Cut or uncut?

ztoical

following on from the "does size matter" thread where a few comments regarding the attractiveness of male organs were made and it reminded me of a recent conversation with a friend. I was taking about an ex boyfriend who was Canadian and therefore circumcised - this seemed to really intrigue her as all her boyfriends were uncircumcised. Just got me wondering what the general view on circumcised vs uncircumcised was on this forum

watna

It doesn't bother me either way really. As far as I know it's very rare in Irish men unless they had problems with it.

An ex of mine was American and they all have it done but I can't say I've a preference.

I remember a friend of mine telling me a story about this. Her sister married an American and lives over there. When her son was born he was circumsised, without her asking for it in the hospital. She wasn't very happy about it but it's not like they couild glue it back on! So it really is the norm over there.

Anti

A lad i know got it done when were were around 13. All i remember about it is that its very unconfortable, as the bellend is very sensitive. And it took him a good few months to get use to the feeling. Its mean to be alot more hygenic too.

Anti

Anti wrote: »

Its mean to be alot more hygenic too.

We are not living in the dark ages though, people do wash! I know about the std thing, but we have condoms.
The real reason it is so popular in the US is because the religious types wanted to dampen sexual gratification.

Whatever about someone deciding for themselves, it is so barbaric to inflict that decision on an innocent baby.

Anti

Moonbaby wrote: »

We are not living in the dark ages though, people do wash! I know about the std thing, but we have condoms.
The real reason it is so popular in the US is because the religious types wanted to dampen sexual gratification.

Whatever about someone deciding for themselves, it is so barbaric to inflict that decision on an innocent baby.

I didnt mean more hygenic from the sexual point.... I meant it as an every day thing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, and you won't get dirt under your fingernails if you tear them off.

Refer to the washing point in my post.....~shudders as kaleidoscope of faces of grotty male work colleagues flashes before eyes~

Wibbs

Yea in the US it was started as an anti fiddling with yourself solution in victorian times and caught on. The idea of doing it as a matter of course to newborns is unreal. In some cases newborns have even lost their penis when the procedure goes wrong(thankfully rare).

The usual excuses trotted out are very similar as in areas where female circumcision is practiced. It's "tradition", it's "cleaner", it's for "religious" purposes", it "looks better". If it's considered abhorent to mutilate women(and it should be) then why is it ok to do it to newborn boys? makes no sense.

I take no issue with medical circumcision where warranted, but if there's nothing wrong in the area, lopping it off and taking a lot of sensitive tissue with it seems a tad too far. Apparently men who have it done are more likely to have retarded or premature orgasms as some of the stimulation nerve pathways are disturbed. Sensitivity is a lot less to boot. It evolved for a purpose.

watna

Wibbs wrote: »

It evolved for a purpose.

I suppose this would be my general thinking about it, but more so for female circumcision. The reasons given for doing it are crazy - I was reading up about it recently. I've also been watching a lot of nature programmes recently (sad, I know) and I'm definitely of the opinion now that Mother nature gets it right so there is a reason males/females genitals developed the way they did.

From an aesthetic point of view, it doesn't bother me, however, like moonbaby, I don't agree with it being done on babies, especially with no consent from the mother. No wonder my friend's sister was so annoyed.

watna

watna wrote: »

I've also been watching a lot of nature programmes recently (sad, I know)

Meerkat manor is more dramatic than the painfully addictive Fashion house.

Wibbs

I'll be honest i a doctor did that to my child I would sue for doing an unwarranted medical procedure. Hippocratic oath, first do no harm. As I say if it's medically required then fine. I would liken it to getting your appendix out. The appendix can become problematic and requires removal in such cases. No one would suggest removing all newborns apendixes as a precaution though.

