Happy Atheist Forum

General => Ethics => Topic started by: Sophus on July 11, 2009, 07:44:43 AM

Title: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on July 11, 2009, 07:44:43 AM
I'm just curious to see what the opinions on it are here. I know it's a bit controversial. So.... what do you think?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Chimera on July 11, 2009, 08:00:08 AM
I don't think it's really necessary, personally. Yeah, there are those rare instances where it is necessary, but overall I think it's a pretty unneeded and terrible thing to inflict on an infant or child. When I was going through my medical assistant training, I assisted on several circumcisions and while it didn't really affect me much, I hated seeing these tiny newborns screaming in pain when the doctor would inject the anesthetic into the area. Sometimes it didn't take effect, and as the doctor was trying to loosen the skin around the shaft, the baby would scrunch his face up and scream, though no sound would come out. All we could do to comfort him is shove a pacifier dipped in sugar water in his mouth and wait for the anesthetic to work.

Circumcision could be a good thing, though. I guess. I mean, when my cousin was circumcised after birth, the doctors discovered he had hemophilia.

If I ever have a son, I'll probably pass on the circumcision thing. If he wants it later in life, that's his own business.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Neoncamouflage on July 11, 2009, 11:12:20 AM
From what I've heard there's only one good reason. Something to do with the foreskin(can't remember what, Google it :p) makes it like 80% less likely to catch STDs with circumsition. Plus the feeling of being different if you live somewhere like the US if you're not.

Bad is unneeded pain at birth, fear of a botched job, and possibly decreased sexual pleasure.

But the thing to really keep in mind: Circumcise or you make Jesus cry.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: joeactor on July 11, 2009, 03:45:33 PM
More info than you could possibly want:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.circinfo.net%2Fimages%2Fbanner-circinfo.gif&hash=affa516365cca4ddca93c8be4e3ffddad0fe7dc8) (http://www.circinfo.net/)

And don't even get me started on Meatitus (yeah, that's a real term!)

There's no real medical reason to circumcise every guy, but it does seem to have some benefits...

Wincing,
JoeActor
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 11, 2009, 05:43:23 PM
Quote from: "Neoncamouflage"From what I've heard there's only one good reason. Something to do with the foreskin(can't remember what, Google it :p) makes it like 80% less likely to catch STDs with circumsition.

And now for why there is a tiny bit less chance of getting an STD if a man is circumcised - during vigorous sex the foreskin might experience tiny tears, also on an uncircumcised man there is way mucous membrane on the head of the penis.  But a circumcised penis becomes scarred due to exposure from removal of the foreskin and parts that used to be more permeable are now scar tissue.  

Use a damned condom.  Teach your kids to use condoms.  

I've known four guys (not all of them biblically) with circumcision related Peyronies (bent penis, in one case, severely bent) one of whom has very limited sensitivity in his penis, due to a severe post-circumcision infection which required removal of infected tissue.  Orgasm is mostly about arousal rather than penile stimulation for him, with creativity he can still get off but it sure would be nicer if he hadn't been messed up that way.  The men in my family (aside from my religious sister's kids) are not circumcised.  They've had no problems with urinary or penile infections or STDs and use condoms without difficulty.

That's just anecdotal evidence and doesn't add much to the argument but the fact is that 100% of healthy babies that get circumcised are getting their genitals carved up, sometimes without anesthetic (depending on the practitioner) for no real practical purpose.  

There's also zero difference in the protection against STDs provided by circumcision performed on newborns and circumcisions performed on teens and adults old enough to become sexually active.  The risk of accidentally carbonizing an adult penis with an electrocautery device during circumcision is much smaller as is the chance of bent penis due to circumcision.  

The old argument was that people with foreskins more frequently got penile cancer.  Well, about one in eight women get breast cancer and we don't nick out newborn babies' breast buds and the risk of penile cancer is far, far lower than one in eight.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Will on July 11, 2009, 06:33:14 PM
They used to be necessary, but aren't anymore at least in industrialized countries with modern medicine.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: hismikeness on July 11, 2009, 07:42:23 PM
Here's my take. The pain at childbirth is irrelevant. Ask any guy who is circumcised if he remembers that pain. Nope. I think it is a totally personal decision for the parents. If it's left up to the adult male later in life, it never happens. No way someone is whacking foreskin off my Johnson any time after 0.02 years old. Medical reasons, meh. Used to be about 100 years ago. Hygiene. I've heard this one that infections, not necessarily STD's, are more common around the enclosed tip of an uncircumcised person. Teach them to wash properly, no biggie. Stigma of not looking like others, I guess. But after a while you could probably retort by blasting someone back and asking that they stop looking at your dick. I have heard claims that for the man, sexually, being uncircumcised is better, because the foreskin covers the most sensitive areas during times of non arousal, and only during arousal do those areas get any exposure, which usually means sexual activity of some kind, and the area is less prone to becoming desensitized. Better orgasms, umm, I'm ok with that.

I will probably pass if I have a son or sons. Don't know how the wife feels, haven't asked. Probably will now though.

Hismikeness
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tanker on July 11, 2009, 11:35:39 PM
My mother is a very secular person. She was vaguely bhudist 20+ years ago but is an atheist now. She had both my brother and myself circumcised. Her reason why when it came up some years ago was "health reasons". I have never had any problems resulting from being circumcised, I can only assume my brother hasn't either. I don't get why some people make such a big deal about it either way. I'll probably have any sons I have circumcised too. Pain at that age is irelevent you might as well make mothers get c-sections if you're worried about kids being in or rembering pain when they are so young. Birth is WAAAYYY more tramatic for a kid and they don't get any pain killers for that (at least I think not, I'm not an OBGYN and have never given birth after all).

