Circumcision has been practiced for a very long time. It has been said to meet certain religious requirements and to prevent disease. It is an accepted thing. It is preferred by mothers that I have met because it makes it easier to keep the baby's penis clean.

Personally, as a woman, I find that uncircumcised penises feel better during sex. I read that the foreskin is there not only to protect the penis, but is the most sensitive skin on it.

I know there are ongoing studies to ascertain if the foreskin harbors germs and carcinogens, and disease control is a vital concern to many. Does that make it OK to remove an extremely sensitive (in more than one way) body part without the boy's permission?

I have not met any men who were circumcised as adults. So, is there a difference in before and after sensitivity for men? I heard that adult circumcision is extremely painful. Doing it to a baby wouldn't be all that different would it? I would not have someone else's ears pierced without their mature permission and total willingness. Is this different?

I do know that there are no medical health advantages to having the penis circumsized. I would guess that the uncircumsized penis is better during sex because that is the natural way the penis is, so it's supposed to feel better to make people want to have sex and reproduce more. Anyway, there are really no advantages other than the "accepted" look of the penis in today's society.

I know that some doctors that have to perform Circumcisions hate doing it because the little boys scream. I accidentally knicked my 10 month old daughter's finger while trying to clip her nails and she screamed for that. Personally, I feel like I've been robbed of a more sexual pleasure because of what my parents and medical science believed back in the day. It is also a sensitive subject when everyone is up in arms about female circumcisions practiced throughout the world, but no one says anything about baby boys in this country...

Female circumcision is a different concept in that it is traditionally the total removal of the vulva (external genitals) including the clitoris (female penis.)

I have a worry about how a young boy will develop psychologically if not circumcised if his mother(or father) is cleaning his penis, or examining the penis to see if it is clean... that seems to be a charged situation! A mom would have to check under the foreskin to see if all the smegma is gone until the kid if fairly old, to just before puberty, I would think considering how badly most boys take care of details.

I remember talking to a guy who fell off his garage roof when he was about 12, and he broke his arms. His mother took care of him urinating and defecating... yuckers!. he turned out VERY WARPED.

As for female "circumcision" it is nothing of the sort. It is simply destroying the clitoris so the woman has no clitoral sexual stimulation, and it done for barbaric repressive social and cultural reasons.

Just my opinion... perhaps I have some things to learn about how uncircumcised boys' genitals are cleaned by their mommies. :)

I think most "minute men" are uncircumcised... :D


Me I'm cut and trust me... I get one hell of a lot of satisfaction.


As to female "Circumcision" its mutilation pure and simple. They do it to keep the woman from getting any satisfaction because they are so insecure.

Personally I would almost equate it to lopping off the head of the wiener. And what they should do to any guy that tries to force his daughter or wife to have it done.

That's what I would think too, smoothy! :D

At what point does religious groups incorporate the barbarick act of taking a small boys penis and cut off bits of it, then making that compulsory to be part of that religious group, there must have been some really sick, religious leaders back then (and now). My view is, if its not broken, don't try to fix it... your sincerely Rabi 2personal ;)

The only reason the practice of circumcision was so popular was because of the lack of running water, people could not bathe daily, more like weekly or bi-weekly so the risk of infection was very great. Nowadays most people have indoor showers and can shower everyday, the risk of infection to a uncircumcised penis is very small. I have a nine year old son, he is not circumcised and we have never had any problems. And the thought that you have to clean it for him until adolescence is totally absurd, the foreskin isn't even retractable until around the age of 4 or 5, still young enough for mommy or daddy to give him a bath, that's when you start teaching him how to clean himself, my 9 year old has been cleaning under his foreskin since he was 7.

How do you know he is cleaning under it?

Listen, I am generally against circumcision, but this one point makes me wonder. :)

Simon I believe that it is a horrible thing to do to your child. I hope for the sake of all the little boys that this cruel practice will be stopped one day.
I cant' believe that all boys were created with a horrible defect such as skin covering their penis... to me it woul be like cutting your eyelids off.

My opinion concerning the medical side is pretty well laid out in the following post... scroll down a bit and you will see my opinion with links the AMA's site concerning their position on the procedure...

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/judais...on-159958.html

Short answer is that most medical "concerns" are statistically insignificant and just noise. Neither the AMA or the AAP recommend it as a medical procedure and inform physicians to not push it as such... it is a cultural phenomenon.

