Cut or uncut?

gcgirl

Mordeth wrote: »

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?

Very well said !! I totally agree!

Susannahmia

Mordeth wrote: »

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?

Great post. Can't improve on that.

Peared

Having a blade slice through part of your baby's body for no medical reason is appalling.

What if your child needed vital surgery after it was born? Think of the worry, the fear, the thought of your baby feeling pain? Then wonder why the f*ck you would inflict all that on them because you think its "nicer."

Like when I see a baby with its ears pierced, my opinion of the parents changes accordingly.

Causing your child pain should go against every fibre of your being as a parent.

On a personal note, I prefer uncut. Tis more Irish

Fall_Guy

Hey, I very rarely post on boards at all but this thread caught my eye on the front page mainly because I had no idea what "cut or uncut?" referred to when reading it!

I'm guessing i'd be one of the minority on here in that i'm an Irish guy who is circumcised. Now I had the procedure done for medical reasons when I was about 9 or 10, as for whatever reason everyday life became particularly uncomfortable downstairs so I think it's pretty safe to say that in my uncut state sex would have been at the least unenjoyable and at the worst impossible.

I've never really had any girls show a particular like to my penis' cut state, but then again, i'm guessing most women would be tactful or sensitive enough not to show any dislike for a guy's penis even if thay did have it! One or two mentioned that they preferred it, but again, I'd put this down to flattery and ego-massaging more than any real preference!

As to whether or not it has made my sex life potentially less enjoyable I'll never know. Maybe I don't get the same sort of sensation as an uncircumcised person would, but I get a whole lot more than I would if I was still uncircumcised and found sex too painful to engage in at all!

The "lube" myth alluded to earlier is inaccurate on both counts (i'm referring to the myth that circumcised guy NEED lube to have a tommy, not that we don't secrete some form of foreskin related lubricant). One, I can masturbate quite ghappily without lube! Two, if you watch American Pie 2 again (which I did only the other night, coincidentally!) that is the first time jim ever attempted to use lube. Earlier in the film he even asks Stiffler "does that stuff really work?!).

But despite being a guy who sees no harm in my being circumcised today, I am also a guy who had the procedure done later in life and can remember vividly the pain i went through in the weeks following it. Until someone gives me a solid medical reason why a perfectly healthy baby boy should be put through that level of pain and discomfort, I can see no reason why anyone would wish to have their child circumcised. I can say with all certainty that I will not be having any of my children circumcised unless it is for unavoidable medical reasons.

I think this thread has gotten well and truly high-jacked, so in an attempt to draw it back on topic, I'm going to make the bold statement that I prefer the look of cut willies, seeing as I have to look at one everyday, whereas i'm only subjected to those uncut yokes on my very rare entry into gym changing rooms!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

you can grow your foreskin back

join us brother

robby^5

In regards to American Pie and Lube and what have you, I believe Stiffler said that it makes things flow better, in that with lubrication the sensitivy would increase for cut men (and uncut alike mind you, although dont see the point personally), who would otherwise be fairly dry down there generally.

I wouldnt thinks its necessary to use lube if cut as people have said, depends how you masturbate I suppose, for some guys who might prefer stimulating the top of there "lad" it would be sort of preferable in that case, with a foreskin, not so much.

Also while I dont agree with it, I wonder how painful circumscision actually is for a baby... Im not too read up on the subject, but wouldnt some local anistetic be used? Also having a forskin removed after years of having one is bound to be uncomfartable, but would it negatively affect a baby? afterlall their entire skin is pretty sensitive at first... that said I feel the whole thing is rather unecessary, also cant really understand women having a preference either way, they look virtually identical when erect.

Wibbs

robby^5 wrote: »

Also while I dont agree with it, I wonder how painful circumscision actually is for a baby... Im not too read up on the subject, but wouldnt some local anistetic be used? Also having a forskin removed after years of having one is bound to be uncomfartable, but would it negatively affect a baby? afterlall their entire skin is pretty sensitive at first....

From what I gather(and the vids posted earlier say similar), the physical measurable response to circumcision to a baby is pretty clear. All extreme pain responses. As you say babies are very sensitive. Now I wouldn't go too far down the tinfoil hat route and say this early trauma causes big problems down the line but I would suspect it has some effect. The need to physically separate the foreskin from the glans(it doesn't fully separate until later), can't be a good thing. Indeed if you get it done later in life that would not need to be done, so there may well be less trauma to the area than in an infant. Some seem to use anaesthetic, most it appears don't, seeing it as "minor" surgery. The traditional jewish/muslim one doesn't.