(slightly off topic I just wanted since my penis is the only one I see on a regular basis, and the only one I know in any detail, uncirumcised penises look somehow odd or wrong to me. Not that I believe there is anything wrong with them I know that's the natural state but I guess since I consider myself normal anything varying from that seems abnormal. I don't know how well I've expressed myself just thought I'd share that. Hmm now that I think about it that may contribute to why I would have my child circucised)
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Whitney on July 11, 2009, 11:51:46 PM
Considering that they don't give the baby any decent pain medication (if at all), it causes irreversible changes, and is unnecessary in most cases...I think doctors should refuse to do it on ethical grounds.  Soap, water, and condoms fix the majority of the potential drawbacks.  Those who have issues with the foreskin when they are older can always have it removed...an no, it doesn't necessarily hurt more just because the man is an adult and yes it does matter that it hurt even if the baby doesn't remember.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on July 12, 2009, 12:54:44 AM
I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Whitney on July 12, 2009, 01:00:42 AM
Quote from: "Sophus"I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

I think most do it for social/religious reasons and not just to make their child's life potentially safer.  If it was a matter of safety the religious people who have their sons circumcised would also get their daughters the HPV vaccine when she is of age just in case she ends up sinning.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tanker on July 12, 2009, 01:07:30 AM
Quote from: "Whitney"Considering that they don't give the baby any decent pain medication (if at all), it causes irreversible changes, and is unnecessary in most cases...I think doctors should refuse to do it on ethical grounds.  Soap, water, and condoms fix the majority of the potential drawbacks.  Those who have issues with the foreskin when they are older can always have it removed...an no, it doesn't necessarily hurt more just because the man is an adult and yes it does matter that it hurt even if the baby doesn't remember.

I can understand the sentimet really I can, I think it's sick to pierce a baby girls ears for some of the same reasons. I believe the do medicate the child well before hand but sometimes the aplication of that pain killer can be painfull like say novacain when you get a filling but honestly I don't know or sure. If the childs pain is such an issue mabey you could consider c-sections for a pain free (nearly) childbirth for the child (I'm being faciectious). Circumcision is such a non-issue for me when you consider all the trully frivilous surgery people have or the ones just because of vanity or lazyness. In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Whitney on July 12, 2009, 01:13:33 AM
Quote from: "Tanker"In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

Yes, it is worse to do to females as it has no medical benefit, is intended to control women, and takes all or almost all of enjoyment out of sex for the woman.  

We don't let parents tattoo their child before they reach 18...why do we allow things like circumcision (esp the female kind which really is an obvious ethical issue)?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 12, 2009, 01:40:06 AM
Quote from: "Tanker"I can understand the sentimet really I can, I think it's sick to pierce a baby girls ears for some of the same reasons. I believe the do medicate the child well before hand but sometimes the aplication of that pain killer can be painfull like say novacain when you get a filling but honestly I don't know or sure. If the childs pain is such an issue mabey you could consider c-sections for a pain free (nearly) childbirth for the child (I'm being faciectious). Circumcision is such a non-issue for me when you consider all the trully frivilous surgery people have or the ones just because of vanity or lazyness. In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

So, if a person's religious convictions led them to remove other non-vital body parts of their infant children you'd have no problem with that either.  Say, for instance, a person's religion requires the removal of all infants' pinky toes and earlobes- would that be cool, too?  

I think this is a holdover of the attitude that parents own their children and should be allowed to do anything they like to them.  The point is that a huge number of people get a substantial portion of their genitals cut off without their permission.  Yes, female circumcision is horrible, a lot more awful than male circumcision but people care about it.  People treat it like they are talking about an inoculation or something when they are referring to involuntary male circumcision.    

It's "no big deal" that babies have cosmetic surgery forced upon them unless you happen to be one of the guys with a bent penis or who can't feel anything but pressure on his penis.  Yes, it's relatively rare that circumcisions have immediate complications - only about 1% to 3% of circumcised infants develop an infection in the surgery site.  However, that 1% to 3% figure says nothing about infants who grow up to be men with scar tissue that causes erections to be painful or to have bent penises or a lack of sensation on part or all of their penises.  Perhaps those percentages are small, too, probably less than ten percent - I've probably just known an unrepresentative number of guys with problems.  But those complications wouldn't occur at all if circumcision were not performed.

If circumcision is something a man desires, he can have it done after the age of consent.  Children are not property.  They might decide they want to keep their genitals intact and they should have the opportunity to do so.

No one ever answers the breast cancer statement.  About one in eight women get breast cancer and removing newborn babies breasts would prevent far more disease than removing foreskins does so why aren't people yowling to get that done?  Removing appendixes and tonsils at birth would likely prevent more disease than removing foreskins does, too - so why aren't we doing it?  Is it because it's a bit crazy to go hacking healthy body parts off infants in the hopes of preventing future diseases?

Condoms, properly used, are effective in preventing STDs in both circumcised and uncircumcised men.  Circumcision as a prevention method for STDs is weak, damned weak.  It doesn't even come close to comparing to condom use.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 12, 2009, 01:42:25 AM
Quote from: "Whitney"
Quote from: "Sophus"I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

I think most do it for social/religious reasons and not just to make their child's life potentially safer.  If it was a matter of safety the religious people who have their sons circumcised would also get their daughters the HPV vaccine when she is of age just in case she ends up sinning.

Brilliant point.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on July 12, 2009, 01:52:56 AM
Oh noes, I have to wash myself more often than some of my peers!!!