I'm a circumcised male who chose not to circumcise my son. Beside the medical crap being not true or statistically irrelevant, there were a few other points... most of which are emotional positions, so I'm not attacking those who "disagree"... this is my position.

First... I consider the foreskin to be important in sexual play. There are many nerve ending in this region. Why cut this out? Likewise, when being sexually stimulated the retraction and pulling up of the foreskin over the shaft and the glans has a pleasing feel. Why would I cut this off? As a corollary, some say the skin covering the female cl!t keeps this sensitive area moist and the skin softer and more sensitive. Again, sounds good to me!

I also don't believe it is a painless procedure... completely. The ama states its position in the link, advising the use of an analgesic. The only thing I will concede is that at birth some sensory impulses are not correctly "registered" by the brain... and perhaps the infant doesn't feel the pain we expect.

On the other hand, there is an argument that an infant also is unable early on to deal with pain the way a more developed mind can. For ex... when you hurt yourself your body is able to some degree to lessen the hurt by increasing its threshold to pain. Think about labor.

OK... I can go on here forever and I don't care to.

I think it is an unnecessary, cultural, non-medical technique (absent the rare cases where the foreskin never fully retracts and must be removed, usually in teen years. Yikes!) that has been propagated through generations, but is starting to see a significant decline in the US.

Kp, thanks for the great post. Excellent and very informative for the female. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

How do you know he is cleaning under it?

Listen, I am generally against circumcision, but this one point makes me wonder. :)

---

Boys penises are washed like girls vulvas until about 6-7 then they retract the foreskin and clean underneath-so simple.

The penis is reasonably self cleaning-like the vulva.

I really can't understand why people feel it is their right to cut off a part of their child's anatomy-male or female.

If I don't wash my hands-does that mean that mommy and daddy should have them cut off? Come off it.

the people who advocate circumcision have never had it done-or done when babies, or think it is okay if it is a child who is having it done to them , that they don't "feel it"=what a load of rubbish.


cicumcision is barbaric because it is MOSTLY done for the wrong reasons.

all of the above is my opinion-you asked for it you got it.:mad:

Quote:

---

I know there are ongoing studies to ascertain if the foreskin harbors germs and carcinogens, and disease control is a vital concern to many. Does that make it OK to remove an extremely sensitive (in more than one way) body part without the boy's permission?

I have not met any men who were circumcised as adults. So, is there a difference in before and after sensitivity for men? I heard that adult circumcision is extremely painful. Doing it to a baby wouldn't be all that different would it? I would not have someone else's ears pierced without their mature permission and total willingness. Is this different?

---

point #1 the studies are flawed and statistically insignificant.

point#2 correct-the glans dries-out and becomes keratinised (hardened)-not as sensitive in the circumcised adult.* sensitivity of course is variable.

Also i am tattooed and pierced-nipples, navel and ----. So i understand pain and the need for CONSENT!!
__________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

I think most "minute men" are uncircumcised.....:D


Me I'm cut and trust me...I get one hell of a lot of satisfaction.


As to female "Circumcision" its mutilation pure and simple. They do it to keep the woman from getting any satisfaction because they are so insecure.

Personally I would almost equate it to lopping off the head of the wiener. And what they should do to any guy that tries to force his daughter or wife to have it done.

---

Desert Flower

Waris Dirie - 'Desert Flower' - amazing book.

I thought back, and I never had sex with a man who wasn't circumcised. Thanks x-ray man for additional information about boy's and men's penis'.

I see no reason for male circumcision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

I thought back, and I never had sex with a man who wasn't circumcised. Thanks xray man for additional information about boy's and men's penis'.

I see no reason for male circumcision.

---

Some of us circumsized guys can easily go for an hour... on a daily basis or even longer.

Being overly sensitive in that area is counter productive unless you really want it over faster.

Hm, smoothy has a good point. :)

I really think that I'm outraged not so much by circumcision itself-just that it is done against a child's will. That is NOT ON!

Someone a while ago had a link to a video and to the circumcision "restraining device", used to disable movement form pain of the boy infant during circumcision... I thought we abandoned torture in the 1200's??

If you think that circumcision is okay-have it done, without anaesthetic, against your will and held down with straps---then argue with me about it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Being overly sensitive in that area is counter productive unless you really want it over faster.