Having it done for medical reasons as Fall_Guy points out is far better than having a non functioning one and nobody would be crazy enough to object to that. Sensitivity becomes a moot point if you have none before. Doing to newborns for no other reason than culture and fashion when it clearly does damage to the penis is madness. The health benefit argument is largely a non starter. Even the american medical authorities agree. No one would suggest removal of all newborn's appendix or tonsils as a preventative measure.

Red Hand

I read this late last year and thought it was shocking-just shows you how screwed up some religious practices are. A child died after contracting herpes from a Rabbi who sucked on the wound (a part of his "tradition") after performing a ritual circumcision.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

Metzitzah
Less commonly practised, and more controversial, is metzitzah b'peh, (alt. mezizah), or oral suction,[2][3] where the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. The traditional reason for this procedure is to promote healing,[4][5] although the practice has been implicated in the spreading of herpes to the infant.

I don't know how some practices can be deemed acceptable out of "culture" and "tradition"-cutting off a foreskin with no anasthetic (or reason), sticking the child's penis in one's mouth and then infecting the child with a disease. The same for FGM-disgusting.

MIN2511

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I am not narrow minded, i am Black and it's common where i am from especially to contol HIV/AIDS.
////wikepedia////
Circumcision is most common in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia. According to the WHO, global estimates suggest that 30% of males have been circumcised.[8]
Opponents of circumcision condemn infant circumcision as being medically unjustified, an infringement upon individual bodily rights, and a cause of sexual impairment,[9] while advocates of circumcision regard it as a worthwhile public health measure,[10] particularly in the control of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa

gcgirl

MIN2511 wrote: »

I am not narrow minded, i am Black and it's common where i am from especially to contol HIV/AIDS.
////wikepedia////
Circumcision is most common in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia. According to the WHO, global estimates suggest that 30% of males have been circumcised.[8]
Opponents of circumcision condemn infant circumcision as being medically unjustified, an infringement upon individual bodily rights, and a cause of sexual impairment,[9] while advocates of circumcision regard it as a worthwhile public health measure,[10] particularly in the control of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa

Sorry but one way to combat HIV/AIDS is to use a condom does not matter if cut/uncut!

Susannahmia

MIN2511 wrote: »

I am not narrow minded, i am Black and it's common where i am from especially to contol HIV/AIDS.
////wikepedia////
Circumcision is most common in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia. According to the WHO, global estimates suggest that 30% of males have been circumcised.[8]
Opponents of circumcision condemn infant circumcision as being medically unjustified, an infringement upon individual bodily rights, and a cause of sexual impairment,[9] while advocates of circumcision regard it as a worthwhile public health measure,[10] particularly in the control of HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa

Wouldn't it be easier and less painful for your sons if you thought them the importance of condoms? These are much more effective and proven to actually work unlike circumcision. Or at least leave the circumcision until their older and let them weigh up the pros and cons themselves. You are removing all their imput into this huge choice about their bodies and sexual experience.

MIN2511

gcgirl wrote: »

Sorry but one way to combat HIV/AIDS is to use a condom does not matter if cut/uncut!

Obviously i know that, my brother died of AIDS....
He claimed he always used condoms, he wasn't gay, he didn't sleep with prostitutes... he may have used drugs though

he was circumcised btw

MarkR

Hmmm... Wonder what extra sensitivity I may be missing out on? Born in states and was done as a baby. No little turtleneck for me.

Silverfish

Irish GrumPy, either contribute or don't post.

The thread is still on track, and its fine.

MIN2511

MIN2511 wrote: »

Obviously i know that, my brother died of AIDS....
He claimed he always used condoms, he wasn't gay, he didn't sleep with prostitutes... he may have used drugs though

he was circumcised btw

Sorry to hear that Min.

_blank_

When I have a daughter, I'm going to have her genitals ripped apart. And I won't be telling the mother of my child either.

I've just decided, it's part of the DesF culture, so there.

I'm white, there's no basis for this in medical circles, but there you have it. I'm just going to do it.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

it's your right as a man.