Where's the knife and antiseptic?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 12, 2009, 01:54:33 AM
Some studies have also shown that infant circumcision affects the pain response in those infants even five months down the line. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/)  Later studies have compared the effect to PTSD.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tanker on July 12, 2009, 02:01:57 AM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "Tanker"I can understand the sentimet really I can, I think it's sick to pierce a baby girls ears for some of the same reasons. I believe the do medicate the child well before hand but sometimes the aplication of that pain killer can be painfull like say novacain when you get a filling but honestly I don't know or sure. If the childs pain is such an issue mabey you could consider c-sections for a pain free (nearly) childbirth for the child (I'm being faciectious). Circumcision is such a non-issue for me when you consider all the trully frivilous surgery people have or the ones just because of vanity or lazyness. In fact the only circumcision I do have issue with and it phyically disgusts me is female circumcison. That is the one you should be trying to end. Male circumcision pales in comparison to it twisted female counterpart in my opion.

So, if a person's religious convictions led them to remove other non-vital body parts of their infant children you'd have no problem with that either.  Say, for instance, a person's religion requires the removal of all infants' pinky toes and earlobes- would that be cool, too?  

I think this is a holdover of the attitude that parents own their children and should be allowed to do anything they like to them.  The point is that a huge number of people get a substantial portion of their genitals cut off without their permission.  Yes, female circumcision is horrible, a lot more awful than male circumcision but people care about it.  People treat it like they are talking about an inoculation or something when they are referring to involuntary male circumcision.    

I said NOTHING about religion ,I said in an earlier post you may have missed my atheist mother chose to have us circumcised for health reasons. Carefull about those asumptions.

I would also like to make clear I'm not really pro-circumcisin I'm just not really against it either. It's just really not that big of a deal to me.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on July 12, 2009, 02:06:33 AM
Quote from: "Tanker"health reasons.
Oh noes, I have to wash myself more often!!!!!!!

I can't find my knife; do you think fingernail clippers will work?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tanker on July 12, 2009, 02:10:26 AM
Quote from: "Heretical Rants"
Quote from: "Tanker"health reasons.
Oh noes, I have to wash myself more often!!!!!!!

I can't find my knife; do you think fingernail clippers will work?

I would recomend a window fan, much quicker.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on July 12, 2009, 02:38:39 AM
Too late.

How do I stop the bleeding?

NVM, this handkerchief is working pretty well for that.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: rlrose328 on July 12, 2009, 05:56:23 AM
I'm not going to get into a big huge discussion about it, but we did circumcise... we didn't know there was a big to-do about it until long after we did it.  Why did we?  Because... we just did.  My dad was, my husband is... most every man I know was.  I know NO ONE who has a crooked penis because of circumcision or who has had ANY problems because of it.  Maybe if I had, it may have been an issue.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 12, 2009, 07:06:35 PM
Quote from: "rlrose328"I know NO ONE who has a crooked penis because of circumcision or who has had ANY problems because of it.  Maybe if I had, it may have been an issue.

Maybe that's why I think of it as a big issue.  I have a friend I dearly love who has almost no sensation in his penis due to a post circumcision infection.  His parents didn't even know that not getting him circumcised was even an option.  

People are remarkably callous when it comes to male sexual dysfunction.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 12, 2009, 07:31:02 PM
Quote from: "Tanker"I said NOTHING about religion ,I said in an earlier post you may have missed my atheist mother chose to have us circumcised for health reasons. Carefull about those asumptions.

I'm sure your mother's reasoning was not religious but the program to get circumcision made standard was.  The assumption is that a doctor recommended circumcision or scheduled it and your mother simply had to sign for it, your mother probably didn't come up with the idea on her own.  

Until recently, it was standard procedure, something brought about in the early 20th century for the purpose of preventing masturbation as well as adherence to religious practice.  The other health reasons were not seriously studied until the 90's and the data on STD transmission studies didn't even come out until after the year 2000.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: rlrose328 on July 13, 2009, 03:36:12 AM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "rlrose328"I know NO ONE who has a crooked penis because of circumcision or who has had ANY problems because of it.  Maybe if I had, it may have been an issue.

Maybe that's why I think of it as a big issue.  I have a friend I dearly love who has almost no sensation in his penis due to a post circumcision infection.  His parents didn't even know that not getting him circumcised was even an option.  

People are remarkably callous when it comes to male sexual dysfunction.

I'm not callous... I don't know if that was directed at me or not.  I feel for ANYONE who has sexual dysfunction... I have no mammary sensation whatsoever and while that's not pertinent to the act itself, it is still a major bummer.

I was just saying I know of no one (emphasis may have been  uncalled for) who has no sensation due to a botched circumcision.  That would definitely make an impact on your view of the procedure.

This is why I didn't want to get involved in this conversation.  I'm seen as callous for cutting my son's penis, apparently not caring whether he's scarred or not </sarcasm>.   We didn't do it for religious reasons or because we're some sort of baby abusers or because a doctor talked us into it.  They asked if we wanted to circumcise and we both said yes without even talking to each other.  Never occurred to us either to or not to do it.  If my son suffers for it, I will apologize profusely and offer to help him to something about it.  But right now, what's done is done and I don't regret it at all.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: VanReal on July 13, 2009, 03:46:03 AM
Wow!  Like Rose I didn't realize this was such a big deal either.  I had my son done right after birth.  It is much easier to clean, and to teach to clean, and quite frankly is more attractive, as attractive as a penis can be  :D
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Fellow Traveler on July 13, 2009, 04:49:14 AM
Quote from: "hismikeness"Here's my take. The pain at childbirth is irrelevant. Ask any guy who is circumcised if he remembers that pain. Nope. I think it is a totally personal decision for the parents. If it's left up to the adult male later in life, it never happens. No way someone is whacking foreskin off my Johnson any time after 0.02 years old.

