TechnoTed: The latest studies show no validity to the idea that cut guys have less sensitivity than uncut. Cut guys have much less problems with yeast infections and gunky smell, and these studies have proven that cut guys have much less probability of sores or STDs. Fastidious guys that clean properly do not have problems either, but how many of those guys are out there?:-[ I am cut, but stretching exercises for a couple of years have significantly increased my length and thickness. Another perk from these exercises is my tunica (penis-skin) has stretched so my entire glans-head is now covered when I am in a retracted state. Even though I have had a foreskin so to speak for years, I have not experienced any difference in sensitivity during sex. The idea that clothes de-sensitive the head has been proved to be totally bogus and a figment of some weirdo's imagination. After all, the sensitive portion of the penis is the underside of the penis (the glans-head) and is on the inside, not the outside of the penis head, so it is totally protected from rubbing against clothes. Besides, wearing underwear will keep the entire penis from being chafed by wearing pants. But what about the beauty of a cut penis, especially those shaved guys while hanging flaccid. A healthy, straight cut penis, like Jerry North and other porn stars is a thing of beauty, even while just hanging. Uncut guys with that foreskin looks gross. Anyhow, that's the opinion of everyone I know, even those who never had the benefit of being cut. Good Times.
roedhunt: Since you didnt follow my advice to look up the documented facts (not the STUDIES done), I have questions for you. My first question would be, why did you start growing your foreskin back in the first place? To make your penis thick and bigger, right? Imagine your size if it would've been left alone :
Next, You said you feel no different with the glan covered. But assuming you are over 18 (66 by your own account), you have been uncut for years so your glans have already toughened. The glans (penile head) is normally an internal organ protected by the moist mucosal tissue of the prepuce (foreskin). Without the foreskin, the glans is exposed to the outer environment (air, soap, clothing, sun, etc.). The glans dries out and develops several extra layers of skin. The claim that circumcised and intact penises are equal in sensitivity and function is based on old, flawed research. See: http://www.noharmm.org/masters.htm.
Then you said the uncut penis is beautiful. I dont find an uncut penis that has been scarred sexy. If you dont think you are scarred, look at the discoloration on it. Light then dark. Some men even have knots in their veins that had to rejoin after it was sliced. Plus the frenulum gets damaged. The frenulum is a web of tissue connecting the foreskin to the underside of the glans (similar to the frenulum under the tongue or the upper lip). The penile frenulum is densely nerve-laden and is described as a male 'G-spot' a very erogenous part of the penis. Circumcision often destroys the frenulum. Gee, should we remove a girls clitoris as well? Next, infant circumcision requires the forced separation of the foreskin and glans. (Natural separation occurs between infancy and age 18.) Removing an infant's foreskin prior to its natural separation results in an exposed and raw glans, the coronal ridge of which can fuse with the raw skin edges of the penile shaft where the foreskin was cut. This fused tissue is what causes a bridge effect that can pull on the glans and be painful. Then there are gouges/missing portions of the glans caused by FORCED separation which can tear portions of the glans that are tightly adhered to the foreskin.
Now if you still aren't convinced or at least a bit more open-minded, consider this:
What about the rights of a child? Was it HIS choice to have a healthy piece of skin amputated from his body?
According to "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child", Article 8, part 1:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity [...and not be surgically altered to look like his father].
Finally you stated "Cut guys have much less problems with yeast infections and gunky smell, and these studies have proven that cut guys have much less probability of sores or STDs". The prepuce has many immunological protections against disease.10 These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered, circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs. Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist ones (the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!). Females also have smegma - should we cut them too?
Last but not least, if you think it was only a snip:
First they pump his stomach so that he won't vomit over his own wound, then ·
they may or may not give him two injections in the base of his penis, then
in order to see his glans to make sure not to cut it off, they cut a slit down his foreskin and tear it away from the glans, to which it is attached, leaving it bloody and raw...
I hope all of this information enlightens at least one of you and even to think twice to do it to your own child.
Knowledge empowers you. Ingorance is NOT bliss.
Next, You said you feel no different with the glan covered. But assuming you are over 18 (66 by your own account), you have been uncut for years so your glans have already toughened. The glans (penile head) is normally an internal organ protected by the moist mucosal tissue of the prepuce (foreskin). Without the foreskin, the glans is exposed to the outer environment (air, soap, clothing, sun, etc.). The glans dries out and develops several extra layers of skin. The claim that circumcised and intact penises are equal in sensitivity and function is based on old, flawed research. See: http://www.noharmm.org/masters.htm.Then you said the uncut penis is beautiful. I dont find an uncut penis that has been scarred sexy. If you dont think you are scarred, look at the discoloration on it. Light then dark. Some men even have knots in their veins that had to rejoin after it was sliced. Plus the frenulum gets damaged. The frenulum is a web of tissue connecting the foreskin to the underside of the glans (similar to the frenulum under the tongue or the upper lip). The penile frenulum is densely nerve-laden and is described as a male 'G-spot' a very erogenous part of the penis. Circumcision often destroys the frenulum. Gee, should we remove a girls clitoris as well? Next, infant circumcision requires the forced separation of the foreskin and glans. (Natural separation occurs between infancy and age 18.) Removing an infant's foreskin prior to its natural separation results in an exposed and raw glans, the coronal ridge of which can fuse with the raw skin edges of the penile shaft where the foreskin was cut. This fused tissue is what causes a bridge effect that can pull on the glans and be painful. Then there are gouges/missing portions of the glans caused by FORCED separation which can tear portions of the glans that are tightly adhered to the foreskin.
