58% of the people responding to this particular poll are happy with how they are, cut or uncut, and the number on each side is about equal. Granted, the largest minority after those two categories are those who have been cut and wish they hadn't been. Which doesn't really prove anything in this non-scientific poll. If you want to talk statistics, I could make all sorts of inferences out of the fact that there are actually *more* cut respondents than uncut respondents in spite of the fact that in this country (where most LPSG members are from) they represent a tiny minority of adults. But I'm not arguing in this asinine debate, that wasn't my point. My point is still entirely true and has no inherent fallacy in it at all. The majority of respondents fall into one of those two categories saying that they're happy with how they are, which personally, I think is a pretty good thing. Some fucking nuts on this site seem determined to try and convince people out there that they should be outraged and dismayed by their "mutilated" penises, even if they like them and have in no way ever had any bad experiences because of them. This seems a little fucking ridiculous to me. I wasn't arguing for the benefits of circumcision. So, take my post for what it was worth, that it is nice most people out there feel okay about themselves, or kindly take your "statistical fallacy nonsense" and go fuck yourself with it, thanks.Snozzle said:
Happy with your circumcision status?
- Thread starter Snozzle
- Start date
NineInchCock_160IQ said:
Precisely what he said ^ right up there.
That's the jist of it for me too NIC. Sorry those of you with loads of foreskin covering that head of yours but I just don't feel cheated.
When I look down I like it as I see it.
And in fairness to the one circumsized cock that's in a gallery handy to this thread NIC's cock looks pretty damned fine in its circumsized condition I must say.
NineInchCock_160IQ said:
My, my, we're getting all nasty now aren't we!!!
One aspect of living in a country where the majority of adult men are cut is that few people question their status. While you and others may be fine with it and have no problems, others may not have realized that their too tight of a cut is seriously impairing their sex life. That was my situation a few years ago.
Fortunately, for the majority of boys being born today in the US, circumcision is not an option and so this discussion will be very different 20 years from now when they reach adulthood and doctors have experience with the intact penis. You and those who defend RIC will be seen as little more than historical anomalies, not unlike the crackpot doctors who advocated for circumcision in the early part of the 1900s.
C'mon guys let it go please, this seems to be an obsession with some people. . For the record I'm cut and like I said in another post it is a loose circumcision so sometimes the skin will partially cover the head. But I will NEVER say that I know how it feels to be uncut 'cause I don't. Like I said before it feels uncomfortable to me when the skin covers the head and I usually adjust to uncover it. Uncomfortable does not mean pain it just feels "funny" to me, not use to that feeling. However I know that this does not compare to being uncut.
But there are some guys on here who will say that I was mutilated at birth by my parents and how my penis has lost sensitivity. HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? If they are uncut how in the hell do they know what a cut penis feels like. I was not mutilated I love my penis and I'm very happy with it. I do not want my foreskin back and I'm very glad that my parents had me circumcised. I also admit that both of my sons were also circumcised and I assure you that I do not have any regrets to that decision.
I know what I'm about to say will make the anti-circ extremists explode but here it goes. I have a co-worker who has a 10 year old son who is not circumcised and they have dealt with 4 urinary tract infections since he was born. He said the doctor told him that their son has a tight foreskin which makes him more likely than others to have this problem. The doctor also told him that he will probably also have problems with erections when the penis grows during puberty because it might cause some pain or discomfort. The doctor told him about all possible alternatives from stretching to circumcision. But as my friend said "you can't teach a 10 year old stretching exercises". He and his wife decided to circumcise, very difficult decision for him cause he is uncut and never in his life had any problems. They dicided to do it now to prevent any future problems especially during puberty when sex will become an issue. After saying all that I know there are still some who will feel that the boy should never have been circumcised for any reason. But to those I ask what is worst circumcising him or knowingly allowing him to experience problems and pain and doing nothing to prevent it?
. For the record I'm cut and like I said in another post it is a loose circumcision so sometimes the skin will partially cover the head. But I will NEVER say that I know how it feels to be uncut 'cause I don't. Like I said before it feels uncomfortable to me when the skin covers the head and I usually adjust to uncover it. Uncomfortable does not mean pain it just feels "funny" to me, not use to that feeling. However I know that this does not compare to being uncut. But there are some guys on here who will say that I was mutilated at birth by my parents and how my penis has lost sensitivity. HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS?
