Cut guys: when and why were you circumcised?

[SteveHd]

Helston, are you a member of circlist, Gilgal Society, or similar? Did you use a template for you post?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Even though they don't remember it, it still hurts. If it isn't needed then there's no need to inflict pain. No medical governing board recommends R.I.C.

Not true..
For many decades circumcision was standard neonatal practice in the US. It was adopted because studies showed that it reduced STD transmission and the US at the time, was trying to be proactive about STDs.

In the 50s and 60s- almost all the baby boys were routinely circumsized. If it hadn't been for my own Dad's, I would never have seen an uncut dick in the flesh till I was 20-something.

A bunch of hippie nature folk activists pressed hard to get this standard thrown out back in the day... and a lot of clinical research was done that threw doubt on the original findings of reduced transmission. These clinical studies were based upon lab experiments... not upon actual penises in actual pants.

However- as circumcision rates have fallen in the States ACTUAL data show that STD transmission rates have risen.
And new research from Africa shows a large reduction in female to male Aids transmission among the circumcised.

So- Sorry -proof is its healthier. Not a huge effect, but a definitive one.


Further- on the issue of pain.
There is this ridiculous idea permeating the culture as the result of the psychiatric seventies that ANY experience of pain is traumatic and that such traumas affect children in thr form of mental illness or personality issues later on.

The idea that if everyone had the perfect childhood, never suffered from want or physical pain or neglect, always had their "self esteem" re-inforced, we would have a perfect society- full of perfect people.

Of course- there is not one iota of evidence that this is the case; and lots of evidence against it.


There is nothing particularly bad about pain. ITs a sensory system we evolved for the purpose of enhancing survival thru LEARNING.

Pain teaches, it instructs, it warns. There is zero evidence that the experience of ordinary pain over the short term, as from ordinary injuries, surgeries, cuts and scrapes etc, has any negative effect on mental health or physiology.

You give your kids a shot to immunize them- it hurts, but they survive it and they learn that some experiences are painful but worth it.

Most human cultures thru history have had rituals in which young children are exposed to severe pain. Particularly male children.
Part of the reason for this is that its important for human children to learn that pain can be dealt with, can be survived and can be endured, when necessary.
These rituals survive because they enhance overall tribal survival by not allowing human children to become TOO frightened of mere pain to do what must be done.

So- have to reject the idea that circumcision is "bad" merely because it, temporarily, "hurts".

As adults they may not "miss" their foreskin, but many men regret it was taken from them. Note how many at LPSG have written that they wish they still had theirs.

Yeah... the kind of guys who have "issues" over their genitals , or issues with mommy and daddy.
You might as well be angry with your Dad for not giving your Mom an X chromosome so you could have been a girl.... ( oh... the breasts I could have had...sniff )

Sorry... but if you're an adult circumcised man who's upset over the fact of it... then grow a pair and act like a man.
I know a guy who lost half an ear in a barfight and I never hear him whine about it.

Most piercings don't remove a body part and they can be reversed so there isn't much analog to circumcision.

Look- you complained about the fact that its a HURT needlessly inflicted by your parents... so , yeah its perfectly analogous... even moreso since there is ZERO evidence that pierced ears translate to less infection as an adult.

I likewise can't believe the intensity and emotionalism of the pro-cutters. If it's "inconsequential" then why advocate doing it to someone who has no say in the matter?

I am not a "pro-cutter" I am not saying EVERYONE should be cut. If you don't want to trim your son's willy, fine.
However, The anti-cutters are saying that EVERYONE should abide by their worldview... that everyone should make the descision when they are full grown... that your parents have no right to make any descisions about your body or health that involve any form of pain or irrevesible loss.

Sorry... but my stance is NOT extremist, nor totalitarian. Your's IS.

Celebrities are inconsequential to most people's lives but look at how much discussion there is about them.

...to our lasting shame.... but - what? Are you suggesting that agitating to make medical procedure illegal is equivalent to gossiping about bradgelina?

The O/P is pro-cut, are you going to criticize him for starting a circ. thread?

Why would I? I am not adverse to anyone expressing any opinion.
I am adverse to those opinions that are angling toward, unnecessarily, telling me what I can or can not do.
Its the push for circumcision of infants to be banned that I object to.