Now if you still aren't convinced or at least a bit more open-minded, consider this:
What about the rights of a child? Was it HIS choice to have a healthy piece of skin amputated from his body?
According to "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child", Article 8, part 1:
States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity [...and not be surgically altered to look like his father].
Finally you stated "Cut guys have much less problems with yeast infections and gunky smell, and these studies have proven that cut guys have much less probability of sores or STDs". The prepuce has many immunological protections against disease.10 These mechanisms may explain why surgically-altered, circumcised men seem to have a greater incidence of many different STDs. Dried-out mucous membranes are more prone to infection than naturally moist ones (the reason people tend to get more colds in the wintertime!). Females also have smegma - should we cut them too?
Last but not least, if you think it was only a snip:
First they pump his stomach so that he won't vomit over his own wound, then ·
they may or may not give him two injections in the base of his penis, then
in order to see his glans to make sure not to cut it off, they cut a slit down his foreskin and tear it away from the glans, to which it is attached, leaving it bloody and raw...
I hope all of this information enlightens at least one of you and even to think twice to do it to your own child.
Knowledge empowers you. Ingorance is NOT bliss.
Tender: [quote author=TechnoTed link=board=women;num=1068924688;start=20#20 date=12/17/03 at 23:48:14]The latest studies show no validity to the idea that cut guys have less sensitivity than uncut. [/quote]
i dont beleive in most 'studies'.
these studies are skewed to begin with.
why would the study prove anything else, look at the money that is in circ, dont think the med field would do any study to jeopardize that....
as far as the sensitivity thing, my husband would disagree. he has very little feeling. many men disagree, including those who restore. they almost always say their sensitivity increases. there are exceptions of course.
ive only been with cut guys, but let me tell you scars dont do anything for me either.
wonder what I am missing besides that ....
the idea that a man cant wash himself is absurd.
women have all sorts of places there that have to be washed very often. as well as monthly business to take care of. somehow men cant wash? :
i think roedhunt said it very well......
Tender
i dont beleive in most 'studies'.
these studies are skewed to begin with.
why would the study prove anything else, look at the money that is in circ, dont think the med field would do any study to jeopardize that....
as far as the sensitivity thing, my husband would disagree. he has very little feeling. many men disagree, including those who restore. they almost always say their sensitivity increases. there are exceptions of course.
ive only been with cut guys, but let me tell you scars dont do anything for me either.
wonder what I am missing besides that ....
the idea that a man cant wash himself is absurd.
women have all sorts of places there that have to be washed very often. as well as monthly business to take care of. somehow men cant wash? :
i think roedhunt said it very well......
Tender
Andrea: Circumcision - It's Not Necessary
BENJAMIN SPOCK, M.D.
Redbook, April 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Spock now believes that circumcision of males is traumatic, painful, and of questionable value.
When a baby boy is circumcised, the sleeve of skin that normally covers the head of the penis (the foreskin) is pulled forward and cut off. Circumcision is usually performed without anesthesia a few days after birth - on the unproven assumption that babies will not remember the pain later, although they certainly cry out with pain at the time.
The practice of circumcision has been around for at least 4,000 years. It is traditionally practiced by Jews and Moslems. But around 100 years ago, it became a more widely accepted practice in this country for all infant boys, due to a new emphasis on cleanliness. In fact, when circumcision came into vogue, it was believed to cure all manner of ailments in boys. Today, of course, we know that this is not the case, but the practice has continued.
Approximately half of all male babies born in this country are still being circumcised. But doctors are questioning whether or not routine circumcision is necessary, given the pain the baby experiences, the risks involved in performing the procedure, and the questions being raised about whether circumcision actually prevents disease.
What I recommended to parents about circumcision in early editions of Baby and Child Care is quite different from what I recommend now. In the 1940s, I favored circumcision performed within a few days of birth for a couple of reasons. First, there was, at the time, a commonly held belief in medical circles that women married to uncircumcised men were more likely to develop cancer of the cervix. The second reason I favored routine circumcision was that if the operation were performed on a newborn, there would be no chance of a physician scaring the bejeebers out of a boy by performing the operation when he was older. I personally had known of several instances in which an uncircumcised boy had been brought into the family doctor because he had been holding onto his penis, which bothered the parents. The physician would then suggest that the area under the foreskin had perhaps become mildly infected, causing an irritation of the penis, and that the best treatment would be to cut off the foreskin, which was believed to be harboring the infection. But the psychological trauma of circumcising an older child cannot be overestimated.
