felipe: FireflashUk...yes I know that tight foreskins are a likely cause of being unable to pull back a foreskin but so are very long ones....have you never come across the ones that look like trunks?? Also, some people are not as friendly with soap and water as others. Having been around a bit I have had several unfortunate experiences with lads 'allergic' to soap and water.
duzyamuthano: i was uncut until i was 18, when i was circumcised due to phimosis (a foreskin too tight to roll back over the glans). i take my hat off to the surgeon who 'did' me: the scarring is minimal, and very close to the head, so that when i'm hard it's kind of difficult to tell which i am.
as a gay man, i prefer uncut cocks, since a) to me they look more natural, and b) there's more to play with. it's kind of nice to know when you first see a flaccid uncut dick that there's more on offer than first meets the eye
. for myself, i'd prefer still to have my foreskin, but given that its removal was my choice i'm happy with what i've got.
i note what people say about hygiene, and it's certainly true that uncut + bad hygiene = yuk in many cases. but we roundheads can be guilty of insufficient grooming as well: it just doesn't manifest itself in the same way.
but beauty doesn't all reside in the foreskin, and like others here i've seen ugly uncut penises and dreamy circumcised dicks. i think the bottom line, though, is that each man should have the penis that he elects to have, rather than have an amputation inflicted on him at an age when he's entirely unable to protest or resist. (i know this is probably going to provoke ire...)
as a gay man, i prefer uncut cocks, since a) to me they look more natural, and b) there's more to play with. it's kind of nice to know when you first see a flaccid uncut dick that there's more on offer than first meets the eye
. for myself, i'd prefer still to have my foreskin, but given that its removal was my choice i'm happy with what i've got.i note what people say about hygiene, and it's certainly true that uncut + bad hygiene = yuk in many cases. but we roundheads can be guilty of insufficient grooming as well: it just doesn't manifest itself in the same way.
but beauty doesn't all reside in the foreskin, and like others here i've seen ugly uncut penises and dreamy circumcised dicks. i think the bottom line, though, is that each man should have the penis that he elects to have, rather than have an amputation inflicted on him at an age when he's entirely unable to protest or resist. (i know this is probably going to provoke ire...)
Curtis: Lilamy is right. It is barbaric. I was circumcised as an infant, and I've spent most of my adult life wishing I wasn't.
The tissue covering the glans of the penis is not skin. It is super-sensitive tissue full of nerve endings, designed to enhance the pleasure of sex. God gave us foreskins for a reason - to protect this sensitive area from the bumps and scrapes of everyday life. The glans was not intended to be exposed 24 hours a day.
Daily life for me contains frequent moments of discomfort, as I constantly need to adjust my penis to a comfortable position. It seems that, no matter what sort of underwear or pants I wear, my glans is always being rubbed, pinched, irritated or stimulated (causing ill-timed erections). I can't help but feel that if my foreskin were intact, I could just let it hang naturally and forget about it.
There was a time when the conventional wisdom among the US medical profession was to recommend infant circumcision as standard procedure, to prevent infections. Perhaps this had some merit before the days of indoor plumbing, when weekly baths were the norm. Why this practice continues in spite of the lack of any controlled research to prove its efficacy is mind-boggling.
Most of you have heard of the international outcry over the practice of female circumcision in some middle eastern cultures. Young girls are forcibly mutilated, either by removal of the clitoral hood or in some other way. While this practice is abhorred by civilized societies, we continue to allow the genitalia of baby boys to be surgically altered in a similar manner. I fail to see the difference.
I once read an article by a doctor who discontinued the practice when he realized he was performing elective surgery without the patient's consent. It's time for infant circumcision to be denounced as such. Any parent of a baby boy whose doctor recommends circumcision should demand to see published research showing some advantage to the practice.
I strongly encourage any of you who may someday become parents of a boy to forego the painful and unnecessary practice of circumcision. It is a decision that should only be made by the owner of the penis involved.
Curtis
The tissue covering the glans of the penis is not skin. It is super-sensitive tissue full of nerve endings, designed to enhance the pleasure of sex. God gave us foreskins for a reason - to protect this sensitive area from the bumps and scrapes of everyday life. The glans was not intended to be exposed 24 hours a day.
Daily life for me contains frequent moments of discomfort, as I constantly need to adjust my penis to a comfortable position. It seems that, no matter what sort of underwear or pants I wear, my glans is always being rubbed, pinched, irritated or stimulated (causing ill-timed erections). I can't help but feel that if my foreskin were intact, I could just let it hang naturally and forget about it.
