Circumcision Question

[SteveHd]

I'm cut and I feel I have a whole penis.

Once again a pro-cutter is saying you can cut off part of a penis a still have the whole penis afterwards.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

We have to respect peoples preferences. If you have a big nose which you may think is ugly and you can afford cosmetic surgery then we all accept that choice. Female infibulation is a barbaric practice that can lead to horrific maternal death during childbirth. The reason given by its practitioners is it keeps women faithful because it obliterates sexual desire.
I am circumcised and I have no issues within myself about it but I certainly would not advocate it because there are no valid reasons that would withstand any intelligent critique. However, the parent who chooses to inflict this upon an nfant should be viewd with great suspicion - that it is a family tradition is not a reason it's an excuse. I think of that Americanism: If it aint broken then it doesn't need fixing.

 

[Magic 8]

Once again a pro-cutter is saying you can cut off part of a penis a still have the whole penis afterwards.

Where did I say any such thing?? I simply said that I am cut and I can not miss what I don't remember ever having! And what was cut off didn't affect the size of my penis one bit, or at least I hope it didn't. I wouldn't want it to be any bigger. I don't hate anyone for having me cut either and all I can say to those that have said they are angry with their parents for having them cut is I really do feel sorry for them for hating their parents or something so insignificant. If that's the best reason they can come up with for hating their parents, then I would think they need some serious psychiatric help as they have much deeper issues.

The question of circumcision is a personal preference. It is not my place to say anyone should or should not have it done. Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do, especially parents of a newborn son, it's their choice and they have the right to make that choice without people trying to force feed them their opinions and beliefs on the subject!

 

[NIMBUS]

The question of circumcision is a personal preference. It is not my place to say anyone should or should not have it done.

Agreed. If the individual wants to have a circumcision and has reached the age of majority then fine - go for it (and pay for it).

Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do, especially parents of a newborn son, it's their choice and they have the right to make that choice without people trying to force feed them their opinions and beliefs on the subject!

Here we disagree. It is not and should not be the choice of parents of a newborn son. If a doctor advises that it is going to be necessary due to a medical problem then fine, the parents have to make that decision in the interests of their child and sign the appropriate paperwork on the child's behalf. If there is no medical necessity for the procedure then then parents should be prohibited from making decisions of a cosmetic nature on behalf of their offspring.

I have no problems with circumcision (and have considered it myself on occasions) but there are no good reasons why anyone should make the decision to inflict cosmetic modification of the body on an individual below the age of majority. I feel exactly the same way when I see three- or four-year old children walking about with pierced ears, to satisfy the misguided vanity of their parents.

 

[baseball99]

It is not and should not be the choice of parents of a newborn son.

Legally, it is.

I agree with Magic 8 that people that have so much anger against their parents on this issue.....

 

[NIMBUS]

Legally, it is.

In the UK virtually all births are in National Health Service (or sometimes private) hospitals these days, since home birth was discouraged. Any parent requesting that their son is circumcised in an NHS hospital will, quite rightly, be told to fuck off and pay for it themselves. Only medically necessary procedures will be carried out. So yes, legally = true, practically = difficult (unless you have £400-£500 to spare for an unnecessary procedure at a private clinic) because the hospital will refuse to do it.

I agree with Magic 8 that people that have so much anger against their parents on this issue.....

Not me. I'm not cut. :wink:

 

[baseball99]

In the UK virtually all births are in National Health Service (or sometimes private) hospitals these days, since home birth was discouraged. Any parent requesting that their son is circumcised in an NHS hospital will, quite rightly, be told to fuck off and pay for it themselves. Only medically necessary procedures will be carried out. So yes, legally = true, practically = difficult (unless you have £400-£500 to spare for an unnecessary procedure at a private clinic) because the hospital will refuse to do it.