Wibbs

MIN2511 wrote: »

I am not narrow minded,

With respect, your attitude and reasoning for the practice suggest otherwise. You have pointed out you would do it without input from the man you claim to love and respect. You have pointed out as a reason, that all the men in your family/culture have it done. Neither open minded arguments and exactly the same reasons given for FGM. Do you approve of FGM for cultural reasons? Would you approve of your husband getting that performed without your permission on your daughters?

Now we have other reasoning

i am Black

Not really pertinent really. America is largely white and they practice circumcision. I would suspect that comparing The US rates of circumcision with rates for the entirety of Africa would show that "white" America has a higher rate of the practice than "black" Africa. If you only mention your "race" as a description of your origins then cool, but race isn't the issue, culture is. The two are not that linked(except in the minds of right wing nutters). All Muslims and Jews would be cut, black white, yellow duckity puce..

and it's common where i am from especially to contol HIV/AIDS.

Really? To control HIV/AIDS. You've already pointed out that all the men in your family are circumcised. I would put money that your father and grandfather and those before them were too. Long before the emergence of the HIV virus as a threat.

It's culture and tradition, pure and simple, just like FGM in the cultures where that is practiced. I'm sure if some quasi protective effect was found in FGM women the proponents of that culture would jump on it as a justification.

Even in other areas of debate this happens. When some reports came out that eating pork was less healthy than other meats, Jewish and Islamic sources jumped on it as a justification for their respective religious practice. Naturally it's human nature. Now not eating sausages is one thing, having part of my sausage removed without my consent, for no good reason and to the detriment of function of said sausage in the name of "culture" is quite another. Cultural relativism is all very well up to a point. That point is reached when consent is removed and damage is done in the name of any culture. Just like FGM.

////wikepedia////
Circumcision is most common in the Middle East, the USA and parts of Africa and Asia.

Yes and with the exception of the middle east(strongly religious and stats are hard to come by), the other places mentioned have much higher HIV infection rates than Europe where the practice of Circumcision is far rarer. A reliable statistic? No. It's about as reliable as the pro circumcison/HIV angle. Food for thought? Yes. As the tragic loss of your brother and countless millions more who were circumcised, shows it is not a reliable protective measure. As Susannahmia and gcgirl point out practicing safe sex with condoms and avoiding intravenous drug use are the only reliable protective measures.

In fact even suggesting that circumcision is a way of avoiding HIV in developing countries is irresponsible. Condom use is already low and with the high infection rates among sex workers, circumcised men with little education would think they were safe. Telling people that this protects them would lead to an even bigger disaster. There have been enough reports from sub Saharan Africa of men raping 3 year olds because they think having sex with a virgin will "cure" them for that idea not to be too far fetched. Desperation and ignorance with sex thrown in are not good bedfellows.

Basically the cost does not outweigh the gain.

DesF wrote:

When I have a daughter, I'm going to have her genitals ripped apart. And I won't be telling the mother of my child either.

I've just decided, it's part of the DesF culture, so there.

I'm white, there's no basis for this in medical circles, but there you have it. I'm just going to do it.

Though tongue in cheek, that pretty much nails the position in all of it's quasi medical cultural ugliness.

MarkR wrote:

Wonder what extra sensitivity I may be missing out on? Born in states and was done as a baby. No little turtleneck for me.

It depends on what was removed but what you never had you wont miss.:D I'd leave the decision to your sons though.

Grawns

My partner is circumcised ( American) and it has done him no harm. However under no circumstances would I have it done to a child of ours.

Here's an interesting article about men who think they have been harmed by being cut.

On the other hand Circumcision does seem to prevent disease and I quote from a rebuttal article
"Circumcision earned its reputation as a cost-effective public health procedure for desert societies in ancient Egypt. Today the virtual absence of deaths from penile and cervix cancer, as well as lessened Aids and prostate cancer deaths in these societies, vouches for the lasting benefit that has been acquired from this procedure for peoples with limited access to water."

However

A fair point is that if a person wishes to reduce the risk of such diseases by penis surgery, it should wait until the child is of an age to make such a choice ( Yes young men of Ireland will queue up on such advise -Not bloody likely eh!)

Ciaran500

Grawns wrote: »

On the other hand Circumcision does seem to prevent disease and I quote from a rebuttal article
"Circumcision earned its reputation as a cost-effective public health procedure for desert societies in ancient Egypt. Today the virtual absence of deaths from penile and cervix cancer, as well as lessened Aids and prostate cancer deaths in these societies, vouches for the lasting benefit that has been acquired from this procedure for peoples with limited access to water."

