Thoughts on circumcision?

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Did it again. I wish I had already been circumcised while in school, Jr high and High school. I just wanted to look like the other guys in the locker rooms. I also thought cut cocks looked much better than uncut. I recall phoning a urolgists office at age 16 to inquire of the cost of a circumcision operation. I knew my parents
could't afford the operaton to get me circumcised. I longed to be circumcised for many years. I envied my friends who were cut. I don't know how many times I asked myself, "why couldn't my dick look like theirs?" I thought to myself, Boy, life sure isn't fair." So consider your uncut son could very well wish he had been cut when he was born.

Have you not read this debate? Have you not checked the poll at the top of this topic? Uncircumcised respondents have a dissatisfaction rate of 14%, and can do something about it. Circumcised respondents have a dissatisfaction rate of 40% (!!!) and are -- to whatever extent it bothers them -- pretty screwed.

I had a friend who confided in me he would like to have a circumcision performed on him, but he died as a result
of a homicide. He never got to experience
the joy of being circumcised. I guess that's all I wanted to say.

I'm sorry he didn't get to experience that...or, you know, the rest of his life and all.

And there is the finanicial cost of getting
circumcised as an adult. It cost nearly $1,000 for me to get cut. If anyone has the figures on what the cost is today please post it here. It possibly has doubled by now. I had some medical insurance, but I ended up paying the majority of the cost. If I had been circumcised at birth the charge wouldn't have been more than $25.00 at most.

You can't be serious. You actually think an anesthetized procedure in a hospital only costs $25? No, it costs much more than that; many states just massively subsidize it to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Besides, you are arguing that we should preemptively circumcise every child (including the 40% who won't like it and the 90%+ who probably would never have done it themselves) which is incredibly cost-inefficient, even pretending like the subsidized cost were the actual cost.

And again, if they didn't want to be circumcised and want to become uncircumcised, they are pretty screwed. You're basically arguing that being screwed is better than having the choice to pay money to not be screwed.

You can tell anecdotes about people who wanted to be circumcised, I can tell them about people who resented being circumcised, and probably even vice-versa, but that's not what matters. The logic and the ethics are what matters, and your argument makes no sense in terms of either.

 

[nicecircjob]

I was talking about the cost of getting circumcised when I was born, not as an adult.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

I was talking about the cost of getting circumcised when I was born, not as an adult.

I know. Read the next few sentences after I said "you can't be serious." It's not actually $25. The hospital time alone costs more than $20, trust me. Some states and insurance providers just subsidize it ridiculously, and make everyone pay for it. And...again...why is it better that we screw over 40% of people than the unhappily uncut 15% have the option to pay that money? This is a completely illogical argument. It screws over more people and wastes more resources.

 

[Snozzle]

I was talking about the cost of getting circumcised when I was born, not as an adult.

That must have surprised the midwife!

 

[Uncutpete]

Reading the way this thread has progressed, I can only conclude that logic, persuasion, reason, examples, and facts still fail to shake the certainty of certain people... This would apply especially to people who desperately do not want to doubt that their bodies have been altered for a good reason, and that they are better off not having all that nature gave them, and that everyone else should be afflicted the way that they are.

 

[332823]

I don't like being cut at all.

 

[Charles Finn]

your not the only one
but we are told to get over it

 

[shep]

I became resentful when I saw all the action uncut guys got stroking/fucking with thier dicks. Then I learned what a different experience it is for cut vs uncut. But not much I can do about it now, so I check out foreskins and enjoy conversations with both cut and uncut.

 

[deleted15807]

A genuinely Tiny minority of men seem to have a pathologically emotional issue with this procedure... determined to stick their neurosis into other peoples lives and criminalize something that does not warrant that level of hysteria.

Most definitely. It certainly is some kind of pathology involved here. I am certain one day we will have a new diagnosis code in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) for them.

 

[Zayne]

If you are going to get your foreskin restored, wait until you are over 25. A foreskin prevents the penis from reaching its full potential size.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

If you are going to get your foreskin restored, wait until you are over 25. A foreskin prevents the penis from reaching its full potential size.

Not true.

How would a foreskin prevent the penis from reaching its full potential size? That is not how skin works. The reason foreskin restoration is possible is because new skin cells can be generated. Look up skin mitosis in any decent anatomy text and you'll know why the idea that foreskin limits penis growth makes no sense. Unless someone had incredibly severe phimosis, this would be impossible.