Boys, especially between the ages of two and four, tend to become quite anxious about the safety of their penises: It is at this time that they usually become aware that little girls don't have a penis, and boys tend to assume that girls somehow lost theirs in an accident, or that it has been cut off. And so, when an older boy is circumcised, even though the body of the penis remains, the circumcision suggests to the child that an attempt has been made to cut his penis off and, in fact, the attempt has been partially successful. It is understandable, then, that a young boy would become deeply upset by the operation.
In the 1940s and 1950s circumcision became quite common. By the 1960s, 90 percent of all male newborns in the United States were being circumcised as routine procedure. Ten years later, however, opinion among doctors swung away from the belief that certain groups of women developed cancer of the cervix because their husbands were uncircumcised. It was concluded that the cause was actually lack of good male hygiene - which is not as much of a problem in this country as it is in some other parts of the world. Also, by the early 1970s, more physicians - though not all - were aware of the psychological harm that could come from circumcision after infancy, and circumcision of an older child was not suggested as frequently as in the past.
In 1971 a task force of the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that there is no medical reason to recommend routine circumcision, and I voiced the same opinion in the 1976 revision of Baby and Child Care. I hoped that the controversy would then be settled once and for all. But today, there are again some physicians who favor routine circumcision because they are of the opinion (not substantiated by solid scientific proof) that circumcision will decrease, at least to a small degree, the risk of contracting various venereal diseases in adulthood. But many physicians, myself included, are unconvinced.
One recent study did indicate that urinarytract infections in infancy, which is an uncommon disease in boys, does occur less frequently among circumcised boys, but this has not yet been confirmed by further studies. There is no doubt in medical circles that routine circumcision does prevent cancer of the penis, but this is a very rare disease which causes only approximately 150 deaths a year in the United States. Should one million baby boys be circumcised each year because of this small risk? Each parent must answer that question for him or herself.
In view of the renewed controversy regarding circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has again appointed a task force to reconsider its position on routine circumcision, although no final decision has yet been reached.
Though the debate continues within the medical community, parents do have a few facts and various opinions on which to base their own decision on this matter. In earlier days many parents were not informed about what the issues were. The attending obstetrician or an intern or resident would appear at the mother's bedside a few days after delivery and say, ``Do you want the boy circumcised?'' or ``I suppose you want him to be circumcised,'' as if it were the only sensible choice.
We now know that it is not the only choice, nor is it agreed that it is the most sensible choice. My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone.
Dr. Spock, a contributing editor of Redbook, is the author of Baby and Child Care, which has sold more than 40 million copies.
BENJAMIN SPOCK, M.D.
Redbook, April 1989
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Spock now believes that circumcision of males is traumatic, painful, and of questionable value.
When a baby boy is circumcised, the sleeve of skin that normally covers the head of the penis (the foreskin) is pulled forward and cut off. Circumcision is usually performed without anesthesia a few days after birth - on the unproven assumption that babies will not remember the pain later, although they certainly cry out with pain at the time.
The practice of circumcision has been around for at least 4,000 years. It is traditionally practiced by Jews and Moslems. But around 100 years ago, it became a more widely accepted practice in this country for all infant boys, due to a new emphasis on cleanliness. In fact, when circumcision came into vogue, it was believed to cure all manner of ailments in boys. Today, of course, we know that this is not the case, but the practice has continued.
Approximately half of all male babies born in this country are still being circumcised. But doctors are questioning whether or not routine circumcision is necessary, given the pain the baby experiences, the risks involved in performing the procedure, and the questions being raised about whether circumcision actually prevents disease.
What I recommended to parents about circumcision in early editions of Baby and Child Care is quite different from what I recommend now. In the 1940s, I favored circumcision performed within a few days of birth for a couple of reasons. First, there was, at the time, a commonly held belief in medical circles that women married to uncircumcised men were more likely to develop cancer of the cervix. The second reason I favored routine circumcision was that if the operation were performed on a newborn, there would be no chance of a physician scaring the bejeebers out of a boy by performing the operation when he was older. I personally had known of several instances in which an uncircumcised boy had been brought into the family doctor because he had been holding onto his penis, which bothered the parents. The physician would then suggest that the area under the foreskin had perhaps become mildly infected, causing an irritation of the penis, and that the best treatment would be to cut off the foreskin, which was believed to be harboring the infection. But the psychological trauma of circumcising an older child cannot be overestimated.