There was a time when the conventional wisdom among the US medical profession was to recommend infant circumcision as standard procedure, to prevent infections. Perhaps this had some merit before the days of indoor plumbing, when weekly baths were the norm. Why this practice continues in spite of the lack of any controlled research to prove its efficacy is mind-boggling.
Most of you have heard of the international outcry over the practice of female circumcision in some middle eastern cultures. Young girls are forcibly mutilated, either by removal of the clitoral hood or in some other way. While this practice is abhorred by civilized societies, we continue to allow the genitalia of baby boys to be surgically altered in a similar manner. I fail to see the difference.
I once read an article by a doctor who discontinued the practice when he realized he was performing elective surgery without the patient's consent. It's time for infant circumcision to be denounced as such. Any parent of a baby boy whose doctor recommends circumcision should demand to see published research showing some advantage to the practice.
I strongly encourage any of you who may someday become parents of a boy to forego the painful and unnecessary practice of circumcision. It is a decision that should only be made by the owner of the penis involved.
Curtis
prepstudinsc: I'm cut and I am glad that it was done. I think that a cut penis looks better. I've only seen a few uncut ones at my gym and they look pretty gross. I'm a germaphobe (is that a word? lol) and the thought of bacteria breeding and festering under a foreskin just repulses me. If I was uncut, I would have to wash myself everytime I went to the bathroom. It would just be too labor intensive. My college roomate was uncut and during our junior year he had to be circumsised due to phimosis. He told me that while it was painful for a little while, he was glad that he had it done because he's much happier being cut.
I think it goes back to the old "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" adage. We always want what we don't have....dark haired people want to be blonde (just look at all the women who bleach their hair), hairy men want to be smooth, smooth men want some hair, etc. I have a good friend who has very little hair on his chest and his biggest complaint about how he looks is that he's not hairy.
My point is that while I'm glad I'm cut, I'm more glad that I have a dick that works, and that it is much larger than normal.
As an aside, I've got a friend who has a genetic trait that none of the men in his family have foreskins....he says it's from his father's side of the family. They are all uncut because there is nothing to cut. Their foreskins are so short, that it just barely touches the corona of the head. I've seen him in the shower at the gym and it looks like he's just cut loosely. I forget how we got on the subject of being cut or not and he said that he wasn't cut. I told him that it looked like he was.....that's when he launched into this story about his genetic lack of foreskin. It's pretty funny and he's cool about it. He told me that he likes being uncut but having no skin. LOL
I think it goes back to the old "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" adage. We always want what we don't have....dark haired people want to be blonde (just look at all the women who bleach their hair), hairy men want to be smooth, smooth men want some hair, etc. I have a good friend who has very little hair on his chest and his biggest complaint about how he looks is that he's not hairy.
My point is that while I'm glad I'm cut, I'm more glad that I have a dick that works, and that it is much larger than normal.
As an aside, I've got a friend who has a genetic trait that none of the men in his family have foreskins....he says it's from his father's side of the family. They are all uncut because there is nothing to cut. Their foreskins are so short, that it just barely touches the corona of the head. I've seen him in the shower at the gym and it looks like he's just cut loosely. I forget how we got on the subject of being cut or not and he said that he wasn't cut. I told him that it looked like he was.....that's when he launched into this story about his genetic lack of foreskin. It's pretty funny and he's cool about it. He told me that he likes being uncut but having no skin. LOL
felipe: Curtis, you canot compare female and male circumcision at all. In actual fact, what is referred to in female circumcision is not at all circumcision, rather ablation. This involves the removal of the clitoris, the outer and/or inner labia, which, if it were comparable with men, would mean the removal of the glans or the entire penis. feamle ablationnis designed to prevent women from enjoying sex and is therefore an extreme form of male abuse of women. This is the big difference between male and female genital surgery, let's not get confused. Real female circumcision involves the entire or partial removal of the clitoral hood something that is not routinely done but is performed on women for specific reasons.
I agree that infant circumcision is disagreeable if it is done 1)without anaesthetic, 2)against the parents' wishes 3) without parents' knowledge 4)just to add up on the doctor's bill. If it is done without anaesthetic, then I agree that it is barbaric, but if there is anaesthetic etc., then I do think that calling this barbaric is demeaning the word, and comparing male circumcision with female ablation is incorrect, hysterical and only serves to dilute the cause against female mutilation.
You say that if you ahd a foreskin, then you'd have less problems with your penis, maybe, maybe not. when I had a foreskin, it conmstantly rode up, got caught, once or twice it got caught in my flies (good fun that one), had innumerable yeast infections ( main reason why I got cut last year) etc. Yes, the grass is always greener on the other side, but for me, as I have had experience of both looks, I am definitely very happy being cut.
