Circumcision - Extreme body modification

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,424
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I was circumcised and I hate it.
And that for me counts for more than all the guys who were circumcised and love it. They have no idea how they would have reacted to being left with all their genitals, but they're almost certainly love that too, as the vast majority of the intact men in the world do.
 

henryontims

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Posts
55
Media
20
Likes
29
Points
103
Location
Tennessee
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
There is no evidence for that claim. Where there is substandard hygiene, circumcision would kill far more boys than it ever protected from anything.


The more I see of the steely determination of some parents to circumcise come hell or high water (like the guy in Canada who cut his own son on the kitchen floor with a carpet knife - after having botched his own), the more it becomes clear to me that infant circumcision is about POWER and CONTROL.

Actually, there is eveidence. People in the Old Testament did not have access to running water in their houses, nor did they have have soap readily lying about. Water was drawn from a well, and often there often issues with contaminated water due to everyone living in close proximity. Treating a circumcision with medicines to ensure healthy healing was better than an unclean foreskin. Jews and Muslims were obsessed with cleanliness, and that is why the Jewish faith has such a rigid structure for what they can eat and how they prepare it in order for it to be kosher.

I am not justifing circumcision, nor am I condemning it. I am just trying to point out how circumcision became normal practice.
 

descartes

Admired Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2012
Posts
59
Media
38
Likes
780
Points
418
Location
TN USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Snoz, definitely don't want a fight but some of the things you have said aren't quite the full story, eg:
No. The study showed that the FORESKIN is the most sensitive part of the penis.
We don't need a study to work that one out. It's obvious that the inner foreskin has specialised receptors on it. It is perfectly possible to retain all of the inner foreskin in a tight circ = no loss of specialised touch receptors. That is not the same thing as lower shaft resections and there is no possibility of nerve damage assuming normal surgical precautions are taken. The length of inner skin is variable and not always directly proportional to penile length but it is rare to see someone who has elected to keep all their inner foreskin to have the scar more than halfway down the shaft. It might be surgically difficult for some guys with very short penises to keep all their inner skin if they desire a tight circ but this can easily be assessed pre-op and an informed decision taken.

and never done to babies.
I think I might have mentioned that I don't think we should be doing RIC in any case no matter what the style of circ.

And that for me counts
Fair enough that's your prerogative but I think you are denying yourself the possibility of seeing the full picture. There's bound to be victims of RIC who hate their cut status. There's also bound to be many cut as adults, let's say less than optimally, who hate their cut status. To try to say that this completely wipes out all evidence of those cut but enjoy their status is hardly being open minded about the subject.

Soooo, Imo RIC is wrong and should cease. Anyone who takes the decision to be cut as an adult and finds out how to get it done for optimal sensation is unlikely not be disappointed. There will always be some though. That's life.
 

D_Malcolm_MacPudd

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 12, 2013
Posts
2,214
Media
0
Likes
55
Points
73
You look at the people who go over board and cover their bodies in tattoos, piercings, etc and chances are they are probably circumcised. Look at all the guys in porn who have covered their bodies in tattoos vs who dont, scott nails-cut, criss strokes-cut, julian rios-cut, tommy lee-cut, and all the uncut guys who get tattoos just seem to stick with one or 2-they dont go overboard altering their bodies. Its an observation i just realized but it seems to be somewhat true. Guys might subconsciously grow up thinking well i already had my dick snipped so lets just alter more of myself
 

9inchRick

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Posts
144
Media
18
Likes
244
Points
188
Location
New York (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, there is eveidence. People in the Old Testament did not have access to running water in their houses, nor did they have have soap readily lying about. Water was drawn from a well, and often there often issues with contaminated water due to everyone living in close proximity. Treating a circumcision with medicines to ensure healthy healing was better than an unclean foreskin. Jews and Muslims were obsessed with cleanliness, and that is why the Jewish faith has such a rigid structure for what they can eat and how they prepare it in order for it to be kosher.