Boys, especially between the ages of two and four, tend to become quite anxious about the safety of their penises: It is at this time that they usually become aware that little girls don't have a penis, and boys tend to assume that girls somehow lost theirs in an accident, or that it has been cut off. And so, when an older boy is circumcised, even though the body of the penis remains, the circumcision suggests to the child that an attempt has been made to cut his penis off and, in fact, the attempt has been partially successful. It is understandable, then, that a young boy would become deeply upset by the operation.
In the 1940s and 1950s circumcision became quite common. By the 1960s, 90 percent of all male newborns in the United States were being circumcised as routine procedure. Ten years later, however, opinion among doctors swung away from the belief that certain groups of women developed cancer of the cervix because their husbands were uncircumcised. It was concluded that the cause was actually lack of good male hygiene - which is not as much of a problem in this country as it is in some other parts of the world. Also, by the early 1970s, more physicians - though not all - were aware of the psychological harm that could come from circumcision after infancy, and circumcision of an older child was not suggested as frequently as in the past.
In 1971 a task force of the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that there is no medical reason to recommend routine circumcision, and I voiced the same opinion in the 1976 revision of Baby and Child Care. I hoped that the controversy would then be settled once and for all. But today, there are again some physicians who favor routine circumcision because they are of the opinion (not substantiated by solid scientific proof) that circumcision will decrease, at least to a small degree, the risk of contracting various venereal diseases in adulthood. But many physicians, myself included, are unconvinced.
One recent study did indicate that urinarytract infections in infancy, which is an uncommon disease in boys, does occur less frequently among circumcised boys, but this has not yet been confirmed by further studies. There is no doubt in medical circles that routine circumcision does prevent cancer of the penis, but this is a very rare disease which causes only approximately 150 deaths a year in the United States. Should one million baby boys be circumcised each year because of this small risk? Each parent must answer that question for him or herself.
In view of the renewed controversy regarding circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics has again appointed a task force to reconsider its position on routine circumcision, although no final decision has yet been reached.
Though the debate continues within the medical community, parents do have a few facts and various opinions on which to base their own decision on this matter. In earlier days many parents were not informed about what the issues were. The attending obstetrician or an intern or resident would appear at the mother's bedside a few days after delivery and say, ``Do you want the boy circumcised?'' or ``I suppose you want him to be circumcised,'' as if it were the only sensible choice.
We now know that it is not the only choice, nor is it agreed that it is the most sensible choice. My own preference, if I had the good fortune to have another son, would be to leave his little penis alone.
Dr. Spock, a contributing editor of Redbook, is the author of Baby and Child Care, which has sold more than 40 million copies.
roedhunt: well said...
I know women still find an uncircumcised penis disgusting and gross in America, but if only one of us can educate just one person, think of how many boys will be sparred this cruel and painful mutilation...
And to you men, think of your 15 square inches YOU lost without your consent. Doesn't sound like much, but look at a 3x5 card... Not to mention it came off of a place that most of you consider your most sacred area... ;D
I know women still find an uncircumcised penis disgusting and gross in America, but if only one of us can educate just one person, think of how many boys will be sparred this cruel and painful mutilation...
And to you men, think of your 15 square inches YOU lost without your consent. Doesn't sound like much, but look at a 3x5 card... Not to mention it came off of a place that most of you consider your most sacred area... ;D
rawkstar: This is not an 'American' thing, it's originates much earlier in time. And something to consider that a majority of people are cut for religious reasons. I shouldn't have to say anything more.
roedhunt: Of course Jesus was cut. But he was also crucified. He was also Jewish. But my point wasn't regarding religious reasons. It was that America is the only country that DOESN'T just do it for religious reasons. They do it for idiotic reasons that I have already listed. Enough said.
The various responses here have (as usual) proven both remarkable in their scope and excellent in the information provided.
It's true Jesus was circumcised and really God himself instigated the practice of cutting the foreskin during Hebrew times. The practice was used to distinguish His "followers" from the unbelievers. God had His reasons, I suppose, for having done so. Personally, it's a matter I hope to someday take up with Him in all due respect.
(I think God permits us to have our questions sometimes. He still lovingly allows us to go on and live, nonetheless--and doesn't strike us dead for our wondering!)
My reading over the years tells me that circumcision (in the very earliest practices) did NOT necessarily involve taking as much foreskin as is typically done these days. Well, that could be. (None of us were around or have real access to anyone who really knows for sure!) I've already had my critics on this point though, from an earlier post. Also, it's my understanding from bible scholars (and our modern day medical folks who are Christian) that a male infant was circumcised on the eighth day from birth (as Christ was) because blood clotting (from the circumcision wound) typically would heal best within that early-life time frame....(God knew best!). Afterwards, the blood chemistry changed "a bit" and clotting was not quite as quick to occur.
---Hmm. So yet, something else to ponder, perhaps?
