Is circumcision really that big of a deal?

[SteveHd]

Are they not allowed to express that because it displeases you?

*A tricky double negative.*

Adding to what DC_DEEP has already written, my side has been called "complete assholes" thus nothing is inhibiting your side from saying what they wish to say. About a year ago, "cutdrew" started a thread in favor of cuts: http://www.lpsg.org/the-healthy-penis/33009-i-like-my-circumcised-dick.html ... take a look for yourself and see if he was "attacked". Note that a pro-cuttter, baseball99, was the first to use the word "hate". For the record, I purposely stayed out of it for a while. Once I jumped in, I got a quite sarcastic, though.

Why do you get to declare what is safe and legitimate what is not?

That's news to me! I didn't know I had that power. Please quote the LPSG Terms of Service clause that grants me that power.

So all these things are gone forever, but somehow lost sensitivity can be magically restored?

Sensitivity has improved on some parts still remaining, namely, the corona, sulcus, and frenular delta. I think I've mentioned that before. Gliding action and the rolling of the foreskin over the corona is a completely new and wonderful experience. F/R isn't magic.

Most tissue becomes weaker as it is stretched.

If it is then it's only slightly weaker. Penile skin contains connective tissue and peripenic muscle tissue. Take a look at Dr. Haughey with 16lbs handing from his foreskin: Don't Try This At Home!

Have you thought about the possibility that all that stretching may be more damaging to the tissue cells and nerve endings that you have left?

I'm very touched that you're concerned about my skin.

Also consider that in your excitement in having a foreskin again, your belief that it is more sensitive, causes it to be so.

You're saying it's all in my head? Nice try, I don't think so.

Just like the average circumcised guy (who was doing just fine up until this point) now feels a lack of sensation and inferiority because the intactivists insist that he should have less sensation.

Trying to discredit the Intactivist Movement?

 

[SteveHd]

I'd love to see the circ stats for all the male AIDS deaths in America since the late 1970s. I dare speculate that 90%+ of AIDS fatalities in the US are circumcised men. Or, rather, the circ stats for these unfortunate men are probably exactly the same as for the US population at large.

Your speculation might be high but maybe slightly so. The peak circ. rate is estimated to be ~85% in 1965 then it gradually and unevenly declined since. Since many of the AIDS victims would have been born before 1965 we can assume a very high circ. rate for them. Without verifiable data, all that we can do is guess.

 

[Dave NoCal]

It's interesting to me how vehement RIC advocates can be. The logic of being opposed seems pretty straighforward, not doing genital modifications on those who can't consent. Seemingly, the circumcision status of as yet unborn babies would not be important to them. Yet it is. It appears to me that those who advocate RIC may be very ambivalent. On the one hand, they say they would really like this topic to go away. One the other hand, they certainly do their part in keeping the threads going. They support the status quo, which these discussions threaten, yet may have deeper feelings about having been cut or of having had sons cut and thus need to justify the practice. It really is perplexing.

 

[DC_DEEP]

It's interesting to me how vehement RIC advocates can be. The logic of being opposed seems pretty straighforward, not doing genital modifications on those who can't consent. Seemingly, the circumcision status of as yet unborn babies would not be important to them. Yet it is. It appears to me that those who advocate RIC may be very ambivalent. On the one hand, they say they would really like this topic to go away. One the other hand, they certainly do their part in keeping the threads going. They support the status quo, which these discussions threaten, yet may have deeper feelings about having been cut or of having had sons cut and thus need to justify the practice. It really is perplexing.

Well, not only do the pro-RICs do not stick to a logical train of thought. They will not answer direct questions without attacking the character of the questioner. The only two halfway cogent arguments they present are "religious observance" and "parental responsibility." But if I ask "you rigorously defend and adhere to religious commandment #3, but you choose to ignore #1 and #2, plus #s 4, 5, 6, and 7. Why is #3 important and all the rest are not?" And if I ask "would it be any different if a parent claimed that tattooing and infant, or cutting off any other part than the foreskin, would you support that parent's right?" it's the defensive defense, the claims of "anti-semitism", and the claim that "cutting off an earlobe is not the same as cutting off a foreskin." Never any logic.

 

[Dave NoCal]

Agreed. My question is what horse(s) do they have in this race?

 

[Christiaan]

I've really been pissed off lately that I was circumcised at birth, reading all the negative websites on how it reduces sexual pleasure, etc.

