circumcision

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
44
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
this has been an interesting thread; it has made me think about issues that i never considered. i always assumed if i had a son or sons they would be cut; now, i am not so sure. the bit about no anesthesia during infant circumcision.....yeeeow!

one of my buddies in highschool used to say "sounds as much fun as teenage circumcison." all of us cringed when he said it...imagining a woodie splitting the stitches. maybe, Princess Di got it right...let the kid decide.

jay
 
1

13788

Guest
7x6andchg: Well from the poll results it's pretty even.... 40 votes cut to 32 for "au naturel"

Here's a spur off this topic - having only had the "cut" version - what is the real difference in sensation? I realize that this could be hard to describe, but I know that my glans and frenelum (SP?) are pretty sensitive already...I find it difficult to imagine that there is, out there, even MORE sensation...but perhaps there is. Are we 40 men missing something we can only dream of?

Just curious
7x6&c
 
1

13788

Guest
ORCABOMBER: Well, I get more sensation, well, if you compare it rolled down to when "au-natrel" then the difference is massive! :eek: Probably because my glans is relatively soft underneath.

Okay and getting cum "gummed" in there is an unforgettable experience.
 

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
44
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
after work today, I went out for a birthday beer (..errr make mine coke) for another newbie. The conversation got around to a brand new father and the decision to cut or not. there was general agreement among the guyz that he should be cut...and i mentioned some of the views on this board and said that i thought that if i ever had a son, i would let the kid decide at 15 or so.

the birthday boy said, "bad idea! my parents decided not to cut me...so everytime i got a hard between 14 and 15, the skin attached to the glans would tear a little. i had a sore dick for like 2 years and was too shy to ask or tell anyone about it. i was afraid they would find out i had been jerking off."

so is this a common problem among uncut? what should he have done...gone to see a doctor?

jay
 

benderten2001

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Posts
933
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
258
[quote author=jay_too link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=30#43 date=01/28/03 at 19:43:47]"... my parents decided not to cut me...so everytime i got a hard between 14 and 15, the skin attached to the glans would tear a little.  i had a sore dick for like 2 years and was too shy to ask or tell anyone about it...

so is this a common problem among uncut?  what should he have done...gone to see a doctor?  

jay[/quote]


jay: Some thoughts here (and, since I am cut, maybe I don't know everything I should on the matter, but--)

From what I have read, know, and observed in my life; the degree of foreskin cover over the glans for an uncircumcised man will vary. Some completely cover the entire glans and "overhang" in a muzzled fashion; some cover pretty much all the glans but exposes the slit opening pretty readily, while still other guys have only a portion of the glans covered.

From birth onward into the toddler stage, many young uncut boys will have the foreskin fairly tight around the glans and in fact, the foreskin can even be attached to the glans by way of very thin, almost "sticky" type adhesion. Many will argue that, for hygiene purposes, this is why circumcision is recommended to aid in exposing the full glans of the penis for cleansing. I have read however, that many todlers may not need that foreskin "bothered" or "detached" from the glans as such (it can be painful to loosen and pull it back).
Generally speaking, by a certain age (maybe by age 4) the prepuce (foreskin) will begin to "loosen" its adhesive hold to the glans on its own typically over time and allow the lad to retract the foreskin backwards, exposing the glans. Other boys don't achieve this feat (of pulling the foreskin all the way back) until well into puberty. The guy you mentioned who had trouble obviously had a very tight foreskin and perhaps should have been seen by an MD to help him out a bit. He could have had a procedure called a "dorsal slit" whereby the foreskin is merely cut just enough to allow slippage backward from over the glans. (He in essence would still be uncircumcised; just have the comfort of a retractable foreskin.) I don't believe the instances of complications having a foreskin are that common overall.
It seems many, many men live quite well with them.
 

jay_too

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Posts
789
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
236
Age
44
Location
CA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
hey bendertender..

thanks for the great information. i think that if i have a son...i'll wait and let him make the decision.

jay
 
1

13788

Guest
hung: The poll indicates that while we uncut are still in the minority, we are not that bad off. Also, we do not have the Country of the poll taker. I suspect that more and more, we here in the United States of America are learning that we have running water and can keep ourselves clean with out being cut.