I'm Christian, I'm cut, and I've never liked that fact of being "maimed" if you will. I believe there IS a loss of sensitivity for the man and the aforementioned frenulum and mucosa linings are all affected if not totally destroyed by a (total) circumcision. Fortunately, if a parent knows enough early-on when considering a infant boy to be circumcised, the doctor can always be instructed just how much to cut....there are alternatives to allowing some foreskin to remain. My hope would be that parents would adapt to the premise of allowing the boy to decide for himself later on in life. Should a medical condition warrant circumcision, then that's another matter entirely. However, even in that case, a partial circumcision (dorsal slit) might prove all that's needed...to allow the glans to be exposed for cleanliness and comfort as required.
The earlier poster who mentioned developing more foreskin from enlargement exercises spoke of a similar experience of mine, too. From those exercises, I have noticed more skin when flaccid. But, it's not the same. Once cut, a man will NEVER again have that inner mucosa lining which is really what keeps the glans moist, tender, protected, and super-sensitive. My glans, after years of "exposure" is about as sensitive as my elbow....compared to what I've have heard from uncut men. Why to touch their moist glans, their frenulum,
---they like rocket to the moon. Not me. I don't have the slightest hint of a frenulum!
I hate the term "barbaric" but the more I think of circumcision, it seems it is a practice that needs re-thinking all the way around. With modern day hygiene and health consciousness measures all readily available(worldwide for the most part in our civilized cultures) it seems radical circumcision is not all that necessary. I like to think regarding God's original "order" which started all this cutting stuff was for
(in His wisdom ) absolutely necessary for health reasons back then in those really remote times of living--when disease and the other health risks were so prominent. Today, Christians believe we are no longer "under the law" of the Old Testament and that cutting a male infant isn't going to win us any more favor with God than not being trimmed up. IMHO, circumcision should very much should be an individual choice by the male himself---when he's ready...NOT his parents.
It's true Jesus was circumcised and really God himself instigated the practice of cutting the foreskin during Hebrew times. The practice was used to distinguish His "followers" from the unbelievers. God had His reasons, I suppose, for having done so. Personally, it's a matter I hope to someday take up with Him in all due respect.
(I think God permits us to have our questions sometimes. He still lovingly allows us to go on and live, nonetheless--and doesn't strike us dead for our wondering!)
My reading over the years tells me that circumcision (in the very earliest practices) did NOT necessarily involve taking as much foreskin as is typically done these days. Well, that could be. (None of us were around or have real access to anyone who really knows for sure!) I've already had my critics on this point though, from an earlier post. Also, it's my understanding from bible scholars (and our modern day medical folks who are Christian) that a male infant was circumcised on the eighth day from birth (as Christ was) because blood clotting (from the circumcision wound) typically would heal best within that early-life time frame....(God knew best!). Afterwards, the blood chemistry changed "a bit" and clotting was not quite as quick to occur.
---Hmm. So yet, something else to ponder, perhaps?
I'm Christian, I'm cut, and I've never liked that fact of being "maimed" if you will. I believe there IS a loss of sensitivity for the man and the aforementioned frenulum and mucosa linings are all affected if not totally destroyed by a (total) circumcision. Fortunately, if a parent knows enough early-on when considering a infant boy to be circumcised, the doctor can always be instructed just how much to cut....there are alternatives to allowing some foreskin to remain. My hope would be that parents would adapt to the premise of allowing the boy to decide for himself later on in life. Should a medical condition warrant circumcision, then that's another matter entirely. However, even in that case, a partial circumcision (dorsal slit) might prove all that's needed...to allow the glans to be exposed for cleanliness and comfort as required.
The earlier poster who mentioned developing more foreskin from enlargement exercises spoke of a similar experience of mine, too. From those exercises, I have noticed more skin when flaccid. But, it's not the same. Once cut, a man will NEVER again have that inner mucosa lining which is really what keeps the glans moist, tender, protected, and super-sensitive. My glans, after years of "exposure" is about as sensitive as my elbow....compared to what I've have heard from uncut men. Why to touch their moist glans, their frenulum,
---they like rocket to the moon. Not me. I don't have the slightest hint of a frenulum!
I hate the term "barbaric" but the more I think of circumcision, it seems it is a practice that needs re-thinking all the way around. With modern day hygiene and health consciousness measures all readily available(worldwide for the most part in our civilized cultures) it seems radical circumcision is not all that necessary. I like to think regarding God's original "order" which started all this cutting stuff was for
(in His wisdom
) absolutely necessary for health reasons back then in those really remote times of living--when disease and the other health risks were so prominent. Today, Christians believe we are no longer "under the law" of the Old Testament and that cutting a male infant isn't going to win us any more favor with God than not being trimmed up. IMHO, circumcision should very much should be an individual choice by the male himself---when he's ready...NOT his parents.Andrea: May I remind posters we British are largely Christian and our men are not circumsized.
May I also remind posters hygiene is absolutely not an issue and I doubt ever has been.