What do you guys think about it? Do you think circumcision is really worth losing sleep over?

My feeling is that you are never going to get a satisfactory answer because the opinions are so prejudiced in both directions.

I think that it is obvious that if some skin which has a lot of nerves is protected from outside touch, then when it is exposed, at least for a period of time, the direct stimulation is not going to feel good until some skin layers build up to compensate. This is the same for both boys and girls. If you want to see your girl friend jump a foot off the bed, then push her foreskin back and rub your finger directly across her clitoris. The knob on a boy's penis is no different.

Of course, if you are circumcised you are able to function and enjoy sex, so however you feel about it being done, you can learn to carry on and be happy or at least content with the result.

Now about the sleep issue... Yes, absolutely. If something was removed that belonged to you without your permission, then you have every right in the world to be pissed. There is no need to prove anything, the foreskin was yours. The fact that your parents (or who ever) had it taken away on their whim is one of the bizarre parts of society which says it is all right to cosmetically change a boy's sex organs to suit the parents while it would be unthinkable to do the same to a girl. After all, removing the foreskin from the clitoris and inner labia would make it so much easier for a girl to keep clean.

Rediculous you say? Of course, but it applies to boys and girls equally. One does not deserve protection and the other doesn't.

 

[joejack]

Circumcision is a barbaric custom that somehow became acceptible in the medical profession in certain places. Just think how you felt when shortly after leaving the comfort of your mother's womb some stranger painfully mutilated your sexual organ. It just ain't right! Do not allow your son to be treated as meanly as you were. The human race got along just fine for a million years without it. The main thing is, no one asked your permission. You should be pissed off. May I offer a timely question to ponder? Are circumcised males more likely to become suicide bombers?:dunno:

 

[Dave NoCal]

intelligendAND hung, this web site might interest you. arclaw.org. They are actually doing something.

 

[BillyLuvsBoob]

Im cut, my son isn't, and Im very thankful that I made this decision.

I resent my parents for not researching, and thinking it through - I was cut mid 70s - probably without much thought, and probably because my Dad is cut too.

Sure, most kids were done, I felt as though I fitted in at school, and that everything was normal. However, after doing my own research, when faced with the situation of 'to cut/or not to cut' my own son, I was able to see what a significant descision this was, and that "I DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE MY SONS BODY".

You know what, the scarey thing is, when I started researching this, both my wife and I assumed we would cut him - with my wife being quite insitant, as she 'preferred the look of a cut dick'.

It never felt right the thought of making this decision for my son, and thank God I changed my view, and hers. We're both very thankful that we didn't blindly make the decision to cut.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

Semendemon I think you generalize too much from your personal experience and perhaps I do the same. Last month in a thread about smoking being made illegal in England (and other places) I was explaining to SpoiledPrincess that the default condition of air is clean.

The default condition of men, women and the intersexed is with complete genitalia. You'll have difficulty convincing many of us that your experience can be universalized. Anyway, with world population pushing past 6.6 billion, won't you agree that surgeons have better things to do than try to cut off parts of all those babies' genitals because they may want to get part of it cut off in their thirties, like you did? The best we could say is this is a prehistoric standard of medical care.

Can we please agree that circ mileage may vary? I could barely orgasm by the time I was 37. Restoration has helped a lot. I believe the gliding effect is important. It will never be the dick I was born with, but when you put it back the way that nature intended insofar as it is possible, nature reasserts itself insofar as it is possible.

World Population Clock

Sometimes I write in haste and I'm not as clear as I should be. I didn't intend to generalize, and your position is reasonable. I was just trying to give some time to the opposing view point that circumcision is not such a horrible barbaric procedure and obviously detrimental to our sex lives.

All the views expressed in this forum, including my own, are personal opinions based on experience, observation, readings, or just because. Yes we (and I'm talking about both sides here) try to site clinical studies, but with few exceptions, it's to reinforce what we already "know" is true. That's why I really don't take all of this so seriously. For a long time I also believed that circumcision was very detrimental to sensitivity, and this was based on personal experience. At the time (when I was uncut) it seemed that I was always more sensitive than my circumcised partners. Well, I've now been cut for over five years, and guess what, I'm still more sensitive that most other guys, cut or uncut. I've come across guys who were uncut and they were less sensitive than me.

