to prevent young boys from masturbating because it was considered sinful and inappropriate. the reason is because having the foreskin DOES make the friction on the head of the penis much more sensitive (due to less exposure of the head to the "elements" lol), causing a higher inclination for masturbation because it felt BETTER. it just became so normal that doctors were just doing it to all the baby boys... until parents were just deciding against because it was deemed unnecessary.

i personally dont think it looks attractive at all but its not my place to decide to cut off your wang skin. my boyfriend and i have already agreed that if we had a son, he would keep his foreskin. he thinks its not right to cut it off and he deserves to have whatever maximum sensations the foreskin will bring in his future. am i super excited that he MIGHT face discrimination from the wimminz or that my opinion is that it looks weird? not really. but if OCN feels strongly about it, and my only reasons for doing it are probably aesthetics, then OCN wins.

This. And I would say the main reason is the lack of need for lube.
I'm not circumcised and I started masturbating before I could remember. I could easily masturbate just by squeezing my crotch over my pants.

We don't need to know this.

Sorry it was the best data to my knowledge to back up my point. ;

 

[FireChicken]

effing nm

 

[purewater09]

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

Originally posted by: purewater09
I come from the Uk where it isn't done and so I am not circumcised myself (nor would I want to be). But I do know a lot about the subject because I looked into it when I found to my disbelief that more than half of Americans were done.

It turns out that non-religious circumcision was uncommon until the Victorian era when doctors with limited knowledge began to use circumcision as a means of stopping boys from masturbating (thinking that masturbation cased insanity and nervous disorders such as epilepsy). It never really took hold in the Uk and fewer than 30% were ever circumcised. It was stoped completely when the National health service (NHS) decided not to fund it, largely thanks to this study:
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/

Here is a good site on history:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

Also it does impact on sex. For starters, masturbation is harder. With a natural penis you just move the skin up and down. The inside of the foreskin is very sensitive and as you move it up and down it is pleasurable. This page gives a good idea for those who don't know how an intact penis works:
http://geocities.com/painfulqu...oning/naturalresources (contains penis pic)

Circed guys have no foreskin and so they either rub it (which can cause redness and chafing) or they have to actually use an artificial lubricant. Maybe this is why the USA describes masturbating as "rubbing one off" whereas we call it "wanking"?

Also when you remove the foreskin it means that the glans underneath dries out. Not only that but it comes into contact with clothing and this seems to make the skin harder:
http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm (contains penis pic)

It also has an effect on sexual intercourse , not only for the man but for the woman. This site gives a good explanation:
http://xrl.us/foreskinfunctions (contains penis pic)

Also in terms of care in infancy, leaving the boy intact is also a lot easier. There is nothing to do. No cleaning is required as the foreskin is unretractable in infancy. Unfortunately some doctors in the USA have limited knowledge of this fact. They pull the foreskin back causing damage and creating scar tissue which could lead to problems retracting the foreskin down the line.
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/
This is probably the main reason you hear of it being done later. Misdiagnosis of phimosis (unretractable foreskin). Also, true phimosis (as opposed to it being physiological) caused by scar tissue due to incorrect care in infancy.

Some studies show some medical benefit but others don't and no medical association recommends non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Most boys will not benefit health-wise from circumcision. Here are some good summaries:
http://cirp.org/library/disease/
http://pediatrics.aappublicati...tters/119/5/1006#23937
http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP-ana.html
http://www.nature.com/nrurol/j...2/full/ncpuro1292.html

Also there are very few medical indications for circumcision nowadays. Problems can usually be solved without surgery.

Ultimately though , it is the fact that you are removing a part of the boy's penis which has protective and sexual functions without his consent, which is why I am opposed to it.

The other reason is that I get angry and feel immensely sorry for those who have had severely botched circumcisions:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
http://www.catholicsagainstcir.../cac_complications.htm

I read through that and find it hard to believe most of it. I mean how can I have this magic dick that's suffered none of the problems it claim men who are cut are going to have. Also I still hold out hope of a career in pron and I'm glad I wouldn't be forced to do fetish stuff because my wang looks funky.