And its the "theory" behind this agenda; a theory predicated upon poppycock, that I argue against.


No reflection upon you intended... people have enlightened me to my own poppycock from time to time...
That whole unconditional love and no spanking thing sure SOUNDED like a brave new world...

But, science proves its bull.

 

[Rubber_JonnyN]

That doesn't make sense. Cut off a body part because someone's too inept to keep it clean?It's a good that you like it because the inverse case has few solutions, none easy.So far I'm the only one to mention mutilation in this thread and you fell into my trap. I only use the words mutilate/mutilation when referring to my own penis. Here are the reasons:

• Misaligned raphe
• Divots on glans
• Scratches/Gouges on glans
• Dark breadcrust circ. scar
• Suture marks near circ. scar

I'm not going to stop "whining" about something that didn't need to be done.Oh good I'm glad you suggested F/R because I can blast that to Holy Hell! I'm doing it and have been for about 5 yrs. I'm nearly finished and I'm glad that I regrew a foreskin, but:

• It isn't as good as a original.
• It often takes 4-6 years, sometimes longer. Most guys don't have the patience to stick it out.
• It won't reverse cosmetic damage such as what I listed above.
• It won't reverse the damage of meatal stenosis, something I have.

Get it over and done with? Easier said than done.Not.

*hi5*


It should be up to you to decide, not your parents. You can be circumcised at any age as I'm aware of? At least an age where you can decide whether you want to be or not. Therefore why the rush to have it done when you're a baby? Is it because from generation to generation they have forced their religion on you? (that's if it was done for religion purposes of course).


I do think cut cocks look better, but I'm uncut and I don't want to be cut as when wanking a cut cock it's weird and a bit difficult.

 

[Whopper-lee]

I didn't have a choice in this matter...
It is a ritual for the males in my family to be cut at age 12 or 13 years old...
I think & was told it serves like our male rites of passage...just never questioned it beyond that...just alway followed this tradition.

 

[B_625girth]

shortly after birth

 

[Damian Johnson]

I was born in new york to english parents. The doctors told them that it would be cleaner better looking and best if I was circumcised so that is what was done.
My family returned to england where being circumcised is not the majority. Despite this I'm happy being circumcised and wouldn't have my cock any other way.

 

[midlifebear]

Cut versus uncut? Actually, I prefer Lincoln Town Cars over Cadillacs. Fortunately, my parents didn't force their or the attending physician's preference on me when I was born.

 

[zephyr7285]

Circumcised when I was eleven. It was not really my choice coming from a country that believes circumcision is a rite of passage to become a man. if you were still uncut and you went on to highschool, the taunting would cause more damage than the pain. I was lucky though, for my parents paid good money to get a doctor to come over to my house and circumcise me, for most kids were getting circumcised crudely (with a razor blade and no anesthetic).

No, this did not happen in the 1980s for I am only 20.

If I had the choice, i would rather be uncut.

 

[Damian Johnson]

I'm glad you like cars soo much dude! Now why don't you go run along now like a good little bear and go play with the traffic!

Cut versus uncut? Actually, I prefer Lincoln Town Cars over Cadillacs. Fortunately, my parents didn't force their or the attending physician's preference on me when I was born.

 

[Garth33]

why do circumcision threads ALWAYS blow up into fights? SHEESH! Cut as a baby...harbor NO ILL WILL toward either guys who've done it or haven't! PEACE!

 

[Hemicudap]

It was done when I was a baby, no wonder I'm so messed up.

 

[rasier6]

I got cut--I had no choice. My brother (a year older) did not. I wish I had not been cut or at least had been asked.

 

[B_quietguy]

Cut as an infant. If I had a choice, I'd stay intact to this day.

I came across a really good working definition of child abuse:
If you may not do it to another adult, then you may never do it to a child.
If you may not assault an adult, then you may not assault a child.
If you may not put a knife to an adult, then you may not to a child.
If you may not cut off part of a man's penis, then you may not cut off part of a child's penis.

By that definition, infant circumcision is child abuse.

Now I know of guys that were cut as a child, and are okay with that. But the point is you never got a choice as a child. And if you want to do that as an adult for aesthetic reasons, fine. No different from getting a tattoo or piercing for the same reasons. Just a different body mod.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

sheesh...