If they are uncut how in the hell do they know what a cut penis feels like. I was not mutilated I love my penis and I'm very happy with it. I do not want my foreskin back and I'm very glad that my parents had me circumcised. I also admit that both of my sons were also circumcised and I assure you that I do not have any regrets to that decision.I know what I'm about to say will make the anti-circ extremists explode but here it goes. I have a co-worker who has a 10 year old son who is not circumcised and they have dealt with 4 urinary tract infections since he was born. He said the doctor told him that their son has a tight foreskin which makes him more likely than others to have this problem. The doctor also told him that he will probably also have problems with erections when the penis grows during puberty because it might cause some pain or discomfort. The doctor told him about all possible alternatives from stretching to circumcision. But as my friend said "you can't teach a 10 year old stretching exercises". He and his wife decided to circumcise, very difficult decision for him cause he is uncut and never in his life had any problems. They dicided to do it now to prevent any future problems especially during puberty when sex will become an issue. After saying all that I know there are still some who will feel that the boy should never have been circumcised for any reason. But to those I ask what is worst circumcising him or knowingly allowing him to experience problems and pain and doing nothing to prevent it?
CURVEDANDTHICKK said:But there are some guys on here who will say that I was mutilated at birth by my parents and how my penis has lost sensitivity. HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS?
I know what I'm about to say will make the anti-circ extremists explode but here it goes. I have a co-worker who has a 10 year old son who is not circumcised and they have dealt with 4 urinary tract infections since he was born. He said the doctor told him that their son has a tight foreskin which makes him more likely than others to have this problem. The doctor also told him that he will probably also have problems with erections when the penis grows during puberty because it might cause some pain or discomfort. The doctor told him about all possible alternatives from stretching to circumcision. But as my friend said "you can't teach a 10 year old stretching exercises". He and his wife decided to circumcise, very difficult decision for him cause he is uncut and never in his life had any problems. They dicided to do it now to prevent any future problems especially during puberty when sex will become an issue. After saying all that I know there are still some who will feel that the boy should never have been circumcised for any reason. But to those I ask what is worst circumcising him or knowingly allowing him to experience problems and pain and doing nothing to prevent it?
I was mutilated through my circumcision and sex was painful until I began to restore. You were lucky and let's hope your sons are too. Unfortunately, they will not now until they reach adulthood. A pretty big gamble IMO.
It's funny how circumcision, the most radical surgical method of correcting a tight foreskin, is seen as the only option in the US. Steroidal creams certainly seem to do the same job without requiring surgery and a dorsal slit is also a viable alternative to a full circumcision. Unfortunately for your friend's son, he wasn't evidently given those options. Another unnecessary circumcision due to ignorance.
^^ How did this friend know that you can't teach a 10-year-old stretching exercises. An attempt should at least have been made.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Look, we either discuss these results or we don't. But to wait until you disagree with part and then call just that part of it you disagree with "unscienitific" is like taking your ball and going home.NineInchCock_160IQ said:
I absolutely agree that a self-selected poll of well-hung men and their admirers is not a random sample of the human male population. (Such a sample would give a huge majority of intact, and of those, a high proportion would say "What's 'cut'?")
What do you think "this country" is? I'm in New Zealand. I'm assuming that most of the members (like most Internet users) are in the US, where about 80% of men are cut. But that's really neither here nor there.
It may well be that one or another of the response groups is more willing to reply, and that does mean the outcome has no predictive value for the rest of the world, but of those who responded, cutting them as babies was much more likely to make them unhappy as men than leaving them alone was.
No, that is fallacious. Suppose the unhappy cut slightly outnumbered the happy cut. By pooling the cut and uncut together as you do, you could still say a majority of men were happy the way they were, and go on ignoring the unhappily cut as you do. In fact, reducing it to absurdity, if the proportion of intact was 51% and all of them were happy, you could go on saying that a majority was happy even if 100% of the circumcised men were unhappy about it. Now do you see the fallacy?
The unhappily cut deserve to be listened to, because something was done to them, that didn't have to be done to them, which is directly responsible for making them unhappy.
I don't do that, because it's pushing shit uphill, and I find some of those who do somewhat annoying. This is not where our battle lies. But I think the opinion of men who don't like having been circumcised should be taken into account when considering whether to cut a baby, because being intact is - or should be - the default condition. They can always get part of their penis cut off later, in the unlikely case that they should want to.
Indirectly of course, you were.