I personally consider the practice totally unecessary and yes - barbaric.
May I ask posters to take a step back and just think about it for a moment. Surgically deform a baby boy for no reason?
erm .... yeah right.
Andrea xxxx
May I also remind posters hygiene is absolutely not an issue and I doubt ever has been.
I personally consider the practice totally unecessary and yes - barbaric.
May I ask posters to take a step back and just think about it for a moment. Surgically deform a baby boy for no reason?
erm .... yeah right.
Andrea xxxx
- jonb,
[quote author=geo8x6 link=board=women;num=1068924688;start=0#3 date=11/16/03 at 10:29:21]I actually read a medical study that uncircumcised men a at higher risk of STD.[/quote]Said 'study' didn't even include a control group. It skipped the entire peer review process, and I don't even want to get into the possible cultural factors that can affect likelihood of getting a disease. Why, I could compare North American Indians (generally uncut) to whites (generally cut) and get the exact opposite results, despite poverty and earlier coitarche.
- jonb,
[quote author=Tender link=board=women;num=1068924688;start=0#17 date=12/17/03 at 08:28:30]i always thought that was long before the "Victorian era".
so blame it on her lol![/quote]
Actually, blame Simon-Auguste-Andre-David Tissot . Tissot thought followed the tradition of Greek medicine, with semen as a unique humour: It caused the beard to grow and made muscles larger. He even quantified it; the loss of one ounce of semen was equal to the loss of forty ounces of blood. Though loss through intercourse was bad, wasting semen was especially bad.
In time, various devices were invented. Here in the States, circumcision began in the age of eugenics. Mendelian genetics wasn't yet accepted, so theories of Lamarckian inheritance made masturbation especially dangerous; it was believed to have a dysgenic effect.
so blame it on her lol![/quote]
Actually, blame Simon-Auguste-Andre-David Tissot . Tissot thought followed the tradition of Greek medicine, with semen as a unique humour: It caused the beard to grow and made muscles larger. He even quantified it; the loss of one ounce of semen was equal to the loss of forty ounces of blood. Though loss through intercourse was bad, wasting semen was especially bad.
In time, various devices were invented. Here in the States, circumcision began in the age of eugenics. Mendelian genetics wasn't yet accepted, so theories of Lamarckian inheritance made masturbation especially dangerous; it was believed to have a dysgenic effect.
gicast: I think we got way off the orginal subject, all that was asked was whether we ladies preferred cut or uncut.
There are definately good agruements for being uncut. Plus many sad stories that I will never dispute.
That said, no one should critisize anothers' relgious standsbeliefs.
AND to answer the orginal question. IN MY PUNY opinion, I think a cut penis is beautiful. Scuplted. entriguing. exciting. BUT I have never felt that way about an uncut one, sorry. BUT as I said that's me. TO each his own.....
There are definately good agruements for being uncut. Plus many sad stories that I will never dispute.
That said, no one should critisize anothers' relgious standsbeliefs.
AND to answer the orginal question. IN MY PUNY opinion, I think a cut penis is beautiful. Scuplted. entriguing. exciting. BUT I have never felt that way about an uncut one, sorry. BUT as I said that's me. TO each his own.....
- jonb,
[quote author=gicast link=board=women;num=1068924688;start=20#32 date=01/01/04 at 21:22:36]That said, no one should critisize anothers' relgious standsbeliefs.[/quote]
1) We're talking about so-called 'medical' circumcision.
2) Clitoridectomy is also a religious belief.
3) Some of the main anti-'medical' circumcision activists are Jewish.
4) If you want to talk about religious freedom, I'm an Indian. It's funny how Americans pick and choose whose religious freedom to defend.
1) We're talking about so-called 'medical' circumcision.
2) Clitoridectomy is also a religious belief.
3) Some of the main anti-'medical' circumcision activists are Jewish.
4) If you want to talk about religious freedom, I'm an Indian. It's funny how Americans pick and choose whose religious freedom to defend.
roedhunt: Bravo, jonb! Well said. And yes, we did get off of the real question. Sorry, my mouth usually runs away from me. Especially when I feel very adament about something. Up until a few years ago, I myself only prefered circumsised. Only because I was uneducated and programed that "that" was the norm... ah.. America.. God love it... ANYWAY, I started to see a younger man (not that it is relevant), and he is orignally from Russia and he's Jewish. I was surprised to see him uncut. I questioned him about it and he said a boy becomes a man at 13 (I think he said 13), and thats why the barvitzah happens. The Rabbi cuts the boy to turn him into a man. He also said the Rabbi does not cut the foreskin completely off. I questioned why he wasnt cut, he said he told them basically "you aint touching my dick!" I asked him what his mom said.. he said she said (sounds like a name of a movie...haha..I know, there IS a movie named that silly), you heard what he said.....hahaha. But since I've been with him for over a year, I still have fun playing with it...hahah He doesnt find it funny but he lets me... And because of him, I educated myself on circumcision...