While I do not have any problems with cut males, I can assure you that I enjoy being uncut.
 
1

13788

Guest
Finedessert: Found this on the net, thought it was interesting.


Swedish Parliament Scrutinizes Male Circumcision as a Violation of Human Rights
SOURCE: Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
2961 Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 Fax/phone 510-595-5550 Email arc@post.harvard.edu
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 6, 2001
CONTACT: J. Steven Svoboda, Esq., 1-510-595-5550


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Swedish Parliament has overwhelmingly passed a new law to regulate male circumcision with the purpose of protecting the human rights of the child. The Parliament voted decisively, 249 to 10, in favor of the new law, whose preliminaries also mandate a study to determine what effect the new law will have and whether male circumcision should be considered a human rights violation. The law is in the process of being enacted. Many Swedish Members of Parliament stated that male circumcision violates children's rights. Several Members of Parliament stated that only an outright ban on circumcision of all minors would be consistent with the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This marks the first time the circumcision of males under the age of majority has been officially accepted for study by a national government as a human rights issue. Sweden's is the first law in modern times to regulate and restrict the practice of male circumcision. All licensed practitioners of male circumcision are now required by law to use anesthesia and to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions. A temporary exception was included to allow licensed Jewish practitioners of male circumcision (mohelim) to perform the procedure in hospitals or under similar conditions using anesthesia, but only during the first two months of a child's life. Thereafter, ritual circumcisions performed by anyone other than a medical doctor are not allowed. Violation of the law will result in punishment of up to 6 months in prison or a fine of an individually determined amount based on income.

Sweden has a history of pioneering human rights legislation and not one legislator claimed medically unnecessary circumcision was a legitimate procedure. The 10 dissenters objected only because they supported total criminalization, rather than mere regulation, of non-therapeutic circumcision of male children, and without any temporary religious exception.

J. Steven Svoboda, Executive Director of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, stated, "This historic decision by Sweden represents a turning point in history. Again Sweden has demonstrated its concern for human rights. It is regrettable that the initial version of the bill, which would have banned outright all circumcisions of male minors, did not pass. Nevertheless, we congratulate Sweden for acknowledging that males' right to genital integrity deserves serious evaluation as a human rights concern."

In 1982, Sweden became the first developed country to outlaw female circumcision. This law was strengthened in 1998. Following Sweden's lead, many countries including the United States, Canada, and Australia have recently passed laws criminalizing female circumcision. Human rights organizations and legal scholars in each of these countries have pointed out that laws prohibiting only female genital cutting are discriminatory and violate national equal protection laws and international human rights laws. Worldwide, in the last four years every national professional medical association, which has issued a recommendation regarding routine male circumcision, has recommended against the practice.

Grandpa
 
1

13788

Guest
ORCABOMBER: [quote author=Finedessert link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=45#47 date=01/31/03 at 08:52:40]Found this on the net, thought it was interesting.

[/quote]
Woah, now that is something, but female cicumsition was banned so late?!?
 
1

13788

Guest
bigmike11: [quote author=lilAmy link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=0#0 date=12/27/02 at 14:43:22] It seems that in Canada most are uncut, that could be because of the great diversity of cultures in Canada
but in the US it seems to be a higher rate of cut men.
So I was wondering since this is a pretty diverse place who is the minority?

Sorry if this has been brought up before.[/quote]

I agree that many guys in Canada are uncut... it depends on what part of the country you're born in. I was born in the maritimes, and almost everyone there is uncut.. I wasn't cirumcised and most of my friends weren't either. There are more circumcised men here in Ontario where I'm living now, but not like in the USA where uncircumcised men are extremely rare
 

jonb

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2002
Posts
7,578
Media
0
Likes
67
Points
258
Age
40
Well, bigmike, circumcision rates in the US correlate to race, class, age, and location. There is actually quite a bit of variability:

Class - Rich men are more likely to be circumcised than poor men.
Location - Men in the northeast are more likely to be circumcised than men in the south and west.
Age - Over time, circumcision rates have had various peaking and declining.
Race - White men are the most likely to be circumcised, followed by black men, API men, Hispanic men, and at the least, American Indian men.