---

I've known two good female friends who thought their male partners who were uncircumcised had a better sexual response than previous males who were circumcised, meaning they had better sex with these men and thought the sensitivity elongated, not shortened, sex. I can't state if that's true, but I have no reason do doubt their opinions.

I'm not saying all are created equal... sex is complicated... but most men can train themselves to hold back if they give a damn... why is this an issue with you concerning circumcised men? If you corrolate to women, you would then expect women without a clitoral hood to be able to hold back sexually... OK... so by your reasoning we should just cut off the cl!toral hood?

A woman's nipples might drive her over the edge when stimulated at the right time. Why expect different from the uncircumcised male? If you have a tool, you need to learn to use it well.

KP,
I was wondering if there was a man who was circumcized as an adult who could comment on a change in sensitivity. I am against cutting or piercing body parts without permission.

I did not bring up the issue of lasting longer. I said that uncircumcized feels better to me. You said "if you have tool, you need to learn to use it well." Right on.

Perhaps this issue of "lasting longer" when circumcised is really a (albeit BAD indictment on circumcision)-it means that sensitivity has beens reduced? Doesn't it?

I'm sorry I still don't get the ridiculous reasons given for mutilating a child, male or female.

Let's get out of the dark ages and leave our bodies as "god" or the universe, or nature or whoever/whatever designed it to be so.

My contribution is that the idea of circumcission was pushed by the medical people of years ago as part of either their religious beliefs or so they could have one more procedure to bill for.

I'm not saying that was the original source of the procedure... only that there was a big push for the public to accept it...

Below is a link to a lot of interesting reading for those who want to know more...

History of male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, and the way a 9 year old learns to clean themselves, is the same way they learn to wipe their rears... they get taught until they are able to do it themselves.

WOW! Many different opinions on this one. As a nurse I have seen many circumcisions performed, and to be honest with you, you put a little suger water on their pacifier and the doctor performs the procedure, honestly 90% that I have seen the babies don't cry, the others wimper for a few seconds and it is done.
I have also taken care of many boys without circumcised penises, and due to the constant infections they endure, many of the mothers end up getting their son's circumcised to relieve them from all of the infections and complications.
Then there are the older geriatric gentleman that I have taken care of in the hospital, and it is about the same thing with them as it is the younger boys that are not circ, they can't clean as well as they need to because of health reasons and their modesty of having someone else doing it. There is a lot of smegma that doesn't get cleaned off and there are more UTI's infections etc..
I believe it is everyone's own choice to believe whatever they believe, but coming from a medical standpoint I believe it beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kp2171

ive known two good female friends who thought their male partners who were uncircumcised had a better sexual response than previous males who were circumcised, meaning they had better sex with these men and thought the sensitivity elongated, not shortened, sex. i can't state if thats true, but i have no reason do doubt their opinions.

im not saying all are created equal... sex is complicated... but most men can train themselves to hold back if they give a damn... why is this an issue with you concerning circumcised men? if you corrolate to women, you would then expect women without a clitoral hood to be able to hold back sexually... ok... so by your reasoning we should just cut off the cl!toral hood?

a womans nipples might drive her over the edge when stimulated at the right time. why expect different from the uncircumcised male? if you have a tool, you need to learn to use it well.

---

Because women are more complicated than guys... 99.99% of women aren't as easy to stimulate and get off as a guy. Whereas women can actually climax from stimulation other than clitoral (and I've gotten women off without even touching their pubic area), except for direct prostate massage guys will not ejaculate or climax with other than direct penile stimulation. The more that gets stimulated the faster the guy finishes. And a more sensitive penile tip will NOT prolong it for a guy. For a guy to learn control and focus to not pop fairly quick the LEAST stimulation to that is what is the KEY.

An overly sensitive one eye wonder snake makes lasting more than 5 minutes far more difficult.

Like I said... you can't equate female stimulation with male stimulation... what makes a guy tick is light years from what makes a woman tick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

KP,
I was wondering if there was a man who was circumcized as an adult who could comment on a change in sensitivity. I am against cutting or piercing body parts without permission.

---

There's at least one organization that has a bunch of pi$$ed off men who were circumcised later in life for religious reasons... they claim it dramatically changed their sexual experience, but its hard to know the truth.