I also agree that female genital mutilation is well out of order and the amount of sensitive tissue they remove is more invasive and it effects function. The male version is not as invasive clearly but it also effects function as it reduces sensitivity. If it didn't it wouldn't be covered in the first place. I think routine circumcision of newborn males is male genital mutilation. As I said the reasons I outlined above that they give for both are uncomfortably similar. It's scary it still goes on and no one bats an eyelid.

Wibbs

Moonbaby wrote: »

Meerkat manor is more dramatic than the painfully addictive Fashion house.

MIN2511

Not so keen on the extra skin, can be a nightmare when giving a bj. The men in my family were circumcised and i would be cirumcising my sons(with or without my husbands permission)

Dudess

I heard circumcision prevents urinary/kidney problems.

RuailleBuaille

Moonbaby wrote: »

The real reason it is so popular in the US is because the religious types wanted to dampen sexual gratification.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea in the US it was started as an anti fiddling with yourself solution in victorian times and caught on...lopping it off and taking a lot of sensitive tissue with it seems a tad too far. Apparently men who have it done are more likely to have retarded or premature orgasms as some of the stimulation nerve pathways are disturbed. Sensitivity is a lot less to boot. It evolved for a purpose.

Is this true? Does it really affect sensitivity? How does being circumcised stop men fiddling with themselves? This is mad, I never thought about it affecting anything, I guess I jst thought that living in a patriarchal, phallocentric society meant that the cock would always be looked after! All those poor willies!

fits

watna wrote: »

No wonder my friend's sister was so annoyed.

I would have been hopping mad if I were her, and sued for malpractice as Wibbs said.

I do not understand the fashion for it in the US... especially to inflict on newborn babies. It seems cruel and unnecessary to me.

I dont think its really comparable to female genital mutilation though, in that at least not all pleasurable sensation is removed (to be replaced by pain). How brutal is that practice?? :mad:

watna

Moonbaby wrote: »

Meerkat manor is more dramatic than the painfully addictive Fashion house.

Meerkats are surprisingly vicious!

I don't think there was much my friends sister could do about it. As far as I know the doctors were very blase about it and couldn't understand why she was so annoyed. I can only presume she signed some document somewhere that had it on it without realising. I was pretty shocked anyway!

I also think that compared to female genital cutting (type 4 or whatever the worst kind is called) it's nowhere near as bad. Although the fact that it is so accepted to do it on a newborn is shocking.

ztoical

fits wrote: »

I dont think its really comparable to female genital mutilation though, in that at least not all pleasurable sensation is removed (to be replaced by pain). How brutal is that practice?? :mad:

+1 at least when they do it to boys in the states its normally when they are babies and in a hospital. Regardless of wither it is cruel the actually operation is a straightforward procedure. The normally argument given now, other then religious reasons, is to help urinary tract infections but the nerves are left alone and it doesn't effect the man feeling pleasure when he is older and able to have sex.

Female genital mutilation is normal done in a back room when the girl is around 8 or 9. There is little care given to the girls feelings on the matter, most are forced to have it done and in extreme cases they cut off the whole clitoris thus stopping her from every enjoying sex and in some versions they sew her vagina up leaving only enough room for her periods and to pee. its an awful pratice

fits

ztoical wrote: »

Female genital mutilation is normal done in a back room when the girl is around 8 or 9. There is little care given to the girls feelings on the matter, most are forced to have it done and in extreme cases they cut off the whole clitoris thus stopping her from every enjoying sex and in some versions they sew her vagina up leaving only enough room for her periods and to pee. its an awful pratice

Some bleed to death, or lose an awful lot of blood at the very least too.

Its so sad.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

MIN2511 wrote: »

Not so keen on the extra skin, can be a nightmare when giving a bj. The men in my family were circumcised and i would be cirumcising my sons(with or without my husbands permission)

you no more have the right to do that to your sons penis than your father would have had to force you to get an abortion or give your child up 50 years ago.