My two cents worth.... :
My two cents worth.... :
TechnoTed: Recently there were several posts commenting on the benefits of being uncircumcised in response to a post from me regarding studies that show the great medical and sexual advantages of being circumcised. It was pointed out that the studies had no references and were thus discounted. (So for those interested, cursor to the end of the article for over a hundred references). Here are a few excerpts from a study that can be found at http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/brianm/circumcision.htm Some other comprehensive studies that can be found by typing in BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION in your search engine. It is not my intention to impugn, upset or put-down any of you that have provided input or an opinion, but to present a medically sound, scientific and professional argument for the practice of circumcision for those that do not have mindsets cast in concrete. Those of us strongly convinced pro or con probably will remain unchanged anyway.
As for me, I (and my wife) am thankful to my late parents for their foresight and for having me cut as a baby. Ladies (or guys) with uncircumcised guys should be concerned and take particular interest in this presentation.
Due to the importance of being aware of the dangers of being uncircumcised, I will try to post this excerpt on
The Healthy Penis forum.
For your convenience as a reader, I have listed a summary of some of the items of interest, not in any particular order. A more comprehensive summary follows:
I have presented; YOU decide.
Characteristics Of An Uncircumcised Penis:
Four-fold increase of cervical cancer.
Infinitely higher danger of penile cancer
Twice as high danger of prostate cancer
9 Fold danger of STDs and other infections
Diminished penis (glans) sensitivity
The cause of some women unable to orgasm
More sexual difficulty
Less sexual activity with female partners
Less fellatio (oral sex)
Less masturbation
Typical among lower socio-economic class
Inability to maintain cleanliness
Women nauseated by smell and disgusted with appearance
Additional summarization by author:
Lack of circumcision:
· Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.
· Carries a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
· One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer never or rarely occurs is men circumcised at birth). (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).
· Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years o f age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.
· Means problems that may result in a need for circumcision laterin life: complication risk = 1 in 100 (compared with 1 in 1000 in the newborn). Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.
· Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.
· Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.
Conclusion
The information that appears in this review should prove informative to medical practitioners and health workers and thereby enhance the quality of information that is conveyed to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others. It is hoped that as a result the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of male infants, is much more informed. Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the child. Issues of 'informed consent' may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. The question to be answered is 'do the benefits outweigh the risks'. When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in choosing. However, when viewed as a whole, in my opinion the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby is 'yes'. Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. I trust that the information I have provided in this article will help in the decision-making process.
Brian J. Morris, PhD DSc Fax: 612-9351-2058
University Academic (in medical sciences) Email: brianm@physiol.usyd.edu.au
This review can be found on the world-wide web:
http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/brianm/circumcision.htm
The author freely grants permission for others to copy and distribute this review.
As for me, I (and my wife) am thankful to my late parents for their foresight and for having me cut as a baby. Ladies (or guys) with uncircumcised guys should be concerned and take particular interest in this presentation.
Due to the importance of being aware of the dangers of being uncircumcised, I will try to post this excerpt on
The Healthy Penis forum.
For your convenience as a reader, I have listed a summary of some of the items of interest, not in any particular order. A more comprehensive summary follows:
I have presented; YOU decide.
Characteristics Of An Uncircumcised Penis:
Four-fold increase of cervical cancer.
Infinitely higher danger of penile cancer
Twice as high danger of prostate cancer
9 Fold danger of STDs and other infections
Diminished penis (glans) sensitivity
The cause of some women unable to orgasm
More sexual difficulty
Less sexual activity with female partners
Less fellatio (oral sex)
Less masturbation
Typical among lower socio-economic class
Inability to maintain cleanliness
Women nauseated by smell and disgusted with appearance
Additional summarization by author:
Lack of circumcision:
· Is responsible for a 12-fold higher risk of urinary tract infections. Risk = 1 in 20.
· Carries a higher risk of death in the first year of life (from complications of urinary tract infections: viz. kidney failure, meningitis and infection of bone marrow).
· One in ~400-900 uncircumcised men will get cancer of the penis. A quarter of these will die from it and the rest will require at least partial penile amputation as a result. (In contrast, penile cancer never or rarely occurs is men circumcised at birth). (Data from studies in the USA, Denmark and Australia, which are not to be confused with the often quoted, but misleading, annual incidence figures of 1 in 100,000).
· Is associated with balanitis (inflammation of the glans), posthitis (inflammation of the foreskin), phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (constriction of the penis by a tight foreskin). Up to 18% of uncircumcised boys will develop one of these by 8 years o f age, whereas all are unknown in the circumcised. Risk of balanoposthitis = 1 in 6. Obstruction to urine flow = 1 in 10-50.
· Means problems that may result in a need for circumcision laterin life: complication risk = 1 in 100 (compared with 1 in 1000 in the newborn). Also, the cost can be 10 times higher for an adult.