Doesn't really apply to us.

Grawns

Ciaran500 wrote: »

Doesn't really apply to us.

I know and that's why circumcision is rare in Ireland!

gcgirl

Grawns wrote: »

My partner is circumcised ( American) and it has done him no harm. However under no circumstances would I have it done to a child of ours.

Here's an interesting article about men who think they have been harmed by being cut.

On the other hand Circumcision does seem to prevent disease and I quote from a rebuttal article
"Circumcision earned its reputation as a cost-effective public health procedure for desert societies in ancient Egypt. Today the virtual absence of deaths from penile and cervix cancer, as well as lessened Aids and prostate cancer deaths in these societies, vouches for the lasting benefit that has been acquired from this procedure for peoples with limited access to water."

However

A fair point is that if a person wishes to reduce the risk of such diseases by penis surgery, it should wait until the child is of an age to make such a choice ( Yes young men of Ireland will queue up on such advise -Not bloody likely eh!)

prostate cancer & Aids ?? Can any body with medical knowhow conferm this?

JC 2K3

It's the same principle as if you pulled all your fingernails off, dirt wouldn't build up underneath them and you'd be less likely to get an infection/disease because of this.

The alternative is washing....

In countries where they have little water and therefore don't have the means to wash themselves thoroughly everyday, it's understandable how circumcision could lessen the statistical instances of these illnesses.

In a developed country where people have access to clean, running water and shower daily, it's fairly useless, however.

Wibbs

From what I've read penile cancer is very rare to start with anyway. Cervical cancer IIRC is caused by exposure to a virus. Generally sexually transmitted. It's much rarer among virgins. Condoms give far better protection than getting the snip. Also in those Muslim countries female sexual expression and the amount of partners a woman is likely to have are a lot less than in the west, so exposure to the virus would be lower. Rates of cervical cancer among nuns is much lower that the general population and not a chopped willy in sight. That statistic is a about as valuable as saying you're less likely to be run over by a camel in Dublin.

Aids we've already covered. Condoms FTW. How and by what mechanism prostate cancer is prevented by circumcision is beyond me. It's like saying getting a haircut stops piles. I'm sure someone with a haircut fetish could find a link. It's more likely to be an effect of genetics, lifestyle and diet. Plus if the men die younger the incidence of the disease would be less as it's an older man's disease, by and large.

Grawns wrote:

I know and that's why circumcision is rare in Ireland!

Yet the americans have running water and a chopping they go. Clearly some wierd fashion fetish.

TerrorFirmer

From my experience girls don't really care generally if a guy is cut or uncut, however, they do care if the skin actually covers the glans when erect and find it disgusting - and that's speaking from what I've been told by girls. I have to say that sounds pretty....horrible to me too.

tallaght01

The rights of carrying out a procedure on a baby who can't consent is one thing. People will understandably have differing views on that.

However, we should be aware that circumcision of a baby is very very safe. It can't be compared in any way to doing things like removing appendixes, or altering the lengths or urethras, from that point of view.

Circumcision has risks, and has benefits.

The benefits outweigh the risks (when we look purely at number of lives lost/illnesses occuring Vs number of lives saved/illness prevented).

Circumcision reduces HIV transmission significantly. It reduces urinary tract infections in babies, which are potentially very serious infections, with potential for renal failure in the very young. Circumcision is also highly protective against penile cancer.

It also helps prevent transmission of cervical cancer etc to female partners. It helps with hygiene too.

Most american males are circumcised. Some grow up to regret it. This is where the argument about the rights of a baby comes in. Some of the benefits of circumcision are only seen if you circumcise the male when he's a baby. So, I guess the parents are making a choice, and doing what they think is best for the baby.

We don't see it too often on this side of the pond. But I have no huge problem with it, as long as the parents are well informed about the reasons for doing it, and the potential risks.

b3t4

My partner is circumsised. He's the first man I've been with who's circumsised and I must say I do prefer it. We haven't had call to use lube nor has his sex drive been dampened by it.

I'm in two minds now about whether I would have circusism performed on any boys I may have. I think I would leave this decision with their father as I believe he would be able to truly understand the outcome of the procedure.