Ginny

tis biased but does quote studies done on UTI and circumcisions.
http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm
and from the AMA
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

SW81

So do uncircumsised men enjoy sex more than circumsised men?

rain on

I once had.. relations.. with a circumcised guy, and I didn't even notice, I had to be told afterwards that he was circumcised
So I'd have to go with 'doesn't make a difference'.

Wibbs

Vespian wrote:

Is this true?

Pretty much though tradition and fashion took over. Yer man Kellog was a big supporter of the practice. He was all for living the natural life and then went fiddling with nature.

Does it really affect sensitivity?

Yep. Even pro types admit that, just not by how much.

How does being circumcised stop men fiddling with themselves?

The theory being that being less sensitive than natural will make a guy want to do it less. Plus for a cut guy to do it he also generally needs lube. Remember the scene in american pie 2? Where the bloke superglued his hand to his willy? He thought it was lube. Uncut guys would have gone huh? to that.

Dudess wrote: »

I heard circumcision prevents urinary/kidney problems.

Nope it reduces them. In any event girl babies get far more urinary tract infections than boys so should we operate on them to increase the length of their urethra? Of course not.

MIN2511 wrote:

Not so keen on the extra skin, can be a nightmare when giving a bj.

Unreal.

The men in my family were circumcised and i would be cirumcising my sons(with or without my husbands permission)

I agree with Mordeth. You're using one of the reasons for the female version. It's tradition and it looks better. Check out the anti FGM sites and look at the reasoning given by pro FGM people. "My mother/sister/friends had it done so..." It looks better and is more ladylike...":eek: Now if people can convince themsleves that FGM is ok and truly believ that, how can you know your position is not flawed?

I'm sure your husband or husband to be won't be happy to feel he's a glorified sperm donor with no say over his son's penile health. You don't possess one so how would you know the effect good or bad?

Would you stand for your husband having sole say over your daughter's reproductive system, or are you working on the principle that just because you gave birth to them all decisions are yours? I'm sure you don't believe that, but writing that makes it sound that way. Apologies if I'm wrong.

ztoical wrote:

+1 at least when they do it to boys in the states its normally when they are babies and in a hospital.

True but while that's safer of course it doesn't excuse the procedure itself.

Regardless of wither it is cruel the actually operation is a straightforward procedure.

The cruelty aspect is the heart of the matter though. I'm sure that there are women who undergo female circumcision in the care of doctors in the richer countries that practice it. Does that make it lesser? Of course FGM is barbaric. It should be consigned to history. I'm just saying that the usual reasons given for the male version, while less invasive are often the same. There can be complications as well. Scarring, too tight a cut which can lead to bending, etc. The risk is hardly worth the operation unless for clear medical reasons, which for the majority of newborn boys is far from the case.

The normally argument given now, other then religious reasons, is to help urinary tract infections

And as I pointed out baby girls get more than boys anyway circumcised or not.

but the nerves are left alone and it doesn't effect the man feeling pleasure when he is older and able to have sex.

The nerves aren't left alone. The foreskin contains a lot of nerve endings. Trust me I have one. The skin removed is not that small either when scaled up to adult size. In any case without the protective covering the head dries up and becomes keratinised. It basically gets a small layer of thicker skin. This reduces sensitivity. I know a guy who got it done(he had a normal willy) when he was 25 and his wife to be "preferred" it. He was in love so... Our suggestion that liposuction for her as a quid pro quo did not go down well.:D He says it was a bad decision as his sensitivity has dropped right off. While he can obviously still have sex and enjoy it, he says he lost the nuances. To put it in a woman's terms imagine your clit rubbing against cloth. That would be sensitive to the point of pain. Same with uncut willy. Now imagine after weeks of that the sensitivity would go down. I could not walk down the street uncovered without a lot of discomfort. Cut guys have no problem. Enough said

Nightwish

My oh is circumcised and I really like it. He had to get it done for medical reasons, which is fair enough but there is no way I'd have any future kids circumcised just for the sake of it.

