circumcision

[benderten2001]

[quote author=txqis link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=45#59 date=03/08/03 at 16:32:23]

"... i get so much out of the responses here. Thanks."


[/quote]


txqis.

I think we ALL get something from reading here....just about every single day! 'Glad to have YOU with us.

 

[13788]

thepress83: I am cut and personally love it, I know many intact guys that feel the same way, and some who want to change it. My surgeon did an excellent job and as another poster said when I'm erect it is difficult to tell if I'm cut or not as there is literally no visible scaring especially from the top and bottom.
Press

 

[13788]

douga: Hello Group... Well this is a very interesting subject for me.. I was not circumcised until I was 21 and moved away from home... I asked to be circumcised at about age 15, but my Mother said No. I grew up in an area of the western part of the US that is about 95% circumcised and was teased quite a bit because of the foreskin.. I grew to really hate the looks, and was teased a lot about having an elephants trunk. Besides all of the teasing, I had infections under the skin often and also the skin would roll back and then forward trapping hairs under the foreskin, and pulling which was uncomfortable. Along with all of that.. I found that no matter how much I washed on a daily basis... I would have smegma and smell start in less than 2 hours, which, I found embarassing also. The first circumcision was a real hack job. and it took several re-circs to remove scarc tissue created by the first circ, and to be cut tightly..I can tell you, that after all that I have gone through, being circumcised is the best way to be.. I feel badly when someone that was cut as a child, feels that he missed something... There really is very little feeling in the forskin itself, and you do miss all of the infections, and smell and the strange looks that you get when you have a forskin... So ... enjoy the fact that you never had to go through all of that, and that you were ,over all, healthier because you were circumcised. I hope that this helps others to really appreciate their circumcision and want to pass it on to their children too. My Best to you all.
DougA

 

[13788]

Curtis: Douga,

It seems that being circumcised is the best route for you. Too bad you had a bit of trouble with medical incompetance.

Since my first post in this thread, I've done some internet surfing on the subject.

I've learned that the American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as many other medical societies around the world, now recommend against routine infant circumcision, citing a lack of any compelling research that would indicate an advantage. There is also an organization of nurses dedicated to abolishing the practice.

You can also find plenty of circumcision horror stories posted on various sites, written by patients, parents and nurses.

The medical authorities do note that some boys develop problems that make circumcision a logical solution for them. What they are against is the routine circumcision of infants without any acute medical reason.

In my youth I also had my tonsils and wisdom teeth removed. The procedures were performed when my medical condition indicated such. They weren't done the day after I was born, just to avoid problems later in life!

As the popularity of this practice dwindles and intact penises become more common, I'm sure that the baby boys of today are much less likely to be considered "freaks" in the locker room later on.

Curtis

 

[benderten2001]

Hi Douga,

I'm so glad you posted your comments!

You provided both cut and uncut some interesting views from your experience. I join the other poster in acknowledging you've had a tough time. Not every "intact" man has had the problems you cited, though (i.e. excessive smegma) and not every "cut" man encountered your difficulty getting a satisfactory final result from circumcision.

Your taking a moment to post was enlightening to all of us! --Quite an interesting bit of unusual insight you shared.

I wanted to qualify one point regarding what "cut" men seem to feel we "miss out on" by not having a foreskin.
It's really more than the "feel of the sliding skin" factor.
It's the glans itself, too. Those of us who are circumcised believe our glans (penis head) isn't nearly as sensitive as it could be (and originally WAS) when covered. We also lost the thin band-like stretch of skin called the frenulum that attaches the foreskin just under the glans. We circumcised fellas have to wonder what we are indeed "losing out on in personal pleasure." From accounts I have read, the frenulum is SO sensitive (and the surrounding mucosa-type moist thin skin adjoining the glans itself) that even "tickling" that area can send a guy over the moon. --That's what we wonder about and lament over. Those of us who have always been circumcised throughout life can "rub away to our heart's content on the glans and the outer limits of the shaft" and, while there is (some) pleasure I suppose, it's not "euphoric" like we have heard from those intact. (We circumcised men have NO way of really knowing for sure either, to "compare" and know difference!)