Not me. I'm not cut. :wink:

right but the rights still currently fall with the parent. The only time a parent truly does not have say in medical treatment is if they choose to withold life saving treatment for a minor, in which case doctors can act in the patients best interest

 

[danerain]

right but the rights still currently fall with the parent. The only time a parent truly does not have say in medical treatment is if they choose to withold life saving treatment for a minor, in which case doctors can act in the patients best interest

And the limitations placed on this right are? If a parent has the right to choose to have part of their son's penis cut off, what else do they have the right to have removed? I'm not being flippant, I really want to know.

 

[baseball99]

And the limitations placed on this right are? If a parent has the right to choose to have part of their son's penis cut off, what else do they have the right to have removed? I'm not being flippant, I really want to know.

Circumcision is a grey area and in medical law there are lots of shades of grey also. For example Jehovah's witnesses have every right to refuse a life saving blood transfusion for themselves, but, if the victim is say an 8 year old child, the parents can refuse all they want, however, doctors have the right to act in the best interest of the child. It becomes very confusing when say a child becomes 16.

My comments were not to stir up issues. It is what currently is written.....parents currently have the right to choose or not choose circumcision. That right is legal, i'm not getting into moral issues. Two things are certain in this world, taxes and getting nowhere when arguing morals

 

[SteveHd]

Where did I say any such thing??

You implied that in post 139 ... "I'm cut and I feel I have a whole penis." Well, "cut" and "whole" are in conflict with each other.

I simply said that I am cut and I can not miss what I don't remember ever having!

That's different, and quite true. It's an unknown: you can't know what you never had!

I don't hate anyone for having me cut either and all I can say to those that have said they are angry with their parents for having them cut is I really do feel sorry for them for hating their parents or something so insignificant.

I don't hate my parents nor am I angry at them. They made a decision based upon bad advice and societal pressure. However, they've both left the planet so that's rather moot. Most Intactivists feel the same. Some do blame their parents but I/M/O most don't because we're all well aware of the bullshit they dealt with. As for "insignificant," my cut wasn't. I got an ugly breadcrust circ-scar, divots and gouges in my glans, a misaligned raphe, and other "cosmetic enhancements". Insignificant my ass!

Magic 8, you seem to use the word "hate" a good bit. In the "Circumcision Question" thread you were the first person to use that word. Intactivists aren't a bunch of haters. We hate the institution of "routine infant circumcision" but that's a nameless, faceless entity. I don't hate individuals.

The question of circumcision is a personal preference.

If that refers to adults, then we agree on something.

Far be it from me to tell anyone what to do, especially parents of a newborn son, it's their choice and they have the right to make that choice without people trying to force feed them their opinions and beliefs on the subject!

I wouldn't tell a new parent "what to do". I would give advice but advice and "force feed" aren't the same. I don't "force feed". In USA and per law, it the parents decision. That won't stop me from giving advice. I'd like to see the law changed, but that's a different and very distant topic.

 

[SteveHd]

Danerain, I'll stick my neck out and add to what BB99 wrote. In such "gray areas" the courts often have to decide it. To overrule the parents, the doctors/hospital have to get a court order, as I understand it. I've read of such cases in the media. Heartbreaking.

 

[HazelGod]

I'd like to see the law changed, but that's a different and very distant topic.

Wow.

The fact that there exists a highly-organized activist group whose focus concerns the penises of infant males is extremely disturbing. Do these people seriously have nothing more worthwhile to occupy their time and interest?

I was cut, and am actually thankful that my parents made the decision. I prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised cock. Most guys that I know are both cut and carry the same opinons. I know none whose operation was botched in any way, and none harbor any resentments about having been "robbed" of their "whole penis." Most women I know also prefer the circumcised look.

Granted, this is a sample of one, and isn't statistically significant...but it amounts, in my mind, to a preponderance of circumstance. Quite frankly, the last thing our nation needs is another opinion-driven piece of legislation imposed between ourselves and our medical decisions. Statistically speaking, with any operation, shit can happen. There is some numerical percentage of patients who will suffer detrimental effects. Is this number significant enough in the case of neonatal circumcision as to present a categorical threat to the health and safety of infant males? I should think not. So why the push for a law that categorically proscribes the practice?