I am not justifing circumcision, nor am I condemning it. I am just trying to point out how circumcision became normal practice.
I agree. It's similar to these same two religions avoiding pork/pig because of it's uncleanliness. Pigs are very dirty animals, and often host parasites. Much more so than other meats from cattle and fowl, etc. To this day, pork still has the highest instances of parasite infection and transfer, through contaminated meat, out of all common meats.
 

scanlan

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
1,842
Media
60
Likes
10,858
Points
383
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I hear a lot of people who talk about piercings, tattoos, etc... with disgust, and i wonder why... the first thing we do to new born baby boys is put them through one of the most strange and unneeded body modification procedures in the world... the circumcision. I've heard all the reasons... "it may get infected." Yes, so might his ears, why don't you have them removed? "I want him to look like his Daddy." Why, are you going to be fucking him?" "He may get laughed at in school gym class." Not if everybody stops lopping off plieces of their children he wont. And, not when women discover how much better sex with an uncut penis can be. Once while talking to a female pediatrician and shooting down one argument she had after another, she finally got to the heart of the matter... "Well, it just looks prettier to me." Ah yes... it has finally come to this we've performed this barbaric ritual for so long, it's just a cultural norm. So much so, that you can hardly get out of a hospital without them chasing you down with a pair of forceps and a scalpel. Just try this... inquire into having your baby girl circumcised.... you wont get out of the hospital because the police will be waiting at the door to take you away. I'm in no way comparing the brutal ritual of female circumcision to that of males, but the reasons for them are all very similar and the law about them should be too. No matter what your view of when life starts is, it certainly has started at the very latest, at birth. One of those rights should certainly be to not have parts of their body lopped off due to cultural whim. If after becoming an adult you wish to have it removed, go for it. But no body else should be able to make that choice for you.
Garg MAn

Look at this scar which I consider extreme body modification. I have never seen one as wide, but I get loads of compliments about it. I contacted a doctor in San Diego who specializes in reconstruction to see if it could be made less wide.

373419-1448152715-f7d3c007f81afc8536e6bb35642824dc.jpg
 

TravelerIAD

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Posts
5
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
38
Gender
Male
That's a beautifully cut cock! Your scar line is actually quite normal. The wide and "rough serrated" portion is not the scar, but what's actually left of your inner foreskin from your circumcision. If you see a two-toned dick, that's what you're looking at as well, except your color difference isn't as pronounced. So need to see a surgeon - you're perfect!
 

scanlan

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
1,842
Media
60
Likes
10,858
Points
383
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
That's a beautifully cut cock! Your scar line is actually quite normal. The wide and "rough serrated" portion is not the scar, but what's actually left of your inner foreskin from your circumcision. If you see a two-toned dick, that's what you're looking at as well, except your color difference isn't as pronounced. So need to see a surgeon - you're perfect!

Thank you so much for the reassurance. So the serrated part couldn't be fixed?
 
D

deleted871301

Guest
Look at this scar which I consider extreme body modification. I have never seen one as wide, but I get loads of compliments about it. I contacted a doctor in San Diego who specializes in reconstruction to see if it could be made less wide.

373419-1448152715-f7d3c007f81afc8536e6bb35642824dc.jpg

You have a beautiful cock! Leave as is... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: drambone2001

evolution

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Apr 8, 2016
Posts
1,214
Media
289
Likes
7,461
Points
433
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, there is eveidence. People in the Old Testament did not have access to running water in their houses, nor did they have have soap readily lying about. Water was drawn from a well, and often there often issues with contaminated water due to everyone living in close proximity. Treating a circumcision with medicines to ensure healthy healing was better than an unclean foreskin.

Allow me to display my historical ignorance. The quote seems to only justify circumcision once the foreskin has separated - not at birth. Was the tradition to circumcise at an older age, that roughly coincided with foreskin/glans separation?
 

Wei

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Posts
486
Media
0
Likes
898
Points
138
Location
Monterey Park (California, United States)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, no nation actually had a circumcision "policy", though it's true that the US, Australia, NZ and Canada went through periods where most boys' foreskins were pretty much automatically removed at birth. As they used to say, the biggest threat to a newborn's foreskin is the English language. All these countries took their cues from the early experiments with medical circumcision by the UK and US in the late 1800's. Whereas in England the fad was largely confined to the upper and upper-middle classes (and oddly didn't cross borders much into Scotland and Wales), in the colonies and former colonies the fad took solid hold in the early 1900s. Without Britain's rigid class distinctions, circumcision was equally and enthusiastically endorsed and applied by the medical profession across most socioeconomic lines -- at least those that could pay and those that didn't outright object.

In England, the rate never got much above about 35%, limited to the elite. A friend who attended Oxford University in the early 1960s said he never saw a foreskin in his college or from other colleges the whole time he was a student. It was practically unthinkable in the Oxbridge crowd before the end of WWII to not have your son circumcised. All this changed with the advent of the NHS in July 1948. Physicians' attitudes toward circumcision soured quickly and even the wealthiest Britons eventually took part in the scheme, so by the early 1950's England's circumcision rate was down near the traditional continental rate of 1% or so. The real nail in the coffin was an article in the British Medical Journal (Christmas 1949) by a highly respected paediatrician, Douglas Gairdner, DM.