I am not picking on you specifically (I like most of your other points), I saw this type of statement elsewhere in the thread but I have to ask the question, if it isn't something that an adult would choose for themselves, how can it be ethically justifiable to do to a non-consenting individual? Especially considering that it's medically non-therapeutic in virtually all cases.

Quote from: "hismikeness"Medical reasons, meh. Used to be about 100 years ago. Hygiene. I've heard this one that infections, not necessarily STD's, are more common around the enclosed tip of an uncircumcised person.

Actually, not even 100 years ago. Circumcision only really became common in the early to mid 20th century and only in a small handful of countries including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and to a much lesser extent the UK. It was abandon in the UK by the 1950, NZ by the 1970s, Australia and Canada have been in the process of abandoning it since the 1980s currently only about 10 - 15% of boys are circumcised in those countries. Circumcision has declined in the US but much more slowly, bad habits die hard I guess and perhaps we're stubborn. Other than that it's an essentially unknown procedure in the rest of the first world (at least the secular practice) and has never been performed widely.  

Quote from: "hismikeness"Teach them to wash properly, no biggie. Stigma of not looking like others, I guess. But after a while you could probably retort by blasting someone back and asking that they stop looking at your dick. I have heard claims that for the man, sexually, being uncircumcised is better, because the foreskin covers the most sensitive areas during times of non arousal, and only during arousal do those areas get any exposure, which usually means sexual activity of some kind, and the area is less prone to becoming desensitized. Better orgasms, umm, I'm ok with that.

I will probably pass if I have a son or sons. Don't know how the wife feels, haven't asked. Probably will now though.

Hismikeness

All good points.

Quote from: "Sophus"I've don't really see it as necessary either but would it be worth arguing it's better to be safe than sorry? I know the possibility of cancer is rare, but you can't really miss what you don't know, ya know?

Cancer is very rare about 1/100000. The American Cancer Society has a sheet on this here (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp?rnav=cri).

QuoteIn the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This suggestion was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. However, most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended as a way to prevent penile cancer.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on July 13, 2009, 04:49:48 AM
Yeah, there are pros and cons and risks on both sides. Although I suppose it would be best if people actually thought about it rather than just doing so because of their religion. Not that really matters.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: rlrose328 on July 13, 2009, 05:54:38 AM
Hubby reminded me that we DID ask the doctor about how common it is these days and he said that about 65% of the babies he delivered are circumcised... and this was in Berkeley, California, where rooming in is mandatory and if you don't breastfeed, it's tantamount to child abuse.  He offered no pros or cons, just answered our questions and let us decided.  We DID both say yes without much more than a "what do you think" to each other.  Even when we mentioned it to nurses, etc., they never offered any horror stories.  It is what I would expect from a medical professional, but these days, you just don't know.

I'm not a "proponent" of it nor do I scoff at those who don't.  I don't care one way or the other.  I dated both circumcised and uncircumcised men... frankly, I prefer the look and feel of an uncircumcised penis.  And this was from before I really understood what circumcision really is (I was a naive teen, despite my running away and acting out at the time.

Would I do it again knowing what I know now?  Yes.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Purewater on July 13, 2009, 03:42:13 PM
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/painfulquestioning/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.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/119/5/1006#23937
http://www.circumstitions.com/AAP-ana.html
http://www.nature.com/nrurol/journal/v6/n2/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.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/cac_complications.htm
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: curiosityandthecat on July 13, 2009, 03:57:05 PM
I'm cut, and thankful, too. The wife had never seen an uncircumcised penis (conservative Asian, remember), so I told her to look it up on the internet. She came running in from her office, saying, "Can I call your mother and thank her?"  roflol
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 13, 2009, 05:50:26 PM
Quote from: "rlrose328"
Quote from: "Kylyssa"
Quote from: "rlrose328"I know NO ONE who has a crooked penis because of circumcision or who has had ANY problems because of it.  Maybe if I had, it may have been an issue.

Maybe that's why I think of it as a big issue.  I have a friend I dearly love who has almost no sensation in his penis due to a post circumcision infection.  His parents didn't even know that not getting him circumcised was even an option.  

People are remarkably callous when it comes to male sexual dysfunction.

I'm not callous... I don't know if that was directed at me or not.  I feel for ANYONE who has sexual dysfunction... I have no mammary sensation whatsoever and while that's not pertinent to the act itself, it is still a major bummer.

I was just saying I know of no one (emphasis may have been  uncalled for) who has no sensation due to a botched circumcision.  That would definitely make an impact on your view of the procedure.

This is why I didn't want to get involved in this conversation.  I'm seen as callous for cutting my son's penis, apparently not caring whether he's scarred or not </sarcasm>.   We didn't do it for religious reasons or because we're some sort of baby abusers or because a doctor talked us into it.  They asked if we wanted to circumcise and we both said yes without even talking to each other.  Never occurred to us either to or not to do it.  If my son suffers for it, I will apologize profusely and offer to help him to something about it.  But right now, what's done is done and I don't regret it at all.

I'm not calling you callous, I'm saying people are callous to men who experience sexual dysfunction due to circumcision.  My friend first went to doctors and finally a sex therapist for his problem.  Even from doctors he often got a "shit happens" attitude towards his problem.  He's been called a whiner and told "well, some women never orgasm so quit complaining" by some folks.  At least his sex therapist has helped him with it and taught him some alternative ways to experience pleasure without judging or demeaning him for bringing it up.  