By your definition, I can't have my children immunized, ( because I am not allowed to make such decisions for adults)
Hell, I shouldn't be allowed to get their teeth straightened, nor decide if the doctor can cut off a gangrenous arm to save their life.


And, Honestly... you can claim that you would prefer to be uncut... but if you could become miraculously uncut after years of sexual activity circumcised, you actually have no idea whatsoever whether you might find you preferred the sensation of being cut....

Stop imagining things.


But to liken it to assault, to putting a knife to an adult....

I assume you would categorize spanking a child as abuse, too.



I have no problem with folks preferring one or the other... I do have a problem with the fascism of demanding other people follow your rules.

 

[SteveHd]

Not true ...

You quoted the following:

Even though they don't remember it, it still hurts. If it isn't needed then there's no need to inflict pain. No medical governing board recommends R.I.C.
​

All three sentences not true? I'll let the readers form their own conclusion.

A bunch of hippie nature folk activists pressed hard to get this standard thrown out back in the day...

Amusing.

So- Sorry -proof is its healthier. Not a huge effect, but a definitive one.

Whatever "proof" you're referring to isn't convincing to the medical governing boards of Australia, Britain, and Canada: they no longer recommend R.I.C.; reversing their prior positions. It takes "balls" for a governing board to reverse itself. The less ballsy AAP has only shifted from recommending to neutral, unfortunately. I predict they will align themselves with the rest of the world sometime in the future. The "science" is conflicting: either side can underpin various points with epidemiological studies. Since the studies in aggregate, conflict, the default should be not to cut.

It's not rocket science. :smile:

So- have to reject the idea that circumcision is "bad" merely because it, temporarily, "hurts".

No, R.IC. is being rejected because it's proclaimed benefits are specious. The pain it causes could be waved off if there were profound and proved benefits to an infant or child. What few "benefits" there are apply mostly to adults. There no need to rush it. As an 18 y/o if a guy decides he wants the STD "protection" then he can get cut whenever he wants.

However, The anti-cutters are saying that EVERYONE should abide by their worldview...

So you think you can speak for the "anti-cutters"? I don't think so. Speaking for myself, in an ideal world R.I.C. wouldn't exist. Not because of being outlawed but because society rejects it as absurd. That won't happen anytime soon but trend is going that way. It's a matter of when rather than if.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

No medical governing board recommends R.I.C.
.Whatever "proof" you're referring to isn't convincing to the medical governing boards of Australia, Britain, and Canada: they no longer recommend R.I.C.; reversing their prior positions. It takes "balls" for a governing board to reverse itself.

Horsepucky... it takes no balls for a political body to cater to public whim and populist nonsense.

The "PROOF" I refer to is scientific. Actual real proof, regardless of how idiotic, chickenshit, or backwards any particular government chooses to be.

Homeopathy is legal AND covered by many health insurance policies in the US AND Great Britain.

That doesn't mean it works... that doesn't make it one whit less an idiotic mumbojumbo snake oil and rattles con.

God how I wish our public policies reflected actual science...

The "science" is conflicting: either side can underpin various points with epidemiological studies. Since the studies in aggregate, conflict, the default should be not to cut.

Wrong again... really, try reading something. Circumcision used to be the default in the US, BECAUSE of epidemiological studies.
Its recent change in status was entirely the result of some methodologically faulty lab experiments backed by an activist movement ( that you seem part of)
But JUST LAST MONTH the world health organization decided to recommend, and fund, routine circumcision thru sub-Saharan Africa to try and cut AIDs transmission rates.

SO, between the political bodies of Canada and Australia... versus the opinion of the world health organization... I will stay with WHO.

The pain it causes could be waved off if there were profound and proved benefits to an infant or child. What few "benefits" there are apply mostly to adults.

More new age malarky. PAIN is not bad. There is ZERO evidence that painful experiences are bad for children.

Abuse is bad, sure... but that is why guys like you are trying to re-define a medical procedure as "abuse".

And, one more time, properly performed epidemiological studies show that
it DOES have a definitive benefit.

As circumcision rates fall, STD transmission rises.
that is a benefit.

There no need to rush it. As an 18 y/o if a guy decides he wants the STD "protection" then he can get cut whenever he wants.