BTW-- It takes awhile for newly circumcised men to notice the "decrease" in sensitivity of the glans (from what they were used to) but I have read more than one account (and fairly believable ones I trust) where the difference is real and there. And, unfortunately, that negative result can't be reversed. :-/

As one account read, after circumcision (and with time,) the glans becomes as tough and insensitive as typical "elbow skin". That would certainly describe mine for the most part.

 

[txquis]

its been said here much better than i can....it is different for every guy.  By all means, cut or un, be happy.

Some of us, me included, had no choice...we were cut
as babies...
but i have thought that as an adult, this must be a little bit like getting braces (or having wisdom teeth pulled as stated above, or maybe some other forms of necessary or elective surgery)...if that is what you want, or need, go for it....

i dont care one way or the other.  If i was uncut, i'd be cool with that, too.
The head of my cock couldnt be any more sensitive
than it is now,  ;D

 

[13788]

H8Monga: I'm cut and never had a problem being so. I remember when I was 8 years old and I was at my uncle's house and his son who was 5 at the time would come downstairs or start playing with me after a bath or changing and I noticed his foreskin and thought something weird had happened to his penis. I used to look at Michelangelo's David and Creation and wonder what was going on with David and Adam's penises. Then in 6th grade a couple of my classmates in gym were uncircumcised and I read about circumcision and finally put two and two together. That same year, my cousin spent the night and we shared a bed and while he was sleep I moved his loose shorts up so I could examine his penis closely. I even slid the skin back and put it back in place. He never woke up and doesn't know I did that back then.

I've only seen about 9 uncut penises in person in my life due mainly to the locker room. I've never wondered how it was for them or to be uncircumcised. I guess for me, I'm not typically cut. I don't know how other cut penises are since I haven't touched anyone else's but mine erect, but I know I don't need lubrication as I have heard others did. I began to wonder if they were cut very tightly that they have no skin to move at all. I can see my scar but I began to wonder how I compared to other circumcised guys. I won't really know. What I do know is that since I am overweight, my penis tend to draw up and appear uncircumcised, so I've never had a problem with my glans being irratated or bothered. I did wonder if that would all go away if I lost weight and what difference would I find.

The other week was my birthday and my mother recalled my first fifteen minutes. She said I was calm and quiet and slept until they cut me. And guess what? I don't remember it. I don't think any man remembers being circumcised at birth, so how can one feel that bad about it happening to a newborn? No one ever remembers whatever pain there was.

I like the way mine looks and from what I have seen online, there are ugly and aesthetic cut and uncut penises. The variety of nature and the nature of variety.

 

[13788]

hung: To bring every one up-to-date. This post was launched on December 27th, 2002. Now we have a new one. Please check out the site before you launch a new poll or thread. The current one is going to get many responses. There is no need to consider the virtues of cut vs uncut. While I am uncut, I suspect that most of do not know or can appreciate what we are missing because most of us do not have the option of being anyother way. Just thought I would post on this one to bring it back to the top.

 

[13788]

Kevinbuchanan: To be intact is what every man is meant to be. God creates foreskin with purpose. Nothing wrong with it. Just leave it alone. Many say that having sex with uncut males is more pleasurable as the foreskin can stimulates inner vagina more.

Both status have their own unique appearances. I agree with Bradlee saying that 3/4 coverage is nice looking. During foreplay, foreskin also give unique attraction that cut male can not boast more.

 

[13788]

Kevinbuchanan: I think we can use our rationale when it comes to cleanliness. It is no doubt that cleaning penis is much much easier than cleaning teeth or toe nails. We need only seconds to wash our uncut penis. But the teeth? ...

In this case, if someone still insists that circumcision is for the sake of cleanliness, Why don't they pull out their theeth or toe nails. Still, Which one is more odorous penis or mouth/saliva?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

[quote author=Kevinbuchanan link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=60#68 date=04/17/03 at 00:36:21]To be intact is what every man is meant to be. God creates foreskin with purpose. Nothing wrong with it. Just leave it alone.[/quote]

And God gave us hair and beards that grow, so we shouldn't shave or have haircuts. God created us with sweat glands, so we shouldn't use deodorants, or should we bathe to decrease body odour.

I don't buy it. We should have the right to be cut if we wish.

 

[jonb]

"If we wish" being the operative phrase.

These circumcision threads get old.

 

[13788]

Gord: "I am against routine infant circumcision except for religious purposes and even then it ought to be done with anaesthetic: no Doctor can convice me that a baby doesn't feel his foreskin being cut or crushed off."