In many countries where their medical care is just as good as ours it is not even offered unless asked for because they never adopted circumcision as routine.  Routine circumcision is in place due to religious forces - it was adopted wholesale as an anti-masturbation procedure, not for legitimate medical reasons.  

It's not a "blame the parents" kind of issue.  It's a "change the system" kind of issue.  I don't blame you or any other parent for agreeing to routine circumcision - after all, who is going to think that the norm could be potentially harmful, especially when the hospital asks if you want it?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Ihateyoumike on July 13, 2009, 09:02:30 PM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"In many countries where their medical care is just as good as ours it is not even offered unless asked for because they never adopted circumcision as routine.  Routine circumcision is in place due to religious forces - it was adopted wholesale as an anti-masturbation procedure, not for legitimate medical reasons.  

If it was adopted wholesale as an anti-masturbation procedure, believe me it didn't work. The adoption of the internet as a pro-masturbation procedure more than offset that. ;)

As for the argument going on here, I'm okay with the procedure. Necessary? Probably not. Harmful? Not enough to bring about an anti-circumcision campaign to change the world.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: SSY on July 13, 2009, 09:33:55 PM
Circumcision is cutting of a bit of your penis, a bit of MY PENIS. No, when there is absolutley no reason to do it, no, never.

From what I have seen of snipped penises, the skin on the end looks like a type of tough leather, as opposed to my own smooth and glorious bellend, concealed safley in its soft pink sheath. When said bellend and glans rub on the fabric of my pants, it is very uncomfortable, the degree of desensitization that must occur in order to facilitate the friction of an exposed penis against the fabric of one's pants must be terrible.

This is just one of the points, though possibly the one that disturbs me most, the others, such as possibilities of botched operations, incredible pain inflicted etc have all be discussed quite well already.

 I would never have forgiven my parents if they had mutilated me at birth, either for their own silly reasons or if they had just not thought hard enough to look out for my interests. To those people who say they are not pro or anti, they seem to be not backing up their words with deeds, if I am indifferent to something, I do not go through with it, especially if it entails the expenditure of effort and the pain of my children.

I honestly believe that in 200 or so years people will look back at this time and think it terrible and perverse what happened to all the poor chaps out there.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tom62 on July 13, 2009, 09:40:52 PM
I always thought that only Muslims and Jews practiced circumcisions for religious reasons. Never knew that this is also a common practice in the USA. Living in a country where circumcision is practically unknown among the non-Jewish and non-Muslim population, it sounds like a human rights infringement to me that parents send their children to a doctor to mutilate their genitals.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Fellow Traveler on July 14, 2009, 02:07:12 AM
Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"As for the argument going on here, I'm okay with the procedure. Necessary? Probably not. Harmful? Not enough to bring about an anti-circumcision campaign to change the world.

No, it's not necessary to change the world. Secular circumcision is only common in the US, so that's the only part of the world we really need to change.  ;)

Quote from: "Tom62"I always thought that only Muslims and Jews practiced circumcisions for religious reasons. Never knew that this is also a common practice in the USA. Living in a country where circumcision is practically unknown among the non-Jewish and non-Muslim population, it sounds like a human rights infringement to me that parents send their children to a doctor to mutilate their genitals.

In most other parts of the world it is. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not at all clear, it caught on in the US and for reasons that are even less clear, it has continued. However, the incidence has dropped considerably and currently only a slim majority are circumcised. There are wide regional variations.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on July 14, 2009, 03:13:33 AM
Quote from: "SSY"From what I have seen of snipped penises, the skin on the end looks like a type of tough leather, as opposed to my own smooth and glorious bellend, concealed safley in its soft pink sheath. When said bellend and glans rub on the fabric of my pants, it is very uncomfortable, the degree of desensitization that must occur in order to facilitate the friction of an exposed penis against the fabric of one's pants must be terrible.
But you have to wash it more often :sadcry:

...I totally agree.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: rlrose328 on July 14, 2009, 03:48:14 AM
My husband has been cut since birth and he couldn't possibly BE more sensitive (and the risk of really pissing him off for bringing him up in this conversation... LOL!).  He scoffs at the "rubbing and less sensitive" argument.  

It does hurt my feelings when people go on and on about how it's mutilation and wrong.  I'm one of those people who made that choice (for lack of a better word) for my son and he's got no problems at all... and trust me, he runs around here naked all the time these days ("FREEDOM" he cries at the top of his 9yo lungs) so we get a full view of his soft, pink, straight as an arrow penis almost every day.   lol

As I said before... if he decides later that we mutilated him or that he has problems because of it, I'll do what I can to help him.  Until then, it is what it is and the decision has been made.

I just wonder, though... how many men have no problems and have never had a problem who have heard the mutilation argument and have then decided they are angry about it.  Knowing my son like I do, he'd be easily led down that path.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: curiosityandthecat on July 14, 2009, 04:01:57 AM
Quote from: "Heretical Rants"But you have to wash it more often roflol
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: AlP on July 14, 2009, 04:18:13 AM
I'm not cut and I prefer it that way. I sometimes get surprised reactions from women when they first see it now I live in the US but it's never been a big deal. It seems from the guys I've spoken to about it and the posts on this forum that most men are pretty happy with whatever their parents decided to do. I don't think it makes sex less pleasurable and I don't think there are significant health benefits to being cut if you shower every day. I've never had any infection down there but I've had infections in my ear, in cuts, in my gums... I'd love to see some statistics to back up this idea that circumcision is healthier. So male circumcision I don't care about. Female circumcision makes me very angry. That's basically removing the piece of a woman's body that allows her to enjoy sex. That's not remotely comparable to male circumcision. A better analogy would be cutting off the entire head of the penis.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on July 14, 2009, 04:32:37 AM
Quote from: "AlP"I'd love to see some statistics to back up this idea that circumcision is healthier.
From my understanding it's very low. Will posted a link to information earlier which might ahve your answer. :)

QuoteSo male circumcision I don't care about. Female circumcision makes me very angry.