· Is the biggest risk factor for heterosexually-acquired AIDS virus infection in men. 8-times higher risk by itself, and even higher when lesions from STDs are added in. Risk per exposure = 1 in 300.
· Is associated with higher incidence of cervical cancer in the female partners of uncircumcised men.
Conclusion
The information that appears in this review should prove informative to medical practitioners and health workers and thereby enhance the quality of information that is conveyed to parents of male children and to adult men. It should also prove to have educational value to others. It is hoped that as a result the choice that has to be made concerning circumcision, especially of male infants, is much more informed. Although there are benefits to be had at any age, they are greater the younger the child. Issues of 'informed consent' may be analogous to those parents have to consider for other medical procedures, such as whether or not to immunize their child. The question to be answered is 'do the benefits outweigh the risks'. When considering each factor in isolation there could be some difficulty in choosing. However, when viewed as a whole, in my opinion the answer to whether to circumcise a male baby is 'yes'. Nevertheless, everybody needs to weigh up all of the pros and cons for themselves and make their own best decision. I trust that the information I have provided in this article will help in the decision-making process.
Brian J. Morris, PhD DSc Fax: 612-9351-2058
University Academic (in medical sciences) Email: brianm@physiol.usyd.edu.au
This review can be found on the world-wide web:
http://www.physiol.usyd.edu.au/brianm/circumcision.htm
The author freely grants permission for others to copy and distribute this review.
roedhunt: Very interesting. I like to keep an open mind that sees both sides of the situation. I looked up the author, Brian Morris and read what he said and his references. Also looked up other sites. However, I went straight to Medical Doctor sites. (Morris is a professor)
Here's something you should take a look at:
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm
http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html
This does come from the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS......
Here's something you should take a look at:
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm
http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.html
This does come from the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS......
Tender: http://www.circumstitions.com/Lost.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Law-other.html
nothing will ever convince me its good, right or needed.
8)
Tender
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Law-other.html
nothing will ever convince me its good, right or needed.
8)
Tender
- jonb,
[quote author=TechnoTed link=board=women;num=1068924688;start=20#35 date=01/05/04 at 02:07:08]Four-fold increase of cervical cancer.[/quote]
Non-causal correlation.
167 per 100,000 for Indians (generally uncut)
329 per 100,000 for whites (generally cut)
or almost TWICE the risk for white males. There are other differences (Needless to say, Indians are generally lower-income with earlier sexarche.) which I didn't account for, but they all bias in favor of whites. In other words, a perfect counterexample.
Non-causal correlation.
Actually, most penile cancer occurs on the circumcision scar - which only circumcised men have.
How does the foreskin have anything to do with the prostate? LOL
Which is why circumcised penises in Africa keep getting AIDS.
So, having more nerves diminishes sensitivity?
Wrong again! Most women don't have vaginal orgasms anyway; the clitoris is the focus of female stimulation.
If this were true, the foreskin would've never evolved. (Every mammal has one. Mammals have been around since the Jurassic.)
The media pushes the circumcised penis. Otherwise, non-causal.
Only because the media pushes the circumcised penis.
Non-causal correlation.
Do I sense a bit of Arthur Jensen? No, wait, it'd be Rushton; he's obsessed with the relationship between the brain and the penis.
Inability to wash once a day? I can see how, if your only experience with one was from fetish videos, you might think the foreskin was hard to clean.
See media appearance.
Wait...It now affects the KIDNEYS too? LOL
'Phimosis' is a non-disease. The prepuce remains attached to the glans after birth in humans. (This also means that circumcision at birth might remove part of the glans.)
Another non-causal correlation. For that matter, the Census says there are 1,233,982 American Indian or Alaska Native (alone) males compared to 95,157,731 non-Hispanic white (alone) males. In 2001, there were 2057 cases of AIDS among American Indian males in the US, compared to 313,034 for white males. (Source: AVERT). This translates to
167 per 100,000 for Indians (generally uncut)
329 per 100,000 for whites (generally cut)
or almost TWICE the risk for white males. There are other differences (Needless to say, Indians are generally lower-income with earlier sexarche.) which I didn't account for, but they all bias in favor of whites. In other words, a perfect counterexample.
roedhunt: Man, Jonb..I have GOT to meet you! hahah Once again, you have read my mind. The media has brain-washed Americans (and others) into believing what is "right and acceptical" vs what's real and the truth.
Why is it allowed for parents to amputate the foreskin of their sons and not the clitoris hood that basically does the same thing? Smegma builds up under the hood too. But unlike male child, girls/women are not told about this, nor how to clean it......<sigh>
Why is it allowed for parents to amputate the foreskin of their sons and not the clitoris hood that basically does the same thing? Smegma builds up under the hood too. But unlike male child, girls/women are not told about this, nor how to clean it......<sigh>
Similar threads