Get a life and stop obsessing over what parents may or may not decide to do about their newborn sons' foreskins.

 

[Late Knight]

Hey guys,

I've got an issue.

come January, I'm getting circumcised, and as much flak as I'll get for this, I have no choice in the matter, a severe case of phimosis is causing me issues, so I finally made the decision to get cut.

I'm not gonna lie, I'm absolutely terrified, I've had a foreskin 19 years, and it provides some damn good pleasure, but the phimosis is causing me problems that can only be solved by circumcision, it's such a case where it actually restricts my size, and I can't have sex because the skin tears it's so tight.

I understand that I'll be losing a lot of nerve endings, and a fair bit of skin, but I spoke with the urologist, and he's going to remove as little skin as it takes to remove the phimosis, but what i want to ask is, any of you guys who have had the cut done, or know someone who did, how bad was it? or if they prefer being cut, what are the big pros of having it done? Thankfully, I'm getting a loose circumcision, so I won't have the big issue of the 'high & tight cut' this doesn't appeal to me, as I've always had a fair bit of skin to play with :wink:. But I just wanted to get some first hand opinions, or even second hand, so long as it's constructive

Don't get the whole foreskin cut off! If you must just have it losened a little. You'll be sorry if you lose it!

 

[SteveHd]

The fact that there exists a highly-organized activist group whose focus concerns the penises of infant males is extremely disturbing.

They're slightly organized. Their focus is protection of a boy's right the choose as-an-adult what's done to his own dick.

Do these people seriously have nothing more worthwhile to occupy their time and interest?

Similar things have been said of all activists throughout history.

I prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised cock. Most guys that I know are both cut and carry the same opinons. I know none whose operation was botched in any way, and none harbor any resentments about having been "robbed" of their "whole penis." Most women I know also prefer the circumcised look.

Are you advocating routine infant circumcision?

Quite frankly, the last thing our nation needs is another opinion-driven piece of legislation ...

Isn't most legislation opinion-driven? But don't fret about it, though. I figure it will be decades before such a bill gets passed in USA.

Statistically speaking, with any operation, shit can happen.

If there's no medical need -- i.e. a cosmetic procedure which R.I.C. is -- then such mishaps are avoidable.

There is some numerical percentage of patients who will suffer detrimental effects.

If it happens to you, it's 100%.

Is this number significant enough in the case of neonatal circumcision as to present a categorical threat to the health and safety of infant males?

Categorical threat? No. The big issue is the right to self-choice. Some guys, such as me, don't like what was chosen for them.

Get a life ...

I'm retired. I have a condo that's 6,200ft from the Atlantic and has a nice view of the Halifax river. I don't need the "life" you're suggesting, whatever it is.

... and stop obsessing over what parents may or may not decide to do about their newborn sons' foreskins.

We may differ about whether it's "obsessing," but I want all males to choose themselves -- via informed consent and their own signature -- a cosmetic procedure commonly known as "circumcision". If the O.P. chooses circumcision, I'll be fine with it. I consider him fortunate that he has that choice.

 

[baseball99]

Danerain, I'll stick my neck out and add to what BB99 wrote. In such "gray areas" the courts often have to decide it. To overrule the parents, the doctors/hospital have to get a court order, as I understand it. I've read of such cases in the media. Heartbreaking.

Eh, not all of the time. There are definitely circumstances where emergent medical care can be performed with no court approval whatsoever.....for example a 6 year old child with jehovah's witness parents who is bleeding to death and needs an emergency transfusion within minutes or they will die.....does not need court approval prior to administering the transfusion

 

[Snozzle]

Wow.

The fact that there exists a highly-organized activist group whose focus concerns the penises of infant males is extremely disturbing.