Australia and NZ had probably the highest nonreligious circ rates during the 20th century, around 95-98%. This actually began around World War I and didn't start to come down until around 1970, so it is rare to find an intact Aussie or Kiwi guy over 40. New Zealand actually led Australia in this change by about 10 or 15 years, possibly owing to its closer ties with Britain. NZ didn't have its own medical society until the early 1960s; prior to that, it was the NZ chapter of the British Medical Association. As such, NZ docs were well aware of the British abandonment of infant circumcision, and this likely influenced attitudes, but it wasn't really until single-payer health came to NZ around in the late 1960s that the rate there began to plunge.

Canada, as a Commonwealth country, embraced infant circumcision, though not as aggressively as Oz and NZ. While Australia was busy snipping nearly every boy, Canadians never got much above about 80%, owing in part to the greater rural and farming population. This started to change in the late 60's and early 1970's as numerous British-trained doctors questioned the need for circumcision, just like in Australia. But the real drop came with the start of single-payer health systems province-by-province. The ones that dropped circumcision from coverage early, like Alberta, BC, and the Maritimes, saw rapid declines in the early 1980s. Ontario dropped coverage much later, but has also seen steep declines in infant circumcision.

The story in the US is, predictably, more driven by private enterprise than by social trends or commonwealth practices. The infant circumcision rate started to rise in the early 20th century, but didn't really take off until the big push for standardized hospital maternity wards after WWI. Between the world wars the US rate rose from about 25% to about 60%. After WWII there was an economic boomlet and companies were fiercely competitive for workers. However, the US maintained strict wage controls, so private industry turned to offering generous insurance benefits as lures -- fueled by an important IRS ruling that health insurance benefits were not taxable income to employees. These big private insurance schemes and later HMOs, today largely unsupportable, are still the cornerstone of the ailing US healthcare system. Male infant circumcision was added to virtually every insurance program by the early 1950s and doctors liberally took advantage of the guaranteed reimbursement.

Circumcision got one of its biggest pushes the year after WWII with the publication of Baby and Child Care by paediatrician Benjamin McLane Spock. His book became the bible of child-rearing in the 1950s and in it, he offered a circular-logic endorsement of infant circumcision: he suggested that circumcision was a good idea, particularly if most of the boys in the neighborhood were also circumcised, so a boy grows up feeling "regular". Of course, the opposite could have been argued if most of the boys in the neighborhood were not circumcised, but the end result was that just about every parent went along with circumcision. No one wanted their son to dwell on being "different" or, heaven forbid, to become a "homo". Plus, circumcision was rapidly becoming "free" with insurance.

Spock also revealed his general ignorance of intact anatomy by telling parents that if they did not opt for circumcision, they must systematically pull back their son's foreskin every day from birth for careful cleaning of the glans. He noted this may be difficult, and painful, at first, but must be done. In this way, many intact boys suffered painful adhesions and infections and ultimately needed to be circumcised, scaring many more parents into having their newborn sons circumcised. No matter that this wasn't happening in Europe, South America or Asia, where parents left their sons alone.

Significantly, Dr Spock later regretted his advice. He wrote in 1989 that he eventually came to believe there were no medical or hygienic benefits to infant circumcision, and his view was that routine circumcision of males is traumatic, painful, and of questionable value. He said he would not have any son of his circumcised, a sentiment shared by a high percentage of US doctors.

US circumcision reached its peak around the time of Kennedy's election, at probably around 90%. In more than a few communities it was 100%; in some rural areas, less. Blacks initially lagged behind, but eventually caught up and today have slightly higher overall circumcision rates than whites.

Meanwhile there were a few dissenters in print. One was a writer named Joseph Lewis, who wrote a 1949 book called "In the Name of Humanity". It was a solid treatise against what he saw (correctly) as the coming huge run-up in the infant circumcision rate. Another was a landmark article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) by Air Force Captain Noel Preston in September 1970. Its 3-sentence conclusion stated that routine infant circumcision was unnecessary and contraindicated. Shortly thereafter, in 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued its first statement on circumcision, stating "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

This was the start of American doctors and parents reëvaluating the need for automatic circumcision of boys at birth. The US medical community remained unpersuaded by worldwide medical opinion & practices regarding infant circumcision, but still has never officially endorsed the practice. With easier access to information showing the US has obtained no health advantages at all from mass circumcision, more and more parents and doctors are not bothering with the procedure. The US rate is now estimated to be somewhat under 60%, similar to at the end of WWII, down from about 80% when Reagan took office. But there will be no plunge similar to in Britain or the Commonwealth countries until US health insurance drops automatic coverage. Non-religious circumcision has always clearly been more an economic issue than a health or cultural issue.