First, its an internet site. Second, its an emotional issue and its hard to know what is fact or not, since so much of sexual pleasure is also tied to mental state. Third, there's no real med study I've seen where men are tested for sensation, circ, then tested again, yknow?. I don't think from that alone you can make any real judgement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vtram7

Then there are the older geriatric gentleman that I have taken care of in the hospital, and it is about the same thing with them as it is the younger boys that are not circ, they can't clean as well as they need to because of health reasons and their modesty of having someone else doing it.

---

I'm not going to downplay the issue of uti's... the AMA still doesn't see the procedure as medically beneficial to prevent this in children... or at least that's the "official" line... their wording is such that you can tell they are trying not to damn the procedure... id really like to see numbers on how many parents later circ their sons due to uti's...

I think your point about geriatric care is a great one that has not yet been brought up in this thread, or even others I've seen. There are many issues tied to proper geriatric care, and while I'm not sure this is reason enough to cut, I think its certainly a great point concerning elder care.

Thanks for the points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vtram7

WOW! Many different opinions on this one. As a nurse I have seen many circumcisions performed, and to be honest with you, you put a little suger water on their pacifier and the doctor performs the procedure, honestly 90% that I have seen the babies don't cry, the others wimper for a few seconds and it is done.
I have also taken care of many boys without circumcised penises, and due to the constant infections they endure, many of the mothers end up getting their son's circumcised to relieve them from all of the infections and complications.
Then there are the older geriatric gentleman that I have taken care of in the hospital, and it is about the same thing with them as it is the younger boys that are not circ, they can't clean as well as they need to because of health reasons and their modesty of having someone else doing it. There is a lot of smegma that doesn't get cleaned off and there are more UTI's infections etc..
I believe it is everyones own choice to believe whatever they believe, but coming from a medical standpoint I believe it beneficial.

---

My question is why would a doc not perform this on a premie child or a child that has an irregular heart beat? Why do the babies sometimes go all day without eating after they have it done, if it is so painless? Why do they just not jerk up a grown mans penis and cut it if the procedure is so pain free? I am sorry but I think babies feel every ounce of pain,that this horrible procedure inflicts.
Have I seen thousands done? No but my 2 sons had it done and believe me it wasn't pain free. Yes, I regret that I was a young ,stupid, uninformed mom and went with the flow. I have also spent many hours at a University hospital& children's hospital and can't remember a child that had it done and cooed afterwards... I believe their little chest would heave up and down from the gut wrenching sobs of having it done. I just hope that everyone really educates themselves on this matter before they decide it is right for their child.

Quote:

---

My question is why would a doc not perform this on a premie child or a child that has an irregular heart beat? Why do the babies go sometimes go all day without eating after they have it done, if it is so painless? Why do they just not jerk up a grown mans penis and cut it if the procedure is so pain free? I am sorry but I think babies feel every ounce of pain,that this horrible procedure inflicts.
Have I seen thousands done? No but my 2 sons had it done and believe me it wasn't pain free. Yes, I regret that I was a young ,stupid, uninformed mom and went with the flow. I have also spent many hours at a University hospital& children's hospital and can't remember a child that had it done and cooed afterwards... I believe their little chest would heave up and down from the gut wrenching sobs of having it done. I just hope that everyone really educates themselves on this matter before they decide it is right for their child.

---

I never said that this procedure was not painful, my only statement was that I have seen quite a few done and to my surprise, they did not scream and wail as one would expect.. yes they wimpered or had a few tears some of them, but I was surprised at how little they cried because that is not what I expected. I never said anything about it being painfree. Thanks.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to downplay the issue of uti's... the AMA still doesn't see the procedure as medically beneficial to prevent this in children... or at least that's the "official" line... their wording is such that you can tell they are trying not to damn the procedure... id really like to see numbers on how many parents later circ their sons due to uti's...

---

I have seen it a handful of times probably. Having it done on toddler boys is devastating!

As far as the geriatric point I made, I just made it as something to think about, because later in life it is very difficult, and when you have someone with circulation problems etc... and you add infection on top of that, it can become a very bad situation.

My comments are just facts or stories I have experienced, It is no business of mine whether you circ your son. Just wanted to share.