Charmed, I'm sure.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
chico8 said:
just for fun, since im procrastinating. a 15 year old male presented to the ER with hypertension, increased BUN/Creatinine (kidney measurements), burning on urination, flank (lower back) tenderness, fever, and blood in his urine. We began working him up for some genetic renal disorders until his urinalysis came back high for leukocyte esterase (measurement of bacterial infection in the urine). We knew his foreskin and head were red and tender but associated it to an STD based on his sexual history. We decided to do some x-rays and some other tests to look at his kidneys and ureters. It turned out he had severe ureteral reflux to the point where the urine backed up and damaged the kidney. The kidney is so damaged it will never heal back to normal. He basically now has a kidney equivalent to someone who has the beginning of renal failure. When his father came we asked more questions and determined that it was all due to recurrent urinary tract infections. The father was helping the son stretch his foreskin manually bc the kid also had phimosis. They saw some quack doctor (i actually think it was an ND) and discussed this stretching. By them continuously putting non-sterile things under the foreskin to stretch it and some unknown steroid creme (steroids basically depress the bodys natural immune response to fight infection) they introduced so much bacteria to actually destroy his kidneys. Is this an extreme example? Yes, but what do you think his answer would be if asked if he would rather have had a circumcision or experience all of this? For every "complication" there has been for being circumcised there is probably one for being uncircumcised. Ideally circumcision would be a personal choice, however, parents have full medical rights to make decisions what they believe is in the best interest of the child. You can argue medicine, you can argue statistics, but you can not argue beliefs whether they are right or wrong.
These threads often bring out the same people don't they?
As I said before to the highly excitable baseball, preemptive amputation of healthy flesh from babies to prevent diseases for which they have no susceptibility is not medical care. This is a cultural fixation.
All body parts have a function. You just don't know what the foreskin's function is because you've never had a foreskin. You are not to be blamed for your ignorance, but it is not difficult to educate yourself. Here's a good link:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Assuming your story is not conveniently made up, how do the majority of the men in the world maintain their sexual health? As a foreskin amputee you are heavily invested in believing that the foreskin has no value, therefore amputating it has benefits rather than adverse sexual consequences. This is your personal fixation.
As I said before to the highly excitable baseball, preemptive amputation of healthy flesh from babies to prevent diseases for which they have no susceptibility is not medical care. This is a cultural fixation.
All body parts have a function. You just don't know what the foreskin's function is because you've never had a foreskin. You are not to be blamed for your ignorance, but it is not difficult to educate yourself. Here's a good link:
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Assuming your story is not conveniently made up, how do the majority of the men in the world maintain their sexual health? As a foreskin amputee you are heavily invested in believing that the foreskin has no value, therefore amputating it has benefits rather than adverse sexual consequences. This is your personal fixation.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
baseball99 said:
That story reminds me of the Shroud of Turin: the Shoud has marks that refer to every incident reported to have happened to Jesus in the gospels; the 39 lashes, the crown of thorns, the wounded side, the nails (even the sponge soaked in vinegar, and someone claimed he could tell the dates of a Roman coin on Jesus' eyes). So that story has everything pointing to circumcision and demonising the foreskin. Well, some people believe in the Shroud of Turin, too. In a phrase, they're both too good to be true.
That's not bourne out by the experience of ~75% of the men in the world who are intact and very rarely have anything the matter.
Of course you can! (But you don't often get anywhere.)
More to the point, there are medical ethics (first do no harm), there are human rights, including the right to security of the person.
And how come these "full medical rights" don't include any rights at all to cut the genitals of girls (absent pressing medical need), regardless of the parents' beliefs?
Snozzle said:
This link got taken down for "inappropriate content" although you can still find open heart surgery.
It's still up here:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/161143/routine_infant_circumcision/
My question is why ruin a perfectly good penis?
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Snozzle said:
What was the cause of the renal failure? Ureteral reflux
What was the cause of ureteral reflux? Recurrent bacterial infections and we're also waiting to see if the person has incompetent ureterovesicular junction valves (which may or may not be something he was just born with)
What was the cause of UVJ valves malfunctioning? Possibly he was born with it, but considering 90% become a problem due to recurrent UTI's.....