I also want to make it clear that I'm not advocating universal infant circumcision. In fact, I agree that it's probably not a good thing to do. As in your case and others it can cause more harm than good. But I'm just not comfortable forcing my choice onto other parents. I think you have the right to persuade if you want, but it stops there. Some would have the procedure banned outright. I could never advocate going that far. What would we do at that point, throw parents in prison if they have their son circumcised?

Again, like everything else on this forum, it's just an opinion.

 

[chico8]

I also want to make it clear that I'm not advocating universal infant circumcision. In fact, I agree that it's probably not a good thing to do. As in your case and others it can cause more harm than good. But I'm just not comfortable forcing my choice onto other parents. I think you have the right to persuade if you want, but it stops there. Some would have the procedure banned outright. I could never advocate going that far. What would we do at that point, throw parents in prison if they have their son circumcised?

Again, like everything else on this forum, it's just an opinion.

But, it's not the parent's dicks and sex life that are going to be affected~~??!>@>

I still totally fail to understand why people think a "cut" dick is automatically going to be better for their son. It's their son's body and his right to make that decision for himself. Too many boys have suffered irrevocable harm exactly because it remains their parents' choice.

The first thing to do would be to throw the docs and mohels into prison. If a parent does it at home, then absolutely, they deserve to have their butts rot in prison.

The US and the UK are experiencing problems with north africans taking their daughters out of the country so they can be mutilated. I'm all for taking away custody from a parent that endangers its child's life.

I would go even further and state that in the first twenty years after circ is banned, a panel of three doctors would also have to agreed that circumcision for someone under the age of 18 is medically necessary. For the next dozen years, I would ensure that adults wanting to be cut come in for counseling to ensure they're not being pressured into it by their families.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

semendemon, I'm curious why you claim the guys fear for their "online lives", SteveHD says they are perfectly safe, then you claim his "safety" statement is proof of why the guys fear posting. It just does not make any sense, and doesn't help your position, it hurts it. Perhaps the guys who have sent you PMs because they are terrified of me and Steve and dxj ARE happy that they were snipped at birth; the big problem is that, if they AREN'T happy with it, there's NO WAY TO UNDO IT. You really are not listening to the guys who want a "restored" foreskin. They are not saying it magically returns to its original, intact state. They are saying that having the restoration done is better than not having it done. It's a bit like having a leg amputated, and choosing to have a prosthetic leg replacement. It's not the same as having the original leg, but it's better than no leg at all.

And you still have not commented on my assertion that with something as personal as one's own cock, a man should have the right to choose whether or not a piece of it gets cut off.

His statement was that "they can safely comment as long as they don't mention smell, Smegma, or praise infant circumcision in some way"
It's the "safely as long as they don't" part that I object to. To me it sounds like he's trying to declare what comments are permissible and what isn't. But maybe I overreacted. I'm not sure what they have to fear either. I'm just relaying their concern to make a point. I forgot exactly what that point was now. The term used was verbally crucified, which is a clever analogy, but probably too strong a word. To me it's more akin to throwing verbal darts at each other. Which can be as aggravating as it is entertaining. That's why were here I guess.

Your comment that "if they AREN'T happy with it, there's NO WAY TO UNDO IT". Well, I think the claim is that they are undoing it. I don't resent the fact that they are restoring it. It's a long and difficult regime and I admire the determination. I'm just skeptical about the effectiveness of it. But then I'm skeptical about many things.

On your last comment: I think parents make a lot of difficult choices on medical care for their kids. How many vaccinations, tonsillectomies and other surgeries take place without consent. Circumcision has pros and cons. If you should have a son, then don't have it done. I'm not even sure what I would do as a parent. I've gone back and forth on the issue a few times and lean towards not performing it. But I would not force that decision on another parent.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

Vaccinations have been proven beyond any doubt to have benefits, diptheria is extremely rare, smallpox was declared eradicated, children who have been vaccinated against it don't get tetanus. Tonsillectemies are unfortunately necessary and also have an immediate benefit. There are no proven benefits of circumcision. Parent's shouldn't have an automatic right to make decisions which are irrevocable and have no proven benefit and may cause harm.

 

[simcha]

Vaccinations also kill, SP.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

They kill extremely rarely whereas the diseases they prevent have a high mortality rate.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

The whole ritualism of the aspiring middle classes will come crashing down around them when the first substantial damages are awarded by a high court judge to a surgically abused child against his parents and the surgeons (though whether such a procedure can really be termed surgery is doubtful) and we stop clinging to our tribal prejudices.