Dudess

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope it reduces them. In any event girl babies get far more urinary tract infections than boys so should we operate on them to increase the length of their urethra? Of course not.

I was only referring to male circumcision. I think female circumcision is one of the most fukked up things ever - it's beyond sadism.

echosound

I think Wibbs has more or less said everything I wanted to say. Very good post Wibbs. I cannot fathom why people would want to inflict such uneccessary pain and long term effects on their baby boys. Medically necessary circumcision is one thing, circumcision for the sake of getting it done is barbaric.

Wibbs

I agree Dudess. It is but I was making the point that the argument that blanket circumcision on newborns as a method for stopping UTI's is pointless as girls get more anyway, yet we wouldn't dream of operating on them to "cure" it before it happened, so as an argument that one holds little water.

I agree that FGM is barbaric. In a big way. NO question. There are obviously degrees of barbarity. In general we don't see male circumcision as barbaric at all simply because it's done in the west. We're normalised to it, much as many in Africa and some Islamic countries would be with FGM(it's not particularly Islamic though). I'm sure that women who support FGM(and there must be quite a few) don't see it as barbaric in their eyes. After all they give almost the same reasoning for the practice. They also get uppity about the west imposing it's culture on them. It's all a question of perspective. I saw a programme on it on CH4 and they had a couple where the man wanted his daughters to have it done, but the mother didn't(though she was herself). His arguments were almost identical to MIN2511's point of view. All the women in his family had it done and he was going to go ahead with it regardless of the wife's opinion. I'm sure if FGM came up on a forum in one of those cultures people would be defending it.

ztoical puts it in an interesting way. It's done in hospitals so it's safe and that somehow takes nearly all the barbarity away from it. If we saw tribal types getting it done with a rusty blade(which happens) on adolescents then we would see it as more barbaric, because it's not medicalised and it's done to a more adult looking penis. It's the same thing only it's medicalised and done on babies who can't answer back. OK question. If a form of FGM was practiced that did not remove the clitoris and it was performed in hospital, would that make it OK? You see my point? Just because it's accepted, does not make it acceptable. There is also the point that just because doctors do it doesn't make it right. It's not that long ago that lobotomies were considered good medical practice. We are not in some medical end point now. Mistakes in procedures that are considered medically viable are being made every day. Mistakes we may well look back on as bad medicine.

Interesting stuff though.

Wibbs

Remember that african chap who got into trouble over a botched home male circumcision where a boy died? He got a lot of support from people saying it was part of his culture and he should have had the option of going to a doctor. Can you imagine the outcry if that had been a little girl? Even if he was "only" removing the corresponding tissue(clitoral hood and some of the labia)? Which is not far off the mildest form of FGM where the clitoral hood and sometimes a part of the clitoris itself is taken

Forget about degrees of barbarity for a second. Both procedures change the function and appearance of the genitals. Fact. There can be no debate about that. An uncut penis has diffferent functionality to a cut one no matter which way you look at it. The "gliding mechanism" alone is lost. Clearly the female version at it's most extreme does far more damge, but nonetheless damage is done to the male genitalia. How is one right and not the other? Makes no sense beyond cultural to do it on otherwise healthy males.

Susannahmia

MIN2511 wrote: »

Not so keen on the extra skin, can be a nightmare when giving a bj. The men in my family were circumcised and i would be cirumcising my sons(with or without my husbands permission)

You have no right to do that IMO. The father has a right to be consulted. And your children have a right to their bodies. Circumcision may be your preference but it may not be theirs. Why cant you just leave it and let them choose for themselves when their older. Its irreversible and could impede their future sex life and cause them so much unnecessary pain.

Oh and it retracts when erect so I don't know how that would effect you giving a blow job?

Dudess

What about for a practical reason like when the foreskin is very tight and it's causing problems with urinating?

According to my mother, research has shown there are less chances of a woman contracting cervical cancer if her partner is circumcised. Strange.