Oh I agree. It didn't occur to me to to make the topic about that since surely everyone here would be of the same opinion.... (I hope)
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Fellow Traveler on July 14, 2009, 04:51:00 AM
Quote from: "AlP"It seems from the guys I've spoken to about it and the posts on this forum that most men are pretty happy with whatever their parents decided to do.
I think you're right. There are two problems though. First, there are some men who do care. Some intact men choose to get circumcised while some circumcised men try to reverse the procedure. The problem is that if you were circumcised and unhappy about it you're sort of SOL. The second problem is that complications can, and do occur. Considering that it is an unnecessary intervention performed on a non-consenting individual I don't think any risk of complications is reasonable.

Quote from: "AIP"Female circumcision makes me very angry. That's basically removing the piece of a woman's body that allows her to enjoy sex. That's not remotely comparable to male circumcision. A better analogy would be cutting off the entire head of the penis.

Both make me very angry. However you should know that there are many kinds of Female circumcision, it isn't always cutting off the clit or sewing the vagina shut. Some kinds are less invasive then MC.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on July 14, 2009, 06:44:09 AM
An interesting informational site on circumcision. (http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1352)  It was quite interesting to read as an American - the opinions are so different from the average American view on circumcision.  

So does it mean the Brits are a bunch of savages for only performing circumcisions when medically necessary or specifically requested?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on July 14, 2009, 07:21:19 AM
Quote from: "Fellow Traveler"Considering that it is an unnecessary intervention performed on a non-consenting individual I don't think any risk of complications is reasonable.
That is true. You just convinced me.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on July 21, 2009, 08:55:06 AM
Regrowing the foreskin. (http://www.malehealth.co.uk/userpage1.cfm?item_id=1432)

It sounds rather unpleasant, and you can never get the nerve endings back anyway...
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: jbeukema on August 17, 2009, 01:20:51 PM
I do not support religious genital mutilation with little to no medical benefit evidenced by modern research.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: jbeukema on August 17, 2009, 01:21:46 PM
Quote from: "Kylyssa"Some studies have also shown that infant circumcision affects the pain response in those infants even five months down the line. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/)  Later studies have compared the effect to PTSD.
Do you have links to these later studies, or know where or by whom they were performed?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: -43- on September 01, 2009, 02:45:24 AM
It is what it is, an archaic custom. But nobody is really harmed by it, so my apathy levels on circumcision are high.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Arctonyx on September 01, 2009, 06:23:29 PM
Quote from: "-43-"It is what it is, an archaic custom. But nobody is really harmed by it, so my apathy levels on circumcision are high.

Circumcision can lead to many problems in later life, but it is more the repulsion at taking something away from someone, without their consent, that they can never get back. There are some medical conditions where circumcision is a solution (such as hardening or tightening of the foreskin), but for religious reasons alone I would say that it is wrong. If they get to an age where they are allowed all the facts and can make a rational decision, and still want it done then I have nothing against it, it's their choice after all. But how can you do that to a child who has not even learnt his first word? He couldn't speak out against it even if he wanted to.

The only benefit of circumcision is hygiene, things like sensitivity vary so much from person to person anyway. Although some ladies do prefer a circumcised penis, again mostly for hygiene reasons.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: -43- on September 02, 2009, 12:54:32 AM
Are you pro-choice?
(I am, but you sound as if you aren't)
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on September 02, 2009, 03:52:27 AM
Quote from: "-43-"Are you pro-choice?
(I am, but you sound as if you aren't)

I don't see how...  these things are completely unrelated.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Tanker on September 02, 2009, 04:02:27 AM
Quote from: "Heretical Rants"
Quote from: "-43-"Are you pro-choice?
(I am, but you sound as if you aren't)

I don't see how...  these things are completely unrelated.

Hey it maks total sense to me I was about to ask what her favorite type of bagel is.

(-43- unless you somehow have a connection for those topics I would recomend an im for curiosity)
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: jbeukema on September 02, 2009, 06:11:27 AM
Quote from: "-43-"It is what it is, an archaic custom. But nobody is really harmed by it, so my apathy levels on circumcision are high.
http://www.circinfo.net/ (http://www.circinfo.net/)

http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/natura ... born03.htm (http://www.naturalchildbirth.org/natural/resources/newborn/newborn03.htm)

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/)

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html (http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html)
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: -43- on September 02, 2009, 06:40:53 AM
Quote from: "Arctonyx"
Quote from: "-43-"It is what it is, an archaic custom. But nobody is really harmed by it, so my apathy levels on circumcision are high.

Circumcision can lead to many problems in later life, but it is more the repulsion at taking something away from someone, without their consent, that they can never get back. There are some medical conditions where circumcision is a solution (such as hardening or tightening of the foreskin), but for religious reasons alone I would say that it is wrong. If they get to an age where they are allowed all the facts and can make a rational decision, and still want it done then I have nothing against it, it's their choice after all. But how can you do that to a child who has not even learnt his first word? He couldn't speak out against it even if he wanted to.