By the way, strutter2, you're not alone in not knowing that probably every American guy you've met is circumcised. Most Britons and other Europeans are quite surprised when they learn this, since it seems at odds with prevailing views of the USA.

Superb post. Should win an LPSG Award.... :)
 

Wei

Admired Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2012
Posts
486
Media
0
Likes
898
Points
138
Location
Monterey Park (California, United States)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
I hear a lot of people who talk about piercings, tattoos, etc... with disgust, and i wonder why... the first thing we do to new born baby boys is put them through one of the most strange and unneeded body modification procedures in the world... the circumcision. I've heard all the reasons... "it may get infected." Yes, so might his ears, why don't you have them removed? "I want him to look like his Daddy." Why, are you going to be fucking him?" "He may get laughed at in school gym class." Not if everybody stops lopping off plieces of their children he wont. And, not when women discover how much better sex with an uncut penis can be. Once while talking to a female pediatrician and shooting down one argument she had after another, she finally got to the heart of the matter... "Well, it just looks prettier to me." Ah yes... it has finally come to this we've performed this barbaric ritual for so long, it's just a cultural norm. So much so, that you can hardly get out of a hospital without them chasing you down with a pair of forceps and a scalpel. Just try this... inquire into having your baby girl circumcised.... you wont get out of the hospital because the police will be waiting at the door to take you away. I'm in no way comparing the brutal ritual of female circumcision to that of males, but the reasons for them are all very similar and the law about them should be too. No matter what your view of when life starts is, it certainly has started at the very latest, at birth. One of those rights should certainly be to not have parts of their body lopped off due to cultural whim. If after becoming an adult you wish to have it removed, go for it. But no body else should be able to make that choice for you.
Garg MAn

Brilliant, insightful and humorous opener for a very important issue in America today....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DildoShwaggins

stax 68

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Posts
540
Media
0
Likes
415
Points
73
Location
los angeles
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
It's the oldest form of plastic surgery

It really is.

It's where an abnormal appearance becomes the norm or ideal...think breast implants and nose jobs.
In this picture you can clearly see where the scalpel cut into her nose and his cock.
Welcome to earth where people take knives to their noses and cocks...makes me cringe a bit.

cut_cut.jpg
 
1

1141702

Guest
I hear a lot of people who talk about piercings, tattoos, etc... with disgust, and i wonder why... the first thing we do to new born baby boys is put them through one of the most strange and unneeded body modification procedures in the world... the circumcision. I've heard all the reasons... "it may get infected." Yes, so might his ears, why don't you have them removed? "I want him to look like his Daddy." Why, are you going to be fucking him?" "He may get laughed at in school gym class." Not if everybody stops lopping off plieces of their children he wont. And, not when women discover how much better sex with an uncut penis can be. Once while talking to a female pediatrician and shooting down one argument she had after another, she finally got to the heart of the matter... "Well, it just looks prettier to me." Ah yes... it has finally come to this we've performed this barbaric ritual for so long, it's just a cultural norm. So much so, that you can hardly get out of a hospital without them chasing you down with a pair of forceps and a scalpel. Just try this... inquire into having your baby girl circumcised.... you wont get out of the hospital because the police will be waiting at the door to take you away. I'm in no way comparing the brutal ritual of female circumcision to that of males, but the reasons for them are all very similar and the law about them should be too. No matter what your view of when life starts is, it certainly has started at the very latest, at birth. One of those rights should certainly be to not have parts of their body lopped off due to cultural whim. If after becoming an adult you wish to have it removed, go for it. But no body else should be able to make that choice for you.
Garg MAn
YES.
 

masqlnbtm

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2012
Posts
285
Media
0
Likes
1,022
Points
263
Location
Brooklyn (New York, United States)
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Male
Look at this scar which I consider extreme body modification. I have never seen one as wide, but I get loads of compliments about it. I contacted a doctor in San Diego who specializes in reconstruction to see if it could be made less wide.

373419-1448152715-f7d3c007f81afc8536e6bb35642824dc.jpg
Nice looking cock.