 

[D_Neasham Teattunger]

*A tricky double negative.*

Adding to what DC_DEEP has already written, my side has been called "complete assholes" thus nothing is inhibiting your side from saying what they wish to say. About a year ago, "cutdrew" started a thread in favor of cuts: http://www.lpsg.org/the-healthy-penis/33009-i-like-my-circumcised-dick.html ... take a look for yourself and see if he was "attacked". Note that a pro-cuttter, baseball99, was the first to use the word "hate". For the record, I purposely stayed out of it for a while. Once I jumped in, I got a quite sarcastic, though.That's news to me! I didn't know I had that power. Please quote the LPSG Terms of Service clause that grants me that power.Sensitivity has improved on some parts still remaining, namely, the corona, sulcus, and frenular delta. I think I've mentioned that before. Gliding action and the rolling of the foreskin over the corona is a completely new and wonderful experience. F/R isn't magic.If it is then it's only slightly weaker. Penile skin contains connective tissue and peripenic muscle tissue. Take a look at Dr. Haughey with 16lbs handing from his foreskin: Don't Try This At Home!I'm very touched that you're concerned about my skin.You're saying it's all in my head? Nice try, I don't think so.Trying to discredit the Intactivist Movement?

I'm not going to reply to all of this because quite frankly, it's been fun, but I'm getting kinda tired of it now, and it's futile anyway. But to your last question:

No, I'm not saying it's all in your head, just some of it. It's been said that the brain is the largest sex organ that we have. In the clinical trials for Viagara, over 30% of the subjects were getting erections while taking the placebo. The placebo worked even better when they were testing Rogaine. I'm just asking you to consider that your desire may be affecting how you perceive the results. In the end it doesn't matter. If it works for you, then it works.

I'm not trying to discredit the Intactivist Movement, just challenging it, like you've been doing with just about any statement I make. It works both ways and the Intactivist Movement is not exempt.

And one more thing, I have never called anyone here an asshole.

 

[simcha]

They kill extremely rarely whereas the diseases they prevent have a high mortality rate.

Yeah, well I was severely traumatized by getting a DPT booster when I was four. I remember being in excruciating pain. My arm that had the injection site was swollen to twice again as thick as the arm. I couldn't move my arm. I got a fever, and the symptoms took a few days to go away.

I think that perhaps my parents and doctor should have known that I was going to have a severe allergic reaction to the DPT shot since I had one when I was given my original series as a baby.

Sometimes things that are good for you aren't very pleasant at first.

DPT Vaccine - DrGreene.com

DPT= Diptheria, Pertussis "Whooping Cough," and tetanus.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

If you had a severe reaction to the first one you shouldn't have received the second one however that hasn't had a lasting effect for you apart from preventing you getting DPT. You're satisfied with your circumcision but you really don't know how it would have felt not to be circumcised. Men can say that they don't lose any sensation or that their sensation is better but what is undeniable is that it's removing an area rich in nerves, men with circumcisions don't have any areas that men without circumcisions don't have ipso facto they have less areas that contain nerves so it would make sense that by default they enjoy less sensation, when a man is first circumcised his exposed glans would be unused to the constant stimulation from clothing so he would feel more sensation for a time, but over a number of years the head of his cock would toughen up, this would not only mean that he'd be less sensitive to the sensations of his clothes or other things rubbing against his cock but that he'd also be less sensitive in general.

 

[simcha]

If you had a severe reaction to the first one you shouldn't have received the second one however that hasn't had a lasting effect for you apart from preventing you getting DPT.

Don't presume to know that there were no lasting psychological effects from this, because I was old enough to remember it, unlike when I was circumcised. I know I don't remember that at all. No trauma, no regrets, just like most men who were circumcised. It's the loud minority that has issues and the anti circ brigade constantly misinform them and use propaganda to make them feel inferior.

Sorry, there is no conclusive evidence to back up your claim that it's less sensitive for those of us who where circumcised at birth. No one has ever been able to count nerves in circumcised versus non-circumcised penises in order to prove this theory purported by the anti circ propagandists.

And, mine is low and loose cut. Half of my glans, and sometimes all of my glans, is covered when flaccid. So, again, you presume too much when you speak of things of which you have absolutely no experience (being a woman) and have absolutely no incontravertible facts to back up your claims.