On the other hand, an overzealous circumcision that removes too much shaft skin can reduce the size of the penis. This is uncommon, but the tissue involved in erection doesn't necessarily cause enough tension (nor are erections sustained long enough) to cause the mitosis that would cause the shaft skin to 'correct' for the amount of shaft skin removed.

In other words, circumcision status has nothing to do with penis size, except if a rare medical problem or surgical mistake is present. Both are rare, but I imagine overly tight circumcisions are more common than severe BXO phimosis (I've never heard of a case in any of my clinical internships; seen people complain about overly tight circumcisions here frequently.)

tl;dr: Having foreskin doesn't reduce penis size. Having a severe medical issue can, as may some overzealous situations. All in all, I imagine circumcision is more likely to reduce penis size than staying uncut, but both of these are improbable. If you can provide a medical cite for your claim to dispute this all, let us know.

Most definitely. It certainly is some kind of pathology involved here. I am certain one day we will have a new diagnosis code in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) for them.

I like how you obviously had to take the title of the DSM from a web page, based on the Book Antiqua font codes left over from your copy-paste. I'm glad we have expertise on psychological pathology from someone who doesn't even know the name of the DSM by memory. Maybe you should stick to being snarky about things within your fields of competence, i.e., not ethics, medicine, psychology or how to spell "divine."

 

[332823]

your not the only one
but we are told to get over it

Well I guess that's all you really can do, isn't it? :frown1: Can't really undo what's been done…

Someone made me feel pretty bad about mine once and it kind of stuck with me. Not that I ever felt good about being cut.

 

[deleted15807]

Maybe you should stick to being snarky about things within

Ohh I bow at thy feet Mighty Highness of Foreskin. I quiver in your wake. Mine eyes have seen the glory of your wit and knowledge. The Supreme Knowledge Master (SKM) of Foreskin I bestow on you. You will go far in life with that knowledge base. Alas have you ever thought about 'getting a life'? Or is this your life?

Asides: I happen to like Book Antigua. Indeed you will find I use the font in other posts. So a huge strike out for you on that one. It was intentional and not 'left over' as it were. Psst. This time I'm using Century Gothic and again it was intentional and not 'left over'.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

Ohh I bow at thy feet Mighty Highness of Foreskin. I quiver in your wake. Mine eyes have seen the glory of your wit and knowledge. The Supreme Knowledge Master (SKM) of Foreskin I bestow on you. You will go far in life with that knowledge base. Alas have you ever thought about 'getting a life'? Or is this your life?

Asides: I happen to like Book Antigua. Indeed you will find I use the font in other posts. So a huge strike out for you on that one. It was intentional and not 'left over' as it were. Psst. This time I'm using Century Gothic and again it was intentional and not 'left over'.

If you didn't copy-paste it, why would you need to intentionally reset the font specifically on those words? Not that it matters, I'm just screwing with you a little. Why? Because you contribute nothing to these threads.

I'm not the High Mighty Whatever of Anything. I'm pre-med and studying pediatrics. I've spent my time thinking about ethics, reading studies on this issue (and tons of others), figuring out what I think is right and ethical, and then advocating for it. Why? Because I give a damn about what I do with my life, and not just on issues of war and genocide or whatever. You, on the other hand, have 234 posts in one circumcision thread alone, all of them that I've seen being repetitive sardonicism. You have an opinion that you refuse to advocate for and instead dedicate your energies to mocking anyone who disagrees with you. It seems like after hundreds of sardonic posts you could formulate one half-decent argument besides "people who disagree with me are mentally ill." Most people on this board, upwards of 70%, oppose routine infant circumcision. I suggest finding a board where you think fewer people are mentally ill, or where more readily confuse hostility with wit.

There are some posters here who I disagree with but who have contributed to the dialectical exchange. You're, for whatever reason, not electing to do that. Do you think they're crazy too?

If you're going to insult me instead of answering the question (because my questions are invalid if you've insulted me?), don't bother, just keep doing your thing. I'm just curious.

 

[Yellow LedBetter]

I'm uncircumcised and happy. If I were ever to have a son, he too would stay uncircumcised , unless he chose otherwise.

 

[Zayne]

A very renowned Italian Doctor of 35+ years of delivering babies told my wife and I when we were having our second child that circumcision 'frees' the penis to attain its fullest growth potential. Conversely, leaving the foreskin intact, he said, forestalls and thus prevents the development process in full. Not to mention, uncircumcised penises are more prone to phimosis, smegma retention, and a stench not unlike brie.

Now, throw at me your statistics which present exactly what you want them to!

