Cut or uncut?

Susannahmia

Dudess wrote: »

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

.

Well obviously that's completely different as the procedure is necessary.

Wibbs

Yep in medical cases of course it's ok. Then again there are other options before the snip. If they don't work then fine. It can be a partial one too.

The virus that is one of main causes of cervical cancer is also blocked more effectively by condoms. Having fewer sexual partners is also protective but I wouldn't be suggesting something that extreme. A lot of this pro research also comes from the US so sometimes have to be taken on balance. The HIV protection is one where depending on the research you read varies all over the place. The earliest stats looked at circumcised men having much lower HIV infection rated in certain parts of Africa. What wasn't so obvious was that they were men who were predominantly Muslim or devout Christians, low risk groups to start with. The US itself is a good example. The US has a higher rate of HIV than Europe as a whole, yet Europeans are far less likely to be circumcised. Obviously a circumcised penis having thicker dry skin provides less of an environment for any virus to survive, but as a panacea compared to condom use it's not so good. Indeed some research showed that circumcised men were more likely to practice unsafe sexual practices due to lack of sensitivity and increase the risk of disease. Depends like all stats on what you read into them.

Dudess

Man, you know your sh1t when it comes to this particular topic!

Wibbs

Yea a good mate of mine was up for this procedure for medical reasons and he naturally wanted to keep as much as possible. he found an alternative after a lot of looking and didn't need to get it done. Well with his newly happy willy he ended up with a boy on the way and his partner wanted to get it done to the child "just because". Needless to say he did his research and I hadn't thought much about it like most I have to admit, but he opened my eyes. She took some convincing as she was the type who rarely questioned a damn thing about received wisdom. When you start looking at this from a different angle it does beg some questions as to why FGM is so much more attacked(naturally) yet the male version is considered nothing.

gcgirl

Leave things as they are suppose to be!! I would not put my son through one so it looks good! FFS ! If he had a problem with the skin i would not have a problem but there are things to do to strech the skin as his father had a tight foreskin streching cured it for him!

gcgirl

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)

But when a penis is erect you don't have excess skin! fair enough if he stats out being mr floppy but i my self never had any problems giving bj's!

RedXIV

MIN2511 wrote: »

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

I can promise you now, from a male perspective, there is nothing more sacred in a man's life than downstairs. I'd be pretty pissed if my mother had decided to give me one for no reason than the men in her family before me had one. thats like saying every man before you had a brand burned into his skin so brace yourself!

Tzetze

When cultures claim that male circumcision is done for religious reasons, what exactly are those reasons? Did their God leave some imperfect 'loose ends' in need of a little tidy up?

Like a lot of religious reasoning, it seems to involve little sense. (Sorry if that offends anyone, but that's just my opinion.)

JC 2K3

I don't get the argument that it's more hygenic. I mean, of course statistically it'll be "more hygenic", because I'd bet a good number of men don't wash there(probably because of embarassed/clueless parents not teaching their sons how to). However, once a guy washes there daily(30 seconds in the shower), all the arguments about it being more hygenic, less likely to contract HIV etc. go out the window.

Wibbs

Tzetze wrote: »

When cultures claim that male circumcision is done for religious reasons, what exactly are those reasons? Did their God leave some imperfect 'loose ends' in need of a little tidy up?

Maybe God requires upgrades on the part of the user.:D

Gauge

I am completely opposed to circumsising babies for no reason other than 'well, everyone else does it...' I was quite shocked when I went to the US and all the guys we stayed with were circumsised and thought it was totally normal.

As for preference, I think it totally depends on the guy and not the state of his foreskin. It's more about personal hygeine than whether they're cut or not. I've never noticed a difference between the two once they're in action.

SW81

God I don't think I'd even notice the difference....I don't think many Irish guys are circumsised though?

JC 2K3

Nah, it's not a routine procedure here like in the US.

From what I've read online, it's generally regarded as more attractive, but this is probably due to the fact that most sites I've read are American and this is what American women are used to.

I don't think women really find penises all that attractive anyway....

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FgMOJIYEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKZ4Xkydbgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gpi8Dn62Mg

tv show about circumcision in america, warning.. it does at some point show a baby being circumcised.

worth seeing, but pretty horrible.

SW81

Horrible.

Wibbs

The attractive thing is a weird one alright. I knew an american woman who reckoned the uncut penis looked too animal like for her. It wasn't "natural". Contradictory or what(contra Dick... Oh god. I'll get my coat). That programme I caught on FGM the men and women who were for it also had a similar take. they reckoned the natural female genitalia was ugly and looked animal like too. They felt they were improving on nature. Mad.

Star Lord

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I'd just like to call bull**** here, you've mostly got your facts right, apart from on this one.

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.

This much is true, but it is still incredibly sensitive!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

but it still reduces sensitivity... which is what he said

Wibbs

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

I'd just like to call bull**** here, you've mostly got your facts right, apart from on this one.

I did say generally. In any case how many uncut guys would use lube? Very few. We produce our own.

This much is true, but it is still incredibly sensitive!

As Mordeth points out it does reduce it. Let's take your above first point on lube further. There is no way in hades that I could *ahem* rub the sensitive part without lube. There's no way. We're talking strong discomfort nay pain here. So if you don't require lube to do so then sensitivity must be by that logic significantly less.