Oh, I see... don't do the procedure when the child will have no memory whatsoever of the event, no fear, no anticipation, no complications from masturbation, and a parent cleaning the area several times a day...

Much better to do it when its far more emotionally traumatic?

That's sound reasoning.

So you think you can speak for the "anti-cutters"?
I don't think so. Speaking for myself, in an ideal world R.I.C. wouldn't exist. Not because of being outlawed but because society rejects it as absurd. That won't happen anytime soon but trend is going that way. It's a matter of when rather than if.

And you actively agitate and spread unfounded nonsense to further that "ideal world"...

In my ideal world folks would mind their own business and stop inflicting on others their moral absolutism.

If you think the trend is going your way you don't read science journals.
Someone has just patented an AUTOMATIC circumcision device, that performs the procedure quickly, accurately, and is disposable, so it does it cleanly.
It has just been adopted by a panel of African nations as a solution to making the procedure even safer.
They are even funding the development of a larger version of the device for those tribes that do not circumcize until later.


From my perspective... if circumcision reduces my son's chances of getting HIV or some other incurable STD by only 20%... its worth the pain he won't remember. Just as the immunizations are worth the pain he won't remember.

We got a lot of folks out there making up crap as they go along because they simply can not handle the fact that life hurts sometimes.

We got folks endangering whole communities of kids cause they think their crackpot theory about vaccines means that vaccination is more dangeorus than the diseases they prevent.

We got folks who want to prosecute a parent for spanking their child- despite 100,000 years of human history showing than spanking can be a good way for a parent to, safely, illustrate to a child, too young to reason with, the consequences of ignoring authority.

And we got folks who want to see a day when THEIR personal and idiosyncratic inabilities to deal with something become the cultural norm.


Here in the States, I have had it with religious zealots insisting that their 2000 year old book written by functional imbeciles be the basis for enforcing law...
I am sick of other folks telling me what is and is not moral, right, and proper.


If you can convince the majority that swaddling a child in a cocoon devoid of any experience that is not happy happy joy joy... a "teletubby"existence...
If you can convince the majority that that will result in decent adults... then you can have your way, I guess...


But a cursory look at the children of the rich will illustrate that the human mind ALWAYS assigns one half of our experience the label of "BAD". Y'know, those little brats who can pitch a fit if the porsche is in the shop and they are forced to drive the Jag?

The truth is that a little suffering is GOOD for people. It re-calibrates their sense of what is worth getting upset over.
Human beings only understand joy in CONTRAST to sorrow.
If we don't know sorrow, we can never appreciate joy.

The developed world is chock full of spoiled young jackasses who have no sense of proportion. Whose idea of the "worst day, ever," would fall on the high side of fine for a lot of people in the third world.

This mollycoddled world of everyone gets a trophy, and no one gets an "F" and we all have to boost everyone's self esteem regardless of merit, and unconditional love...

Like communism... its an appealing idea... that ALL good would make good people.

But its not true.

The kids I have met that have had to suffer terrible illness, disability, affliction... they know what joy is...
because they know pain.

So, hey, show me real evidence that a little inconsequential pain damages a human being...

Show me a great human being who never suffered as much as a booboo.


And until you can... stop telling me that all experience of pain is abuse. Stop telling me that circumcision scars anything other than the shaft.

 

[B_quietguy]

sheesh...

By your definition, I can't have my children immunized, ( because I am not allowed to make such decisions for adults) Hell, I shouldn't be allowed to get their teeth straightened, nor decide if the doctor can cut off a gangrenous arm to save their life.

Well, putting braces on a child to straighten the teeth is necessary, and amputating may be a difficult decision, but necessary at times. I don't think circumcision is necessary. I see it as no more of an appropriate medical procedure than female genital mutilation.

Stop imagining things.
But to liken it to assault, to putting a knife to an adult....

Parents have no more right to harm a child than they have a right to harm other adults.

I assume you would categorize spanking a child as abuse, too.

Yes, I do think spanking is a type of child abuse. Many national governments outlaw the spanking of children even by parents. Such as Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Malta, Cyprus, Croatia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Spain, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, South Africa and New Zealand. (According to Wikipedia.) As I see it, if a parent has to resort to physical punishment to modify a child's behavior, then I recommend the parent find alternate means. Spanking aint necessary, and it physically harms a child, therefore I see it as abuse.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Just more new age nonsense.