WHat was the cause of UTI? Forcing bacteria into the urethra
What was the cause forcing bacteria into the urethra? Stretching the foreskin and a steroid creme given by some guy who has no concept of medicine
What was the cause of stretching the foreskin? Phimosis
What was the cause of phimosis? sometimes it just happens
its no shroud of turin its called medicine and for the most part medicine follows logical steps. Just because you can't follow that does not mean we dont have a 15 year old boy on our service right now who just got waiting for a AVF so he can receive his first round of dialysis. Why is it when anyone states anything other than foreskin is the greatest thing in the world theyre labeled as Circumcision activists or foreskin amputeees. Please people the vast majority dont give a crap. I'm not a psychiatrist but I definitely remember taking Med Psychiatry in med school and whenever I read these threads I think about Projection. What else is going on in people's lives that make them so angry about being circumcised? What emotions are they truly bringing out? Does it make them feel inadequate due to other things in their lives? Some people may just be pissed they were cut but it really does not seem to be an issue in the real world. The real issues are 30 year old men coming in with type 2 diabetes and are basically impotent.....im sure they reeeaaaaaallllllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyyy care about their foreskin
funny; all the women i've talked to about it have said the opposite.Stronzo said:
moral of the story: people who wanna get into your pants will say whatever they think will recommend themselves to you. i would bet that 80%+ of the women either of us asked had never even thought about it before.pffft, how would you know? you'd say the same thing if you was uncut. regardless, our personal preferences as adults have nothing to do with the moral issues of neonatal circumcision.
i'm so tired of reading this horseshit everywhere. i've never had any difficulties with personal hygiene relating to my dick or any other part of my body. people who are dirty are dirty because they DON'T CLEAN THEMSELVES, not because of the nature or status of their physiology.
um, yes i can. if someone's beliefs are retarded or run contrary to proven fact, rest assured that i will tell them so. an idiot is an idiot irrespective of moral relativity.baseball99 said:
you're an ignorant runt. have you ever spoken to anyone in The Real World regarding their feelings on the matter? you haven't because it's not the sort of thing that most people feel they can discuss in public. and if your attitude is indicative of the prevalent attitude in the medical system itself, they probably don't feel they can trust medical "professionals" to take them seriously either.baseball99 said:
Is there anybody else who finds baseball a not very credible source of foreskin information?
The zeitgeist is changing baseball and you are on the wrong side of it.
The zeitgeist is changing baseball and you are on the wrong side of it.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 322
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
No, between the "phimosis" and the stretching came the "diagnosis" of phimosis and the decision that it was a problem that had to be treated. There are heaps of guys whose foreskins won't retract when erect and it's no problem to them. The principle is the same as with infant circumcision: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.baseball99 said:
I've never heard anyone say that.
It's wonderful how when a boy baby is born, it's very important that parents must make a decision about having part of his penis cut off, but when anyone suggests that's not a good idea, it's "not important".
Too much psychology is bad for you. Anyone who is pissed that they were cut (and a surprising number of women have been cut as children) has every right to be, and doesn't need to project their anger anywhere but there. If I'd had part of my dick cut off for no good reason I'd be mad as hell, and no further explanation necessary.
This real world of yours seems to be a different place from here - for example the poll above, where nearly half of the circumcised men who responded wish they weren't. For something that's supposed to be beneficial, that's a huge level of dissatisfaction.
What are you trying to say? The foreskin causes diabetes? I've heard about UTIs, STDs, HIV, HPV, TB, epilepsy, penile cancer, cervical cancer, HPV and balanitis (in fact circumcision has been touted for every feared disease du jour since about 1870 except bird flu), but that's a new one to me.
Incidentally, how many men coming in with type 2 diabetes and basically impotent are already circumcised?
Snozzle said:
Here are some other decisions their mother and I have made for them that they may regret:
The schools that they go to
Where they live
The discipline I've given them
The friends that they can and cannot hang out with
The clothes that they wear
When they go to bed at night
The doctors that they see
And many more
Point is that we, LIKE ALL PARENTS, do what is in our kid's best interest. We chose to circumcise our sons because we felt that benefits outweighed the possible complications of circumcision. Same reason that we allowed them to be vaccinated to several diseases. There are serious complications that may result from a vaccinations but the benefits outweigh the risks. You people seem to think that boys should never be circumcised for any reason. What kind of parent can allow their son to suffer from UTIs or phimosis and do nothing about it because of thier beliefs about circumcision. Oh and by the way circumcision is a surgical procedure and a person under the age of 18 cannot leaglly consent to it. PARENTS HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION . So now what, allow him to continue to suffer or not. What do you do, because your minor child cannot make that decision.
And as to that comment about my boys regreting my decision. Number 1 they do not know what the hell a foreskin is nor do they care. Number 2 here are things that they nor I ever need to worry about or have to learn to do: UTIs, phimosis, paraphimosis, bacterial infections, torn foreskins, smegma, retracting just to pee, retracting to wash, retracting to put a condom on.
Finally who the f&*k cares. If you're circed and happy about it great if you're not circed and happy about it great. Just enjoy life people and stop worrying about the dicks of others.
Poor argument. For the VAST majority there is nothing wrong with the kid. The foreskin is not a birth defect.
Similar threads