An albeit clumsy comparison would be my eye and eyelid. My eyelid is sensitive, but my eye being an intermittent internal body part is more so. I would suspect if my eyelid was removed my eyeball would become less sensitive to touch and would soon feel like my eyelid did. If my eyelid was a 3 on the sensitivity scale, my eyeball would be a 10. That would be close enough with regard to the uncut willy. Add that many of the nerve pathways that trigger orgasm are also compromised by its removal and it goes beyond sensitivity. If you're circumcised as a newborn, the of course you have no memory of sensitivity. Likewise if you needed to get it done because of medical reasons. The guy I knew who had a normal one and got it done for his wife, found out to his cost the loss of it.

As I said when a willy is dysfunctional because of a foreskin problem then I say yes go for the snip if that will sort it, as any functionality is better than none. Leaving it in place in that case the guy will get little or no pleasure anyway.

What I do object to is the blanket unnecessary surgery on newborn boys, for the sake of fashion, culture or misguided ideas about perceived benefits. I object to the idea among some(especially women???) that "ah sure it's only a piece of unnecessary skin so lop it off". An attitude that would be rightfully quite different if it was been done to newborn girls. Both are unnecessary mutilations of the genitals.

Wibbs

If nothing else the ladies roundabout are getting an insight into the willy. Can't be bad.:D

Unaton

Wibbs wrote: »

I did say generally. In any case how many uncut guys would use lube? Very few. We produce our own.

I thought pre-cum was like lube. I feel like a moron now, know nothing about male genitalia. So natural lube is produced somewhere under the foreskin? My OH had the foreskin stitched back when he was 4 or 5 (medical reasons) so I've nowhere to look and investigate myself lol.

MIN2511

Susannahmia wrote: »

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?

There are decisions we make in life, personally my sons would be circumcised.
Different strokes for different folks

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you don't have the right to make that decision for your child. It is his penis, not yours. That is child abuse, pure and simple.

will you be ripping the clitoris off your female children?

Wibbs

Unaton wrote: »

I thought pre-cum was like lube. I feel like a moron now, know nothing about male genitalia. So natural lube is produced somewhere under the foreskin?

I wouldn't feel like too much of a moron. Most guys don't know much about their own, never mind womens. Same goes for a lot of women. The rub it cos it feels good, apply that to the other gender and forget about the rest would be common. Probably why so many(men and women) reckon getting the snip is such a small thing.

Precum is lube, but the uncut willy is kept moist as it's essentially an internal body part(much like the vagina). The foreskin produces some moisture itself, add in the aforementioned lube and that keeps it well sorted as it where. A cut guy also produces pre cum, but without the foreskin it would not be as efficiently spread around. Sounds more like a car part.:D Again much like your eye. The eye itself doesn't really produce lube for the eyeball, the tear ducts do and the eyelid spreads the tears evenly over the eyeball. Very good design an all that.

My OH had the foreskin stitched back when he was 4 or 5 (medical reasons)

Well it would have been removed not so much stitched back if you know what I mean?

JC 2K3

MIN2511 wrote: »

Different strokes for different folks

You aren't your sons.

Wibbs

MIN2511 wrote: »

There are decisions we make in life, personally my sons would be circumcised.

As Mordeth said these are not decisions based on a medical need, they're based on a preference.

The preference to mutilate the genitals of women is outlawed, yet proponents of that would be just as convinced as you of their "right" to do it. If not it wouldn't happen. You're coming from exactly the same position as those who advocate FGM yet strangely you don't see the connection. Can you answer that point or have you dug your heels in no matter what, just because all the men in your family had it done and it interferes with oral sex for you? Again FGM supporters contest it gives the man more pleasure and doubtless you would object to that from a feminist and humanist point of view. Where is your feminist and humanist ire where the genital health of your own sons are concerned? Even to begin to see the other point would be a start but apparently not.

The wishes of your husband would also be ignored, yet he himself is in possession of the very organ you wish to "augment" unnecessarily in his sons, yet he far more than you if uncut himself would know what was at stake. Even if he was circumcised and wanted to break the chain of this practice with his own sons(as many women against FGM are doing), you still would not even listen to the arguments? That with respect is an incredibly narrow world view.

Different strokes for different folks

Bad choice of words.:D So again on that basis of different strokes for different folks, would you agree that women from cultures where FGM is practiced have the "right" to perform that on their daughters without their consent if done medically? Can you answer that one? After all they're different folks with different strokes. can you not see the implications of such a stance regardless of the procedure in question?

Unaton

Wibbs wrote: »

I wouldn't feel like too much of a moron. Most guys don't know much about their own, never mind womens. Same goes for a lot of women.

Ah thanks. That clears up a lot! Poor OH, next time I'm near his pants, I'll be conducting a little research

Gyalist

MIN2511 wrote: »

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

I don't know the views of the other men posting on this thread but what you wrote above would definitely be a deal breaker for me.

Wibbs

Agreed. IMHO It shows a very narrow way of thinking, a self centered view of the world that brooks no discussion and a simple lack of respect for the opinion of the partner and indeed the genital health of the son, who has no voice. While I would respect the opinion of a anyone who wanted to do this who would at least discuss it and give reasons beyond "it's just the way it is" Reasons that when explored fall away as pretty empty.If there was discussion and the option of waiting until the sons could make the decision for themselves for whatever reason was in play, That I could understand. The heels dug in no matter what is a very bad trait in a personality. Deal breaker isn't in it.

Silverfish

"Cut" should never be mentioned in relation to below the waist or above the knees