Seems like fanatical propaganda by men who are self conscious about not getting cut.

I presume by problems you mean loss in sensitivity. But how would you know what it would have been like to have a foreskin? For me, my glans isn't sensitive at all compared to the frenulum or the tip of my foreskin. As for the argument "I couldn't stand being more sensitive" I think a lot of that is bravado. The rolling action of the foreskin makes ejaculation easier to regulate too. I saw a study which showed that the nerves in the foreskin give sensory feedback and make it easier to control when you will come. I have seen studies showing circed guys have problems with both premature ejaculation and delayed ejaculation. You mess with nature, you are going to fuck things up. We are deviating from the topic slightly. We aren't talking about who is better off. We are asking should it be done on infant boys? In the absence of medical need I say no. This video explains more about the foreskin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9DoCn3gATE

As for the other problems such as botched circs - of course not every boy circed has his penis destroyed. But complications go unreported and I'd bet there are a lot of men with minor problems such as unsightly scars, skin-bridges etc who just have to live with it.

Also , why would i be self-conscious? As I said, I am from the UK you'd be hard pressed to find a man who was circumcised here. The same goes for all 1 st world countries apart from the USA:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: DT4K
Summary of reasons given so far in favor of circumcision:

Cleanliness - this is easily solved by washing on a regular basis.

Increased risk of STD's - this is debatable, but even assuming it's true, safe sex is the solution.

Preference of women - obviously YMMV, but if a woman is going to say no to you because your penis has NOT been surgically altered, is this really a woman you want to be with?

Looking "normal" - The vast majority of the world does not circumcise. And even in the U.S., it's getting close to 50/50, so babies that are not circumcised now are certainly not going to be viewed as "abnormal" in the locker room or when they meet women.

So can anyone give me a valid reason to circumcise baby boys?

I like the reasons you gave. Enough for me to snip-snip.

And between my friends, circumcised is preferred.

Just because you like them doesn't make them valid or logical.

There is no valid reason to do voluntary cosmetic surgery on a perfectly normal infant.

It's one of those things that is done for the sole reason that "everybody does it".
And even that is not true at all anymore.

 

[purewater09]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: purewater09
It turns out that non-religious circumcision was uncommon until the Victorian era when doctors with limited knowledge began to use circumcision as a means of stopping boys from masturbating (thinking that masturbation cased insanity and nervous disorders such as epilepsy). It never really took hold in the Uk and fewer than 30% were ever circumcised. It was stopped completely when the National health service (NHS) decided not to fund it, largely thanks to this study:
http://www.cirp.org/library/general/gairdner/

Some of your links refute your own argument. As can be seen from the link above, circumcision as a common practice predates its introduction into Roman Europe and in fact predates Christianity itself.


There is NO evidence that circumcision to prevent or treat masturbation was ever practiced or accepted to any meaningful degree. The crown prince of advocating circumcision to prevent or treat masturbation - Dr. John Harvey Kellogg - himself wrote that circumcision in the West (as it is among Jews) was done largely for reasons of health and hygiene. i.e. he admits his views that circumcision be done to prevent or treat masturbation were NOT mainstream. There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Kellogg managed to muster any significant number of supporters.

No evidence of it being practiced to discourage masturbation? Yes there is :
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/darby4/
http://www.historyofcircumcisi...ontent&task=view&id=62
It wasn't just masturbation though. In babies they misunderstood the normal development of the foreskin. They didn't know it was unretractable in infancy and diagnosed it as a pathological condition (phimosis).
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/
This would mean all babies suffered from it. They thought that the restricted foreskin of the infant caused a reflex reaction on the nervous system. They said it led to insanity , epilepsy etc and that the "irritation" impelled the boy to masturbate (which would cause more problems). A lot of doctors at the turn of the century were claiming to have cured paralysis by circumcising boys
http://www.historyofcircumcisi...ontent&task=view&id=58

I am not saying that they didn't (incorrectly) think it was more hygienic too by the way. But prevention of masturbation certainly got non-religious circumcision going. Before the late 1800's in English speaking countries it was restricted to Jews and Muslims.