What's extremely disturbing is that every 26 seconds in the US, some baby is strapped down and part of his genitals are cut off, and so few of us care. How different it would be if they were adults, girls, dogs, or any other part of the body! Highly-organised? I wish! I think the circumcisionists are better organised at the moment: they seem to be making the running.

Do these people seriously have nothing more worthwhile to occupy their time and interest?

It's more worthwhile than being curled up in front of mindless TV with a beer.

I was cut, and am actually thankful that my parents made the decision. I prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised cock. Most guys that I know are both cut and carry the same opinons. I know none whose operation was botched in any way, and none harbor any resentments about having been "robbed" of their "whole penis." Most women I know also prefer the circumcised look.

Granted, this is a sample of one, and isn't statistically significant...but it amounts, in my mind, to a preponderance of circumstance.

And in Europe or Scandinavia, the vast majority of men are intact, "prefer the aesthetic" and their women prefer that look. As for none being botched, I've just seen a picture of an 18-year old's skin bridge. Brrrr! While only a few cut men complain of being robbed, NO intact men do.

Quite frankly, the last thing our nation needs is another opinion-driven piece of legislation imposed between ourselves and our medical decisions.

It's not a medical decision. No national medical organisation in the world recommends it.

Statistically speaking, with any operation, shit can happen. There is some numerical percentage of patients who will suffer detrimental effects. Is this number significant enough in the case of neonatal circumcision as to present a categorical threat to the health and safety of infant males? I should think not. So why the push for a law that categorically proscribes the practice?

Because it's a human rights issue: whose penis is it? Let him decide whether to have part cut off.

Get a life and stop obsessing over what parents may or may not decide to do about their newborn sons' foreskins.

You wouldn't say that if it was daughters, dogs, adults or any other heathy non-renewable part of the body. What's so special about foreskins that makes them fair game for parental whim?

 

[danerain]

You wouldn't say that if it was daughters, dogs, adults or any other heathy non-renewable part of the body. What's so special about foreskins that makes them fair game for parental whim?

Which, at the end of the day is the real question at hand.

 

[NIMBUS]

What's so special about foreskins that makes them fair game for parental whim?

Exactly. There is a minimum age at which juveniles (in the UK) can legally get tattoos done to cosmetically enhance (?) their bodies and no parent can overrule that because they prefer the look, so why is circumcising a penis different? Parents would not be able to get any other part of the body of their child surgically altered at their whim, why is the foreskin different?

As I've said before, I am fully in support of circumcision where it is medically necessary and the parent has to make a timely decision for the benefit of the child, on its behalf (I am not anti-circumcision at all). In the UK such circumcisions are done free of charge under the National Health Service and it is entirely correct that that situation should continue. Under any other circumstances the procedure should fall into the same criteria as any other cosmetic body modification, a decision to made by the individual (and paid for by them) at or above the age of majority.

 

[chico8]

Statistically speaking, with any operation, shit can happen. There is some numerical percentage of patients who will suffer detrimental effects. Is this number significant enough in the case of neonatal circumcision as to present a categorical threat to the health and safety of infant males? I should think not. So why the push for a law that categorically proscribes the practice?

Get a life and stop obsessing over what parents may or may not decide to do about their newborn sons' foreskins.

I'm one of them. My sex life was ruined because some ass hat of a doctor took too much off. You can bet your ugly scarred up, desensitized little dick that I wasn't the only one and that it continues today.

Parents no longer have the right to have girls circumcised, why should boys not deserve the same protection?

 

[SteveHd]

There is a minimum age at which juveniles (in the UK) can legally get tattoos done to cosmetically enhance (?) their bodies and no parent can overrule that because they prefer the look, ...

Interesting ... I like that law. Which gives me an idea: Combine tattoos and piercing with MGM and FGM (which is already banned by Federal law) into comprehensive anti-alteration law. It might be more difficult to pass than MGM alone, though.