I agree that infant circumcision is disagreeable if it is done 1)without anaesthetic, 2)against the parents' wishes 3) without parents' knowledge 4)just to add up on the doctor's bill. If it is done without anaesthetic, then I agree that it is barbaric, but if there is anaesthetic etc., then I do think that calling this barbaric is demeaning the word, and comparing male circumcision with female ablation is incorrect, hysterical and only serves to dilute the cause against female mutilation.
You say that if you ahd a foreskin, then you'd have less problems with your penis, maybe, maybe not. when I had a foreskin, it conmstantly rode up, got caught, once or twice it got caught in my flies (good fun that one), had innumerable yeast infections ( main reason why I got cut last year) etc. Yes, the grass is always greener on the other side, but for me, as I have had experience of both looks, I am definitely very happy being cut.
- jonb,
They don't use anesthetic. Medical doctrine of 19th century Europe was that infants didn't feel pain. Infants can't take much anesthetic, anyway.
However, in the 19th century, Kellogg (the guy who started this whole circumcision fad in English-speaking countries) managed to be even more barbaric than female circumcision: He suggested burning off clitorises with acid to stop female masturbation.
However, in the 19th century, Kellogg (the guy who started this whole circumcision fad in English-speaking countries) managed to be even more barbaric than female circumcision: He suggested burning off clitorises with acid to stop female masturbation.
alternate: Okay, I'm sort of different in this area.....
No, I'm not circumsised, but.....
I have a (very) slight case of hyposdias (did I spell that right?) Which causes my urethra to come out towards the bottom of my glans (but only slightly), as opposed to coming straight out of the head. As such, I have a foreskin, but it does not continue around the underside of my penis. Are you getting a mental picture? I mean you would not be able to tell except for under CLOSE inspection, and I didn't even know that it was different than anyone else's until high school, when I noticed it that way in pictures. I just thought that growing up all of the diagrams of the urethra coming straight out of the penis was an error of somesort. Oh well.
Does anyone else have this issue, or even know what I'm talking about? I actually don't know a ton about it, so any info could be helpful. Thanks!
No, I'm not circumsised, but.....
I have a (very) slight case of hyposdias (did I spell that right?) Which causes my urethra to come out towards the bottom of my glans (but only slightly), as opposed to coming straight out of the head. As such, I have a foreskin, but it does not continue around the underside of my penis. Are you getting a mental picture? I mean you would not be able to tell except for under CLOSE inspection, and I didn't even know that it was different than anyone else's until high school, when I noticed it that way in pictures. I just thought that growing up all of the diagrams of the urethra coming straight out of the penis was an error of somesort. Oh well.
Does anyone else have this issue, or even know what I'm talking about? I actually don't know a ton about it, so any info could be helpful. Thanks!
Hey Alternate....
Actually, that difficult word is spelled: hypospadias.
(Several websites exist, check with www.google.com.)
--Then do a search by entering "that" hard word.
Also, to get you started, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hypospadias
(possibly) some good links in that long list within that group.
--Hope this helps.
Actually, that difficult word is spelled: hypospadias.
(Several websites exist, check with www.google.com.)
--Then do a search by entering "that" hard word.
Also, to get you started, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hypospadias
(possibly) some good links in that long list within that group.
--Hope this helps.
sammygirly: Hmm, I have always been torn on this issue. Firstly, almost every penis I've seen has been cut - so I tend to prefer the cut look. Now, when I was pregnant with my little boy, I faced the issue - to circumsize or not?
I read everything I could find to help me weigh the arguments either way. What I found, was that the positive and negatives of either/or basically balance themselves out medically - and you're left to make the decision based on personal preference. So, after there was no medical reason to cut or not, then I was faced with moral issues. Is it barbaric? Do I have that right as a parent (and a woman).
Finally - I went in to give birth with the decision made. He would be cut (in Canada, they do it before mom and child leave the hospital normally) so he would look like daddy. (shh I was pregnant, it made sense to me then). After I saw my little boy however...I wouldn't have it done.
Why? I don't know that I'll ever know. But the answer I give to other mothers who ask is: Once the foreskin's gone, it's gone. But if it's still there, it can still come off. Why not let him choose for himself when he's able?
Anyway, that's my opinion. I still prefer cut personally ;D
I read everything I could find to help me weigh the arguments either way. What I found, was that the positive and negatives of either/or basically balance themselves out medically - and you're left to make the decision based on personal preference. So, after there was no medical reason to cut or not, then I was faced with moral issues. Is it barbaric? Do I have that right as a parent (and a woman).