The only benefit of circumcision is hygiene, things like sensitivity vary so much from person to person anyway. Although some ladies do prefer a circumcised penis, again mostly for hygiene reasons.
That is a very pro-choice phrase, it's a common argument in any debate I have with that group.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Arctonyx on September 02, 2009, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: "-43-"That is a very pro-choice phrase, it's a common argument in any debate I have with that group.

I personally don't like abortion, but I realise that I have no right to judge others who go through with it, because they do so for their own personal reasons. Especially when factors such as rape, harm to the mother and abuse are involved. Take for example a case in Ireland a while back, a pregnant 14 year old who was raped, who was trying to travel to England to get an abortion was arrested and forced to go through lengthy court proceedings so she could travel to another country to have an abortion. And I disagree with the Irish authorities who perpetrated such a horrible act, so although I personally do not like abortion, you could probably describe me as pro-choice.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: SSY on September 02, 2009, 11:45:12 AM
Why respond at all if you are not going to continue the discussion or defend your beliefs?

You still have not explained why you asked that, or given any evidence to backup your viewpoint. Even if Arctonyx is pro choice, what does that have to with cutting off bits of peoples dicks?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Arctonyx on September 02, 2009, 11:46:51 AM
Quote from: "SSY"Why respond at all if you are not going to continue the discussion or defend your beliefs?

You still have not explained why you asked that, or given any evidence to backup your viewpoint. Even if Arctonyx is pro choice, what does that have to with cutting off bits of peoples dicks?

Well I assume the phrase is going to be turned around and used against abortion, 'taking away something they have no choice in'. But then all that happens is we get into a debate of when life begins.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Heretical Rants on September 02, 2009, 11:58:26 PM
Quote from: "Arctonyx"Well I assume the phrase is going to be turned around and used against abortion, 'taking away something they have no choice in'. But then all that happens is we get into a debate of when life begins.

It's not just that... it's totally different.  It's the difference between completely erasing a sketch on a canvas and removing an element that cannot be added later to the final painting, but still making the artist paint it, even though he may not be as happy with the final result.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Kylyssa on September 03, 2009, 08:51:51 PM
Quote from: "jbeukema"
Quote from: "Kylyssa"Some studies have also shown that infant circumcision affects the pain response in those infants even five months down the line. (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio/)  Later studies have compared the effect to PTSD.
Do you have links to these later studies, or know where or by whom they were performed?

I totally missed this question as I had stepped away from the thread because so many people became so upset about questioning circumcision.

I'll look around for some of my notes but one specific study I recall offhand was done by Doctors Ramos & Boyle somewhere between 2000 and 2002 in the Phillipines.  Then there were studies and medical publications from  Levy, Wright, Goldman and Cansever (who I will never forget because his name is can sever), and numerous others whose names I can't recall offhand.  I'll get more details once I find the notes to the articles I researched for - it was one computer and several re-formats ago.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on November 14, 2010, 07:26:20 PM
San Francisco may be voting next year on whether or not to outlaw circumcision (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/13/san-francisco-circumcision-ban-ballot-_n_783191.html). Of course the argument against it is, "It's your choice, it's your child...government can't rule us on everything we do." The way I see it: not your penis, not your choice. I'll never understand what makes some parents think they can own another human being.

Anyways, there's some opinion pieces published here (http://nymag.com/health/features/60158/) on this debate.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on November 14, 2010, 11:07:03 PM
I view circumcision as child abuse. Little more to say on the subject, really... If an adult wants his banana peeled, then it's no business of mine. I'd rather people didn't force it on kids though.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Lermontov on November 14, 2010, 11:48:46 PM
Quote from: "Asmodean"I view circumcision as child abuse. Little more to say on the subject, really... If an adult wants his banana peeled, then it's no business of mine. I'd rather people didn't force it on kids though.

Completely agree. What about Baptism?
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on November 14, 2010, 11:58:28 PM
Quote from: "Lermontov"Completely agree. What about Baptism?
Child abuse, that too. Maybe not physical nor directly psychological, depending on the following years, but still abusive.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Croaker on November 15, 2010, 06:16:06 PM
Quote from: "-43-"
Quote from: "Arctonyx"
Quote from: "-43-"It is what it is, an archaic custom. But nobody is really harmed by it, so my apathy levels on circumcision are high.

Circumcision can lead to many problems in later life, but it is more the repulsion at taking something away from someone, without their consent, that they can never get back. There are some medical conditions where circumcision is a solution (such as hardening or tightening of the foreskin), but for religious reasons alone I would say that it is wrong. If they get to an age where they are allowed all the facts and can make a rational decision, and still want it done then I have nothing against it, it's their choice after all. But how can you do that to a child who has not even learnt his first word? He couldn't speak out against it even if he wanted to.

The only benefit of circumcision is hygiene, things like sensitivity vary so much from person to person anyway. Although some ladies do prefer a circumcised penis, again mostly for hygiene reasons.
That is a very pro-choice phrase, it's a common argument in any debate I have with that group.

I know the timestamp on this one is old, but I feel there's an important point to be made here.

Pro-choice is not a position that advocates choice over anything and everything - just the one case of abortion, and as such is a bit of misnomer. I would argue for someone's ability to choose to have an abortion, since (IMHO) life has not begun yet. I would not, however, argue for someone to have the ability to "choose," say, whether their kid should have two legs because they belong to the Church of the Divine Pegleg, or the ability to "choose" that they don't want their kid to be a boy. These are not "choices" I would defend, and saying that someone who is "pro-choice" cannot argue against circumcision is a bit like saying that they can't argue against these (and infinite other) "choices."