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

A very renowned Italian Doctor of 35+ years of delivering babies told my wife and I when we were having our second child that circumcision 'frees' the penis to attain its fullest growth potential. Conversely, leaving the foreskin intact, he said, forestalls and thus prevent the development process in full. Not to mention, uncircumcized penises are more prone to phimosis, smegma retention, and a stench not unlike brie.

Now, throw at me your statistics which present exactly what you want them to!

I'm open to changing my mind. It's my (future) job to follow the ethics and the evidence. There are benefits to circumcision, and if someone can convince me they outweigh the costs and are imminent enough to justify RIC, then hell, I'll argue for RIC or at least remain neutral. But the evidence you're basing your position on is not convincing.

For instance, could you have this Italian doctor explain how cell mitosis does not apply to the foreskin, or find a single medical cite to support his contention? I assume he did not conduct this study himself. If you give me his name, I can even email him to ask. I just looked on PubMed and I can't find anything.

Circumcising to prevent phimosis is an insanely cost-inefficient policy, considering the diagnosis rate of phimosis is very low and the cure rate is very high. You're advocating circumcision to prevent a problem affecting like 2% of men that has a cure rate of >90% with more conservative treatments, and where the worst-case treatment is...circumcision.

It's true that uncircumcised men are more likely to have smegma, although most will never produce it unless there hygiene is chronically terrible. The same goes for any odor problem. In the end, uncircumcised and circumcised men have essentially identical results if they practice good hygiene. Besides, your entire argument is that we should preemptively circumcise because if we didn't, men would be dissatisfied with their penises (because of the hygiene implications), right? Look at the poll in this very topic. Among uncircumcised men, the dissatisfaction rate is only 15% -- and they can do something about it. Among circumcised men, the dissatisfaction rate is 40%. That's 2-in-5. Evidently they don't feel that circumcision was in their best interest.

Even ignoring the fact that you're blowing off the potential for circumcision complications, you're advocating circumcision to:

1. Avoid the possibility of later medical circumcision, even though you'd have to perform over 100 unnecessary circumcisions to avoid 1 necessary medical circumcision. (Think of how effectively that money could be used if we weren't wasting it on unnecessary circumcisions.)

2. Increase men's satisfaction with their penis 'features,' even though circumcision apparently decreases the net percent satisfied by about 25%.

These are not good rationalizations for RIC.

 

[deleted15807]

Look at the poll in this very topic. Among uncircumcised men......baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Internet Polls Found to Be Unrepresentative

Most Internet polls should be avoided as measures of the opinions of the general population, according to a report released last month by the American Association of Public Opinion Researchers (AAPOR).

The AAPOR Report on Online Panels maintains that “researchers should avoid non-probability online panels when one of the research objectives is to accurately estimate population values.”
​

Keep up the good work Mr. Native :wink:

Why? Because I give a damn about what I do with my life, and not just on issues of war and genocide or whatever.

Ahhhh I see coming daily to a big pee pee site is indeed a noble act . Your 'contributions' might one day get noticed as such a selfless courageous act that it is. All the little foreskins out there you have rescued from certain destruction at the hands of careless unethical doctors and parents. It is indeed on par with 'issues of war and genocide'. Surely goodness and light will follow you oh SKM.


Asides. I used Comic Sans font this time and it was no copy and paste. I like to mix things up. I hope it doesn't throw you off. As for the 235 posts that was long before I hit the Age of Reason at which point I decided you fanatics are indeed unreasonable.

 

[D_sxacertfzsr]

A very renowned Italian Doctor of 35+ years of delivering babies told my wife and I when we were having our second child that circumcision 'frees' the penis to attain its fullest growth potential. Conversely, leaving the foreskin intact, he said, forestalls and thus prevents the development process in full. Not to mention, uncircumcised penises are more prone to phimosis, smegma retention, and a stench not unlike brie.

Now, throw at me your statistics which present exactly what you want them to!

That dr. is full of you know what and is providing possibly some unethical advice that is not backed up by science and nature. I am pre-med and I know that cuting can have the opposite effect. As in my case. When I started restoring and gained more skin it allowed some of the restricted length to be freed. The increase in skin over the glans allowed for more intense orgasms and pleasure which is one of the reasons skin is there to begin with.
Also, as far clean is concerned, it's called self-responsibility to keep oneself clean. But most who feel that cutting will help keep things clean tend to be followers and just do what they are told.
I have no use for ones that clearly have a dysfunction in cognitive thinking.
Well enough of that.

 

[Hoss]

all men should have the chance to experience at least one trip to a circumcisionist in their life time and then decide if it's what they want. Other times it should happen is when there is a major medical problem which can only be cleared by removing the skin.