It is dreadfully painful!! The blood-curdling screams of a baby boy being circumcised will have you thinking Auschwitz's Dr. Mengele is doing it. I believe in the snip (I'm cut myself) but you are dead right about using anaesthetic. It's positively barbaric otherwise. My faith in Doctors was destroyed long ago.

 

[13788]

Gord: TO: Curtis - Your post of January 5th, 2003

[My you express yourself well!]

As a gay man, I've been "up close and personal" with more dinks than I can remember, and while I have had only 2 "hygienically unpleasant" encounters with cut cocks like my own, I've only had ONE encounter with uncut guys that was NOT "hygienically unpleasant".

I live in Canada, where there is no excuse for poor hygiene, yet uncut men are lazy from what I've seen and smelled: their penises/penes can be made inoffensive but seldom are.

I agree with your idea of allowing the man to choose once he's old enough to assess the pros and cons for himself, but were you not embarrassed at your age to have your dink diddled with in a room with several people of both genders present while fully awake? Maybe I'm too bashful - all docs and nurses have seen plenty of 'em! See, however, the evidence below, and the "delayed snip" issue.

There are arguments FOR the snip which are rarely mentioned, I guess because too few people take the time to research the issue. It is an established fact that men cut perinatally have virtually NO risk of developing penile carcinoma, while the problem is a significant but not common one in men not cut near birth. The latest article I have seen on the subject is "Cancer of the Penis", Cancer Control (medical journal), Vol. 9, No. 4, July/August 2002, pp 305-314. It should be noted that women whose regular partners are uncut have a correspondingly higher risk of carcinoma of the cervix. While not yet proven, it is inferred that the reason is the presence of a carcinogen in smegma, produced by Tyson's Glands, a specialized sebaceous gland found almost exclusively in the foreskin, with some in the coronal sulcus.

Further, as a consequence of the thinness of the skin on the unprotected glans (it develops a cornified layer after circumcision), and of the underside of the foreskin; the acquisition of Human Papilloma Virus [HPV] Types 16, 17 & 18 ;and HIV is facilitated. HPV infection acts as a "primer" for carcinoma of the penis and cervix, as do the other STDs.

Part of the protective value of circumcision is lost if delayed to adolescence or adulthood.

Yes, my dears....there is ANOTHER side to the snip issue.

I must acknowledge, however, that the official position of the American Paediatric Association is anti-snip with some of the reasons being the heightened risk of infection in incontinent infants, the possibility of adhesion to the glans (HMMMM! My Jewish friends do it on Day 8 and adhesions don't seem to be a problem for them!), and of course, the possibility of clotting deficiencies in the very young and the resultant difficulty in controling bleeding.

Gord

 

[jonb]

I saw several fallacies in your last post.

As a gay man, I've been "up close and personal" with more dinks than I can remember, and while I have had only 2 "hygienically unpleasant" encounters with cut cocks like my own, I've only had ONE encounter with uncut guys that was NOT "hygienically unpleasant".

Anecdotal evidence. For all I know, these men could be lazy, or they could be in foreskin fetish videos.

There are arguments FOR the snip which are rarely mentioned, I guess because too few people take the time to research the issue.

Ad hominem. The American Academy of Pediatrics decided to not recommend circumcision anymore in the 70s. No medical association in the world recommends it.

It is an established fact that men cut perinatally have virtually NO risk of developing penile carcinoma, while the problem is a significant but not common one in men not cut near birth.

Confusion of correlation with causality, fallacy of small numbers. Penile cancer occurs in less than .1% of men.

It should be noted that women whose regular partners are uncut have a correspondingly higher risk of carcinoma of the cervix.

Another confusion of correlation with causality and fallacy of small numbers.

While not yet proven, it is inferred that the reason is the presence of a carcinogen in smegma, produced by Tyson's Glands, a specialized sebaceous gland found almost exclusively in the foreskin, with some in the coronal sulcus.

And why would the foreskin produce carcinogens when no other organ does? I can see you arguing for the tobacco companies.

Further, as a consequence of the thinness of the skin on the unprotected glans (it develops a cornified layer after circumcision), and of the underside of the foreskin; the acquisition of Human Papilloma Virus [HPV] Types 16, 17 & 18 ;and HIV is facilitated. HPV infection acts as a "primer" for carcinoma of the penis and cervix, as do the other STDs.