Finally - I went in to give birth with the decision made. He would be cut (in Canada, they do it before mom and child leave the hospital normally) so he would look like daddy. (shh I was pregnant, it made sense to me then). After I saw my little boy however...I wouldn't have it done.
Why? I don't know that I'll ever know. But the answer I give to other mothers who ask is: Once the foreskin's gone, it's gone. But if it's still there, it can still come off. Why not let him choose for himself when he's able?
Anyway, that's my opinion. I still prefer cut personally ;D
Sammygirly,
First, thanks for your candor. It's great to hear a mom's take on this issue. Making such a crucial decision isn't clear sometimes is it? -- when your "preference" may not necessarily be the correct answer or what's in the long-term best interest for the child...(serious) health issues aside of course.
More and more often, it appears that "routine" circumcison is something that can indeed be delayed until much later in life
I was cut as an infant; but I don't blame my parents.
More than likely, your son won't either.
But, I certainly would have preferred to have made that all-important decision for myself when I was an adult.
Thanks again, for sharing.
First, thanks for your candor. It's great to hear a mom's take on this issue. Making such a crucial decision isn't clear sometimes is it? -- when your "preference" may not necessarily be the correct answer or what's in the long-term best interest for the child...(serious) health issues aside of course.
More and more often, it appears that "routine" circumcison is something that can indeed be delayed until much later in life
I was cut as an infant; but I don't blame my parents.
More than likely, your son won't either.
But, I certainly would have preferred to have made that all-important decision for myself when I was an adult.
Thanks again, for sharing.
Finedessert: The below was taken from the" BULGE REPORT ", it was posted to answer if Prince William was cut or not. If the story is true I think this is the way to go, let the young man make his own decision on being circumcised when he reaches the age of consent.
"The story as I have heard it: When William was born in 1982, there was a big debate over who was going to slip the tip. The Queen wanted a Jewish rabbi and some suggested that, for safety reasons, it be done by a doctor in a hospital. But Princess Diana would have none of it. She insisted that the practice was barbaric and that William would retain his foreskin. She won. At Age 15, after coming back from a military training exercise, William took a few days off from Eton College and went to a hospital for what the press called "elective surgery". The big rumor is that he had the tip snipped then by his own choice."
Grandpa
"The story as I have heard it: When William was born in 1982, there was a big debate over who was going to slip the tip. The Queen wanted a Jewish rabbi and some suggested that, for safety reasons, it be done by a doctor in a hospital. But Princess Diana would have none of it. She insisted that the practice was barbaric and that William would retain his foreskin. She won. At Age 15, after coming back from a military training exercise, William took a few days off from Eton College and went to a hospital for what the press called "elective surgery". The big rumor is that he had the tip snipped then by his own choice."
Grandpa
prepstudinsc: re: British royals being cut
I heard that it's just an old tradition that goes back to the Victorian era. The royal family had their son circumcised as a means to dissuade masturbation. (If I remember corrctly) The tradition has just been carried on to this day.
It's really no different than the reasons that we Americans are generally cut. My dad dropped dead at age 32 when I was just a few months old. According to his autopsy report, he was cut. Both my parents were/are in medicine, so I'm sure the decision to circumcise me was partially tradition (my dad was cut) and the fact that my parents were looking at the facts as they were taught in school in the early-mid 1960's.
I am glad I'm cut, I don't remember anything about it, since I was only a few days old when it happened. I have a nice circumcision, without any skin bridges or stuff, so who cares. I think mine looks better cut.
I heard that it's just an old tradition that goes back to the Victorian era. The royal family had their son circumcised as a means to dissuade masturbation. (If I remember corrctly) The tradition has just been carried on to this day.
It's really no different than the reasons that we Americans are generally cut. My dad dropped dead at age 32 when I was just a few months old. According to his autopsy report, he was cut. Both my parents were/are in medicine, so I'm sure the decision to circumcise me was partially tradition (my dad was cut) and the fact that my parents were looking at the facts as they were taught in school in the early-mid 1960's.
I am glad I'm cut, I don't remember anything about it, since I was only a few days old when it happened. I have a nice circumcision, without any skin bridges or stuff, so who cares. I think mine looks better cut.
i found this in the nytimes today - you have to register i think to read...but no big deal. i can vouch for the accuracy of some info....circumcision cures alcoholism...i am cut and really don't like the taste of alcohol.