My mother (devout Christian pediatrician) views circumcision as a barbaric practice. I agree with her, and was truthfully appalled when my mother in law asked me if we would be circumcising my children, even though I was still a believer at that point. The argument for 'cleanliness' is just lazy.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: borealis on November 15, 2010, 06:53:00 PM
Quote from: "Sophus"I'm just curious to see what the opinions on it are here. I know it's a bit controversial. So.... what do you think?

For short: child abuse. So I agree with Asmodean.

Don't get me started with this topic...
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: jam406 on November 16, 2010, 09:07:57 PM
Hey, I'm new here, first post.

Child circumcision is simply wrong though - unless it has to be done for medical purposes. Then it should be done by a proper doctor, not a religious believer/preacher/pastor, whatever. It's like in certain parts of the third world where they claim it as a 'Rite of Passage'. Completely medieval.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on November 16, 2010, 10:19:33 PM
Quote from: "jam406"unless it has to be done for medical purposes
When you are like zero years old, what medical purposes could circumcision have, that could not be achieved by less invasive procedures?

Welcome to HAF, by the way.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Sophus on November 19, 2010, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: "jam406"Hey, I'm new here, first post.

Child circumcision is simply wrong though - unless it has to be done for medical purposes. Then it should be done by a proper doctor, not a religious believer/preacher/pastor, whatever.
Like Tim Tebow.  :|
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: pytheas on January 20, 2012, 07:39:47 PM
for the male idiotic (obviously medical operations for health reasons excluded)
for the female a heinous crime

Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 09:01:03 PM
You just can't resist practicing the ancient and honorable art of necromancy, can you?  :P
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Anne D. on January 21, 2012, 08:05:09 PM
I consider circumcision to be mutilation and don't understand how it came to be par for the course here in the U.S. That said, I had never really given it much thought until I heard a show several years ago where a doctor talked about how much sensitivity is lost w/ circumcision. There seems to be a real need for public education around the issue. Kylyssa, thanks for the information on the medical problems that can result. I had no idea.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: The Magic Pudding on January 22, 2012, 02:02:37 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 20, 2012, 09:01:03 PM
You just can't resist practicing the ancient and honorable art of necromancy, can you?  :P

Aren't old threads there to be f***d with?
Shouldn't people be encouraged to seek a relationship with the dead?
I think its fine, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't talk back though, hey that could be part of the attraction.
For those who feel drawn to the dead, I won't judge you, (well I probably will but not necessarily negatively) go for it.
Old thread necrophiliacs, be proud.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on January 22, 2012, 07:15:51 AM
The Dead belong to The Asmo. How is he to create his army of zombies if they have all been resurrected? Huh? HOW?!  >:(




:P
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: philosoraptor on January 22, 2012, 07:48:32 AM
I think now, when it's no longer medically necessary, it's more a matter of aesthetics.  An uncircumcised penis kind of looks like a kolache.  It's just weird, although I think the reason we think it's weird when we see one is because we've been conditioned to believe it's not normal.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on January 22, 2012, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: philosoraptor on January 22, 2012, 07:48:32 AM
I think now, when it's no longer medically necessary, it's more a matter of aesthetics.  An uncircumcised penis kind of looks like a kolache.  It's just weird, although I think the reason we think it's weird when we see one is because we've been conditioned to believe it's not normal.
So what exactly is wrong with leaving the foreskin the fuck alone and then pulling it back when you want those circ'd aesthetics?

That said, where I am, a circumcised guy would be a rare find unless muzzie or a jew.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: pytheas on January 22, 2012, 03:38:41 PM
the only circumsized friend i had told me it gets more numb and is less sensitive when it matters, as it gets all the rub-and-wear from the clothing. This is also called desensitisation. like the skin of hands and feets that get rougher according to use, loose a number of receptors and feel less for the gentle statics   
he clearly wished he had not been subjugated to that mutilation-of sorts
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: The Magic Pudding on January 23, 2012, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: pytheas on January 22, 2012, 03:38:41 PM
the only circumsized friend i had told me it gets more numb and is less sensitive when it matters, as it gets all the rub-and-wear from the clothing. This is also called desensitisation. like the skin of hands and feets that get rougher according to use, loose a number of receptors and feel less for the gentle statics   
he clearly wished he had not been subjugated to that mutilation-of sorts

How would he know?
To what does he compare his sensitivity?
I wouldn't have thought cotton underwear would be all that abrasive.
Perhaps if you were a wild creature dangling your bits in briers and shrubberies it would be more of an issue.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: Asmodean on January 23, 2012, 07:08:26 AM
If he did it in a bout of foolishness as an adult, he could compare to himself before.
Title: Re: Circumcision
Post by: pytheas on January 23, 2012, 07:46:59 AM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on January 23, 2012, 12:47:50 AM
How would he know?
To what does he compare his sensitivity?
I wouldn't have thought cotton underwear would be all that abrasive.
Perhaps if you were a wild creature dangling your bits in briers and shrubberies it would be more of an issue.

it happened when he was a kid by force from FUCKHEAD parents, as usual
he remembers the feeling the first year, when it was sensitive and just by walking in cotton underwear it produced discomfort. Certainly as little boys do, he wouldnt charge off in a chase game as spontaneous as he used to.

As adults we projected comparisons. Ok its subjective but it still is an indication.
-if i were to uncloak and go for a walk with him , I  saw what he meant by "unconfortable"
-what could get hard as light touches and feather tongues, did nothing for him. It involved girls very interested in our discussion.
-his masturbation technique I found abrupt and overwhelming


At the end of the day if you have foreskin, staple it open for a day and see how it feels with a usual  pair of pants, especially after a sexual episode, when you are refractory and appreciate quietness and protection in the area