My, how has humanity survived lo these past 100 thousand years?


Again- you are re-defining a medical procedure as "harm".
You liken the removal of a flap of skin to the removal of a woman's clitoris.
Hell, why stop your exaggerations there, why not liken it to flaying people alive?


I understand that that is your angle, your strategy to get folks to think like you do... but you have no evidence that it harms.

No one iota of evidence... just your own personal belief system that pain in any form is BAD for children.

Okay- pony up the proof.
I have offered proof that it is more healthful. Where's your proof that it harms children in any measurable way?



As to spanking- sorry... I don't care how many idiotic and empty government panderings outlaw spanking...
The parents in those countries are still spanking their children when necessary.


We evolved this pain response as a reinforcement for learning.

Tell me, why does a child learn when he touches a hot stove?
...When he gets bit by a pet he's pestering?
...When he falls down?

He learns because pain wires his brain to avoid those actions that result in pain.

When children are old enough, you can explain to them why they need to do and not do certain things... but when they are little, I can't afford an argument when I tell my child to PUT DOWN THE BLEACH! or, when I see them all excited and about to run into the street and yell for them to STOP!.

Sorry... human parents spank because it is a safe and harmless way to create a pain/ consequence link to modify their behavior before they are old enough to understand.

I would rather spank my child, and have well behaved children... than have a willful little shit who learns about traffic safety the hard way.



It really just makes me laugh... this notion we now have that a pain free existence makes for better children.
I haven't seen it...
I have seen a distressing trend toward spoiled little brats who's ineffectual parents have to negotiate every little decision... who are their children's personal activity coordinators...



certainly, there is such a thing as physical abuse of children by lousy parents... Spanking a child excessively, or out of rage... infliciting real injury...
absolutely this is all abuse.

however, Labeling something done with love and concern for your child's safety as "abuse" is criminally wooly thinking.

This is the same fascist mindset.... the same moral absolutism that results in a child expelled from school for having an aspirin in her bag because of idiotic "zero tolerance" policies....

Look... its possible for something that is bad for you in excess... to be OTHER than bad for you in moderation... like, say , eating food.


To corral ALL actions that result in pain into the category of abuse is simplistic and ignorant.

It would be wonderful if the world was actually THAT simple... but it isn't.

Human beings evolved to be amazingly adaptive to their environment.
PAIN, both emotional and physical is HOW we learn. Establishing and enforcing parental authority over young children is NOT despotism... its how you ensure your childrens survival long enough for them to realize that you are watching out for them.

psychological theories about youthful trauma causing adult mental illness keep failing every substantive test.
There are no such thing as repressed memories...
No such thing as a subconscious "mind".

These are just beliefs people have been talked into without any evidence... without any actual cures....
Just as folks used to believe disease was caused by "humours"...


A good parent allows their child just enough pain to learn without serious injury.
A good parent let's their child ride the two wheeler, even thought they know full well the kid will fall off sooner or later.

And a good parent, when faced with a willful toddler, will establish parental authority over that child so that they can effectively keep them out of trouble far more dangerous than a swat to their backside.

 

[joeythejew]

I was cut at 41 yrs. old don,t know if I like it yet, because I have not been able to use my dick yet.I like the look but,all these years fucking uncut was ok just way to sensitive, come to fast/painful also. the uncut dick is ugly....

 

[B_quietguy]

Just more new age nonsense.
...
Hell, why stop your exaggerations there, why not liken it to flaying people alive?
...
just your own personal belief system that pain in any form is BAD for children.
...
This is the same fascist mindset
...

The above snippets from your last comment indicate your willingness to insult people who disagree with you. These snippets also show you will put words in other's mouths and make assumptions about their beliefs and views when you really don't know.

I have no interest in continuing a debate when it becomes just a big long rant, and yet another ad hominem attack of yours. I see you did the same to others on this forum. You don't win debates or make people think you are right if you engage in ad hominem attacks. Insulting people does not prove you are right, it just proves to everyone else that you lower your standards in order to "win".

We can have a conversation where each of us says why he endorses or dislikes circumcision. Or you can rant and insult people. There is a big difference between those two kinds of conversation. I prefer to converse with mature people.

Frankly, all you did was advertise to everyone your lack of civility and consideration for others.