The US also engages in female circumcision, but calls it "sex reassignment", if a girl's clitoris is too large or something similar. :(
 

txquis

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,682
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
368
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Like whatever you've got.
I'm cut. Obviously i didn't have a choice, but i'm also happy with it.

I'm also originally from the south...and majority of my white friends are cut, despite what statistics have been posted here.
 
1

13788

Guest
prepstudinsc: I'm cut, originally from the west coast, but live in the Southeast now. All my friends are cut, too. I wonder if it has more to do with socio-economic levels than anything else. At my gym, there are white and black men. Most of them are cut. The only ones who are generally uncut seem to be some of the Hispanic guys.
 

D_Martin van Burden

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 6, 2002
Posts
3,229
Media
0
Likes
42
Points
258
Socioeconomic?

Well, if there is a clearly defined Hispanic population that pays the membership fees you do, I would like to think that they have a comparable socioeconomic standing to you. Moreover, we're talking about a practice that has a cultural basis to it -- that some families elect to have their boys circumsized for not only "health reasons" (loosely air-quoted), but also for religious (Jewish) ones or perhaps even aesthetic ones ("Most babies get the snip; why should my child be any different?").

I'm not Hispanic, but my guess is that these mothers and fathers are proud of the uncut penis because it's the "natural" state or perhaps has a link to virility and masculinity in particular subcultures and ethnic enclaves. Just a guess, mind you. But seriously, for as much as the childbirthing hospitalization process costs (even back then), I think to snip or not to snip would only make a minute impact upon the bill. I don't recall hearing that circumcision was too expensive, so the child in question had to keep his dick hooded.
 

txquis

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,682
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
368
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Something i've rarely talked about but
here goes:

I am cut, but it isn't "tight".
when i'm soft, the head remains partly covered, but not totally.
When i'm hard, i look like any other cut guy.

Some of my partners are cut so tight that the skin
doesn't even move if they are hard.

i don't know if there are different ways "snipping", but..I have only met one other guy who was like me....mine is sort of "half and half"
Anybody else like this?  or seen this?
is there such a thing as a "half "circumcision?
Because, i think thats what i have...
 
1

13788

Guest
bigmike11: [quote author=txqis link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=45#55 date=03/05/03 at 12:54:25]

i don't know if there are different ways "snipping", but...i have only met one other guy who was cut like me....sort of "half and half"
Anybody else like this? or seen this?
[/quote]

I've seen dicks like this. I think some circumcisions in Europe tend to be much looser. I had a boyfriend who was circumcised loosely like you, and another one who was circumcised so tightly that there was no movement in his skin at all. He was fascinated by my dick. He said it was exactly the opposite.. His skin was so tight there was no "play" in it at all, whereas mine doesn't retract and always covers my head.
 

txquis

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,682
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
368
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I always thought it was weird, so i've
never asked too many  about it...

my brothers and i are cut pretty much the same,
but...like i said,
i dont come across this very often.

Nice to hear that at least one person has seen the "loose cut".
 

benderten2001

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Posts
933
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
258
I have obviously done much research during my life (according to my now, WAY TOO numerous posts on here) regarding many topics about the penis.

There are ways to "select" how much comes off during a circumcision. The sad fact is..most people (parents of young infants---AND, ESPECIALLY THE FATHERS!) simply DON'T KNOW to ask the doctor. Typically, circumcision is regarded as a "standard-approach" type procedure where there is really NO choice in the look or what's left for the boy to have throughout life. It doesn't have to be that way. TALK TO THE ONE DOING THE PROCEDURE BEFORE IT'S DONE!

Various devices and instruments are used to hold and "clamp" the infant penis while the procedure is underway. It's a matter of what "amount" of foreskin an infant is born with (it probably does vary a bit baby-to-baby) but nonetheless, IF the request is made early-on to try to leave some foreskin, then that approach method should both be honored and, for the most part certainly possible. Only a few medically related exceptions (I would think) would ever exist to where SOME foreskin could not still be retained somehow, someway.
 

txquis

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Posts
1,682
Media
0
Likes
70
Points
368
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
i wish i had the kind of family that i
could ask, "hey...did you tell the doctor
to circumcise us kind of loosely?" but...
that would never get discussed.
I guess that is why i get so much out of the responses here. Thanks.