Confusion of correlation with causality AGAIN. Ad hoc hypothesis to explain why AIDS is so high in Africa, which also has a higher rate of circumcision than the US.

HMMMM! My Jewish friends do it on Day 8 and adhesions don't seem to be a problem for them!

Anecdotal evidence, AGAIN!

 

[13788]

Gord: POOR JONB!!!

Your responses clearly establish that you are a member of that group of UNcircumcised men who have fallen into that highly fanatical group of anti-circumcision uncut men, who, in common with all true fanatics, spout their opinions, and "dispute" the opposition by mindless name calling and slurs on the persons expressing contrary views, or a downright DENIAL of scientific fact.

I will make comments on your various specific replies, numbering them in the order in which they were made, but first let me provide DIRECT QUOTATIONS from the study to which I made reference in my initial post:

p 306 - "Epidemiology
The most important etiologic factor of penile cancer is the presence of an intact foreskin. Penile cancer is rarely seen in Jewish individuals, who are circumcised at birth. In the United States, the risk of this disease in UNcircumcised men is 3-fold higher than that of circumcised men and approaches the rate seen in some underdevoped nations.

Maden et al. reported a study of 110 men with penile cancer and 355 control subjects. The risk of penile cancer was 3.2 times greater among UNcircumcised men compared with men circumcised at birth and 3.0 times greater among those who had been circumcised after the neonatal period.

Schoen and colleagues evaluated the relationship between newborn circumcision and invasive penile cancer among adult men who were members of a large Health Maintenance Organization. Of 89 men with invasive penile cancer whose circumcision status was known, 2 (2.3%) had been circumcised as newborns and 87 were not circumcised. This study confirms the highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile penile cancer."

EVERY STATED CONCLUSORY ITEM IN THE FOREGOING IS FOLLOWED BY A SUPERSCRIPT NUMBER CROSS REFERENCING OTHER STUDIES WITH THE RESULTS NOTED, IN AN 82-ITEM BIBLIOGRAPHY. ALMOST EVERY SENTENCE HAD SUCH A REFERENCE.

Now your "criticisms":
(1)MY DIRECT EXPERIENCE "ANECDOTAL": I was not repeating anyting heard from others, but relating my own connsiderable direct experience. Recall that almost all gay men have, in their active lifetime, many more contacts than heterosexual men considered "loose", which admittedly makes us "looser".
The facts are simply that amongst the probably ~ 75 uncircumsiced men I was with, only 1 or 2 met my cleanliness criteria, which is no visible smegma, and no strong odor of same. In the ~150 circumcised men I was with, only 2 failed to meet that standard. You indicate by your sign that you are heterosecual, so I have to ask how you can call my experience anecdotal when you, presumably do not auto-fellate or perform fellatio on uncut (or any!) male partners.
(2) NO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION RECCOMENDS. The risks attached to the circumcision procedure are as stated in my original post, but the incidence of adverse outcome is NO DIFFERENT than with any elective procedure. The world has become a highly litigious environment, the US heading the list. Since the procedure is elective, why recommend it, if there is ANY risk of complications, and consequent liability??? If you get penile cancer, no physician is "at fault", hence no liability.
(3) INCIDENCE OF P. CANCER 0.1% The study in question states 1.3%, 13 times higher than your unsubstantiated assertion.
(4) CERVICAL CANCER: CONFUSION OF CORRELATION WITH CAUSE. SMALL SAMPLE. Again, numerous controlled medical studies have established that the relationship is causal. And in case you aren't aware, a "conclusion" supported by scientifc evidence is hardly a "confusion".
(5)My ARGUING ON BEHALS OF THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY. It is you, sir, who in common with tobacco industry, deny or downplay scientific evidence because of a personal/corporate private agenda.
(6)CORRELATION BETWEEN HIV AND HPV RATES IN CUT/UNCUT. AFRICAN EXPERIENCE "AD HOC HYPOTHESIS". The African experience began with observational data that noted the significantly different rates of viral acquisition between different tribes living in villages within visual range of each other, e.g., two encampments on opposite sides of a river, or on opposite sides of a valley. The African medical community conducted a contolled, statistically-sound study and confirmed the observed realtionship. Subsequently, a multi-centre trial in the US, based at Loyola University, duplicated the results of the African study.
(7) JEWISH IMMUNITY ANECDOTAL: The quotations from the study make direct reference to the Jewish population, and the study as a whole established a causal relationship between intact foreskins and penile cancer.