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Lower socioeconomic classes with less education are ALWAYS more religious no matter what country or culture and ALWAYS have been. So why would well-educated and affluent classes circumcise their children FAR MORE than less educated and poor, if the primary impetus for circumcision was religious belief or rite? Doesn't compute. You should expect to find the opposite.

What I think you have done is that you have assumed that prevention of masturbation was all to do with religious belief. Not necessarily. Masturbation was seen as a disease in itself by the medical community at that time. Poorer people wouldn't have had as much access to medical care. I am not sure there was a great difference in religious belief between richer and poorer nor would I completely agree that it was more common in the poorer.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does

It can't be put any more clearly. It is like you are arguing that water isn't a liquid. Rather than argue with a specific part, you just vomit "nuh uh!"

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Look, I have a definition of mutilate that supports MY viewpoint too! QED, you're wrong, I'm right, go suck your toe all the way to Mexico!

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does

It can't be put any more clearly. It is like you are arguing that water isn't a liquid. Rather than argue with a specific part, you just vomit "nuh uh!"

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Look, I have a definition of mutilate that supports MY viewpoint too! QED, you're wrong, I'm right, go suck your toe all the way to Mexico!

Circumcision is cutting up the male genitalia radically as to make imperfect.

 

[FireChicken]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does

It can't be put any more clearly. It is like you are arguing that water isn't a liquid. Rather than argue with a specific part, you just vomit "nuh uh!"

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Look, I have a definition of mutilate that supports MY viewpoint too! QED, you're wrong, I'm right, go suck your toe all the way to Mexico!

Ss what is your "definition" of mutilation that supports your viewpoint.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
No, it doesn't

Yes, it does

It can't be put any more clearly. It is like you are arguing that water isn't a liquid. Rather than argue with a specific part, you just vomit "nuh uh!"

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

Look, I have a definition of mutilate that supports MY viewpoint too! QED, you're wrong, I'm right, go suck your toe all the way to Mexico!

Circumcision is cutting up the male genitalia radically as to make imperfect.

There's nothing imperfect about my penis, I invite you to try it for yourself!

 

[surfsatwerk]

Originally posted by: purewater09

Originally posted by: surfsatwerk

I read through that and find it hard to believe most of it. I mean how can I have this magic dick that's suffered none of the problems it claim men who are cut are going to have. Also I still hold out hope of a career in pron and I'm glad I wouldn't be forced to do fetish stuff because my wang looks funky.

Seems like fanatical propaganda by men who are self conscious about not getting cut.

I presume by problems you mean loss in sensitivity. But how would you know what it would have been like to have a foreskin? For me, my glans isn't sensitive at all compared to the frenulum or the tip of my foreskin. As for the argument "I couldn't stand being more sensitive" I think a lot of that is bravado. The rolling action of the foreskin makes ejaculation easier to regulate too. I saw a study which showed that the nerves in the foreskin give sensory feedback and make it easier to control when you will come. I have seen studies showing circed guys have problems with both premature ejaculation and delayed ejaculation. You mess with nature, you are going to fuck things up. We are deviating from the topic slightly. We aren't talking about who is better off. We are asking should it be done on infant boys? In the absence of medical need I say no. This video explains more about the foreskin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9DoCn3gATE

As for the other problems such as botched circs - of course not every boy circed has his penis destroyed. But complications go unreported and I'd bet there are a lot of men with minor problems such as unsightly scars, skin-bridges etc who just have to live with it.

Also , why would i be self-conscious? As I said, I am from the UK you'd be hard pressed to find a man who was circumcised here. The same goes for all 1 st world countries apart from the USA:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

I apprecaite your response. And I do admit that just because I do not experience any of the problems you posted doesn't mean they don't exist. Personally I've always thought of the procedure like taking dew claws off puppies with little pain or risk involved. At least I will give the issue a second glance when/if the time comes for me to make a choice.