A

JC 2K3

tallaght01 wrote: »

when we look purely at number of lives lost/illnesses occuring Vs number of lives saved/illness prevented

Which is a load of bollocks if you're going to include developing countries in this. And you're completely ignoring loss of penile sensitivity and human rights.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Circumcision reduces HIV transmission significantly. It reduces urinary tract infections in babies, which are potentially very serious infections, with potential for renal failure in the very young. Circumcision is also highly protective against penile cancer.

It also helps prevent transmission of cervical cancer etc to female partners. It helps with hygiene too.

Have you read any of this thread?

tallaght01

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Which is a load of bollocks if you're going to include developing countries in this. And you're completely ignoring loss of penile sensitivity and human rights.


Have you read any of this thread?

I read most of it.

There's a lot of untruths in it.

I'm as big an advocate of the rights of children as anyone. It's an issue very close to me.

If you're going to talk about human rights, there are far greater issues to concentrate on than male circumcision.

I don't know what bit you're describing as bollocks. If you let me know, I'll clarify. Presumably, though, when you say "if you include developing contries in this" you're implying I'm including "backstreet" circumcision. I'm not. But most devloping world hospitals do well with their operative risk when it comes to circumcision. That's why it's an attractive option in helping in the fight against HIV, and also penile carcinoma, which is much more common in developing countries.

Wibbs

I'm with JC 2K3, have you read through the thread. From what I can see your trotting out the same received wisdom on the subject

tallaght01 wrote: »

However, we should be aware that circumcision of a baby is very very safe.

Not circumcising is even safer.

It can't be compared in any way to doing things like removing appendixes, or altering the lengths or urethras, from that point of view.

Clearly but it still comes back to "first do no harm". The pain factor alone is worthy of note; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Pain_and_pain_relief_during_circumcision

Circumcision has risks, and has benefits.

Any medical operation has risks, the benefits are still highly debatable. The practice itself gained favour in the US in the first place on the back of bogus medical "benefits"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_circumcision_in_the_19th_century_and_early_20th_century
New arguments have replaced old. Mostly as a justification for the continuance of the practice.

The benefits outweigh the risks (when we look purely at number of lives lost/illnesses occuring Vs number of lives saved/illness prevented).

The benefits if any are few and the risks are higher. Even the simple risk of losing a large proportion of a man's erogenous tissue.

Circumcision reduces HIV transmission significantly.

Safe sex is significantly more effective and as I pointed out, suggesting that circumcision is protective in third world countries is a recipe for disaster. IN any case the obvious problem with the HIV preventative notion is that in many of the areas of the world that practice routine infant circumcision, they have higher infection rates than areas that do not.

It reduces urinary tract infections in babies, which are potentially very serious infections, with potential for renal failure in the very young.

As I also pointed out girls suffer more UTI's than boys, yet no one would suggest augmentation of their genitals.

Circumcision is also highly protective against penile cancer.

Which is so rare as to be hardly a recommendation for the practice. Not even on the radar and cut men can also suffer from it. Even the American medical assoc. feels the same; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Penile_cancer Further studies showed that the risk in countries that didn't practice routine circumcision was the same as those that did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer#Risk

It also helps prevent transmission of cervical cancer etc to female partners.

Again it has a very small effect and safe sex, number of partners and testing are many many times more important. There are as many sutdies that show little difference with HPV infection rates between cut and uncut men

It helps with hygiene too.

If proper hygiene is not taught in boys. Again the effect is very small

Most american males are circumcised. Some grow up to regret it. This is where the argument about the rights of a baby comes in. Some of the benefits of circumcision are only seen if you circumcise the male when he's a baby. So, I guess the parents are making a choice, and doing what they think is best for the baby.

Based on dodgy numbers and fashion mostly.

We don't see it too often on this side of the pond. But I have no huge problem with it, as long as the parents are well informed about the reasons for doing it, and the potential risks.

Risks? Yet it is very very safe and does little to effect function?

b3t4 wrote:

We haven't had call to use lube nor has his sex drive been dampened by it.

His sex drive maybe, his enjoyment of the full flavours of sex have, but as he hasn't experience of this, then fine. Lube or lack of it may be an issue as both of you age though.

I think I would leave this decision with their father as I believe he would be able to truly understand the outcome of the procedure.

Which is fairer than others who would do it regardless of their partners wishes. I would though that as he has no idea what it is like to have a fully functioning foreskin, his understanding is not as great as first appears.