;D ;D
where'd they get these ideas.
check it out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/national/23CIRC.html?todaysheadlines
jay
;D ;D
where'd they get these ideas.
check it out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/national/23CIRC.html?todaysheadlines
jay
bradleeM: The reason why that Britain and America circumcise is because there is a very strong belief that these two countries are descendants of the Hebrews and are bound by the covenant that God made with Abraham and his offspring. All of Abraham's descendants circumcise their male offspring.
There are those that find medical reasons for circumcising that do not feel comfortable with the religious reason. But that is really the reason behind those two countries circumcising. Also the British Royal family believes they are the direct descendants of the Royal line of Israel begun by David, each of their monarchs are crowned on the seat of David and over the Rock from Jerusalem that both David and Solomon were crowned.
I know this is more than you wanted to know, but there are historical reasons for a lot of things going on today that people are not aware or do not remember.
There are those that find medical reasons for circumcising that do not feel comfortable with the religious reason. But that is really the reason behind those two countries circumcising. Also the British Royal family believes they are the direct descendants of the Royal line of Israel begun by David, each of their monarchs are crowned on the seat of David and over the Rock from Jerusalem that both David and Solomon were crowned.
I know this is more than you wanted to know, but there are historical reasons for a lot of things going on today that people are not aware or do not remember.
[quote author=bradleeM link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=30#36 date=01/23/03 at 10:50:04]The reason why that Britain and America circumcise.....[/quote]
Actually, I haven't met that many Brits that were cut. In fact, once in The Hoist in London I was continuing a conversation with a guy while I was taking a pee, and it got around to where I was from. When I said I was from the States, he replied:"
"Really? You're American? I would have guessed you were from London, just, er, Jewish."
I took this to mean that Londoners expect gentiles to be uncut, which is consistent with my limited experiences.
Actually, I haven't met that many Brits that were cut. In fact, once in The Hoist in London I was continuing a conversation with a guy while I was taking a pee, and it got around to where I was from. When I said I was from the States, he replied:"
"Really? You're American? I would have guessed you were from London, just, er, Jewish."
I took this to mean that Londoners expect gentiles to be uncut, which is consistent with my limited experiences.
- jonb,
I'm familiar with the cult Brad mentioned, though. They're called Identists, and they're very racist. They also think the rest of us are soulless "mud people". They'd be laughable if not for their semi-ritual murders. (They also think Jews are descended from Satan via Ham's wife.)
Lost Tribes theories are a dime a dozen. Actually, anthropology began as an ad hoc hypothesis to "explain away" all these peoples who couldn't possibly be related to Genesis.
Lost Tribes theories are a dime a dozen. Actually, anthropology began as an ad hoc hypothesis to "explain away" all these peoples who couldn't possibly be related to Genesis.
bradleeM: Hi Jon,
Not familiar at all with the group you mentioned. That is a new one on me.
The only group that I am aware of that teaches what I mentioned was "The Worldwide Church of God". There may be others. But the information they provide is from historical sources, current and past, as well as the Jewish and Greek bibles.
They also teach that it does not matter if you are circumcised or uncircumcised, if you live in America and UK and are descended from them (like Canadians, Australians, Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos) you are a part of the that heritage. America, alone has over 144 nationalities represented, and the UK is a part of a Commonwealth of Nations (50 total I believe). The concept of the Lost Tribes is the fact that the people living today are not aware of their heritage and so they practice what they want............such as, freedom of circumcising or not circumcising.
That church ( I am not a member, just enjoy history), does not teach racists ideology.
If you live here or there, then you receive the blessings that were bestowed on Abraham, until there is a change.
Hope that clears it up for you.
It is sad that any group believes that any human being is less of one because of what he looks like or his ethnicity.
Not familiar at all with the group you mentioned. That is a new one on me.
The only group that I am aware of that teaches what I mentioned was "The Worldwide Church of God". There may be others. But the information they provide is from historical sources, current and past, as well as the Jewish and Greek bibles.
They also teach that it does not matter if you are circumcised or uncircumcised, if you live in America and UK and are descended from them (like Canadians, Australians, Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos) you are a part of the that heritage. America, alone has over 144 nationalities represented, and the UK is a part of a Commonwealth of Nations (50 total I believe). The concept of the Lost Tribes is the fact that the people living today are not aware of their heritage and so they practice what they want............such as, freedom of circumcising or not circumcising.
That church ( I am not a member, just enjoy history), does not teach racists ideology.
If you live here or there, then you receive the blessings that were bestowed on Abraham, until there is a change.
Hope that clears it up for you.
It is sad that any group believes that any human being is less of one because of what he looks like or his ethnicity.