Shame on you, jonb! I suggest you get a rabies shot, take a Valium, and face reality. Running off at the mouth in the total absence of supporting evidence is NOT an adult behaviour, except among single-miNded fanatics. Please research things, on this or any other topic upon which you hold radical, rabid views BEFORE you start hurling personal insults and slurs, or denying the results of scientific studies. Your opinions are just that: opinions, not FACT.

 

[13788]

Gord: POSTSCRIPT TO MY ABOVE POST: OOPS!!
My notes on your Jewish connection failed to distinguish between INCIDENCE and ADHESIONS. In error, I addressed incidence, you challenged adhesions, which, BTW, refers to the failure of the foreskin to separate fully from the glans (head) prior to birth, i.e., the foreskin adheres to/is fused with the glans, which is normal during early gestation, but not at the time of birth. The Jewish ritual circumcision, brit milah, MUST take place on the 8th day after birth - end of story. If adhesions were a significant issue, circumcision could NOT be performed without literally tearing the foreskin and glans asunder, causing massive blood loss. I have never seen this happen at a brit milah, nor, for that matter, even heard of its occurring. Like most birth defects, the incidence of adhesions in quite rare. (In some cases of adhesion, the fusion is virtually gone, and the two tissues can be teased apart with a spatula-like surgical instrument prior to conducting the procedure.)

 

[13788]

tott666: [quote author=Gord link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=72#75 date=04/21/03 at 18:41:10]UCH A REFERENCE.
The facts are simply that amongst the probably ~ 75 uncircumsiced men I was with, only 1 or 2 met my cleanliness criteria, which is no visible smegma, and no strong odor of same.[/quote]

I'm from Europe and don't have any experiences with North American intact men so I can't vouch for their (lack of?) hygiene. Just wanted to say that I've never, ever, had a close encounter with a guy who was unclean/smelly down there.

Maybe those guys you met weren't educated about such a basic matter as personal hygiene?

 

[13788]

Gord: tott666:

Thanks for your comments.

Leaving the foreskin intact is virtually universal in Europe, as I understand it, and it has been so for a long time.

Circumcision in North America has only fairly recently declined in popularity, whereas in the past it was virually universal, except for ethnic minorities who have never practised the snip, giving us less experience with the uncut penis and its maintenance procedures.

In view of the virtual universality of my negative experiences with uncut guys, I must aconclude that your assertion that guys here are untrained is likely correct, and may be related to the limited experience of N. Americans with proper hygiene, perhaps, for example because a cut father followed the new trend and left his son(s) intact. Having no experience himself with intact foreskins, his ability to properly educate his uncut progeny may be impaired.

In spite of this proposed explanation for the sad state of affairs on this side of the pond, I am still a bit surprised that your experience is the TOTAL reverse of mine, but I don't doubt your word.

I notice here when beside uncut guys at the urinals, that the foreskin is NEVER manually retracted during urination, and the urine dispersion pattern quite commonly indicates that the 'skin is impeding the passing of water, and due to this impairment and perhaps a "back pressure" that causes some of the urine to be directed backwards under the skin, the retained urine contributes to the odor problem. Due to the high bacterial population under the 'skin, the decomposition of the urine would proceed rapidly, and we ALL know what smell is given off by dirty diapers or an unscooped cat litter box.!!! If you don't mind responding again, I would be most interested in your observations on the retraction-during-urination question in your area. In medical literature, the finger has been pointed at retained urine as a contributing factor to bad odor. Certainly if I had a 'skin, my clean fetish would invariably cause me to manually retract fully until the exterior residual droplets had been shaken or wiped off.

 

[jonb]

It's actually pretty easy to wash under there, even easier than brushing your teeth.

No, I'm not anti-circumcision. I'm anti-quackery. Don't you think it a little bit odd that circumcision "cures" everything? And you're basically just encouraging cut guys to not get HIV tests, which is even more dangerous. I still say, though, that every medical association on the planet knows better than you, BTW.

BTW, American Indian men are mostly uncut and rarely get AIDS compared to (largely circumcised) black and white men here in the States. Mexican men are also unlikely to get AIDS.