I was circumcised when I was 21 after a yeast infection under my foreskin. I would certainly have preferred it to be done when I was a baby.
As far as the sensitivity is concerned, I think the head is a bit less sensitive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Before circumcision, if anything dry rubbed the head (a finger or even a dry lip), it would hurt. It takes a little more stimulation now, but the amount of pleasure from that stimulation is the same. Actually a bit better, because the foreskin is never in the way. It used to be that during sex, the foreskin covered the head until the end of the forward thrust, whereas now the head gets stimulated constantly. I remember having sex for the first time after being circumcised and enjoying all the tugging along the shaft, which I didn't feel before. Oral sex is better too, because the woman doesn't have to focus on keeping the foreskin pulled back and can focus on other things. On the minus side, masturbation was easier with a foreskin.
So I wouldn't worry about circumcision ruining a boy's future sex life. I would be in favor of having any sons circumcised as infants because of the foreskin complications that circumcised boys and men just don't have to worry about.

Thanks Nathan. I am female and have always shrunk away from anything dry against me. The foreskin protects the woman from being rubbed raw. Maybe that is why I prefer uncircumcised penises. I think it's supposed to be there.

oneguyinohio posted a link to wikipedia that describes the history of circumcision. Apparently, there was a time when Christians were aghast at the practice. The novel, "Azteca" describes the first Spaniards to arrive at the New World. Back then the Spaniards were terrified of bathing. Their filth and smegma odor was... described. I wonder how much of the novel reflected truth?

Most of the women I have dated preferred cut vs uncut guys. Women that prefer the opposite are in the minority from my life's experience. And that includes a share of European women as well as South American women. Yeah I sowed my wild oats pretty far before I settled down and got married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan1975

I was circumcised when I was 21 after a yeast infection under my foreskin. I would certainly have preferred it to be done when I was a baby.
As far as the sensitivity is concerned, I think the head is a bit less sensitive, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Before circumcision, if anything dry rubbed the head (a finger or even a dry lip), it would hurt. It takes a little more stimulation now, but the amount of pleasure from that stimulation is the same. Actually a bit better, because the foreskin is never in the way. It used to be that during sex, the foreskin covered the head until the end of the forward thrust, whereas now the head gets stimulated constantly. I remember having sex for the first time after being circumcised and enjoying all the tugging along the shaft, which I didn't feel before. Oral sex is better too, because the woman doesn't have to focus on keeping the foreskin pulled back and can focus on other things. On the minus side, masturbation was easier with a foreskin.
So I wouldn't worry about circumcision ruining a boy's future sex life. I would be in favor of having any sons circumcised as infants because of the foreskin complications that circumcised boys and men just don't have to worry about.

---

Sorry, but I feel that if YOU can't clean yourself properly and end up with an infection-that is YOUR problem and YOU caused the need for the circumcision-once again, perhaps you were ignorant of personal hygiene or failed to take care-This does still in no way mean that we should automatically cut every baby boy that is born... :rolleyes:

There are so many non-sensical arguments here it's doing my head in...

Okay here's one-let's say it doesn't hurt... okay so is that why we should do it?? Using that logic, we should cut every girl's hymen before she's "old enough"... JUST in case it fails to tear during her first sexual experience- HOLY COW.

This is totally ludocris.

Circumcision is cruel, painful and unessecsary:mad:

Cheers!:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Most of the women I have dated preferred cut vs uncut guys.

---

Did they reveal that preference to you before or after you revealed yourself to them? Sounds like they may have just been trying to give you a swelled head... LOL...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Did they reveal that preference to you before or after you revealed your self to them? Sounds like they may have just been trying to give you a swelled head.... LOL...

---

Swelled head? Far from it... They said this before we ever had a chance to disrobe. Plus European women unlike most American women are more likely to speak their mind rather than say what they think you want to hear or what is more likely to get them what they want.

That's a personality trait I like about European women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vtram7

I never said that this procedure was not painful, my only statement was that I have seen quite a few done and to my surprise, they did not scream and wail as one would expect.. yes they wimpered or had a few tears some of them, but I was surprised at how little they cried because that is not what I expected. I never said anything about it being painfree. Thanks.



I have seen it a handful of times probably. Having it done on toddler boys is devastating!

As far as the geriatric point I made, I just made it as something to think about, because later in life it is very difficult, and when you have someone with circulation problems etc... and you add infection on top of that, it can become a very bad situation.

My comments are just facts or stories I have experienced, It is no business of mine whether or not you circ your son. Just wanted to share.

---

I am circumsised was done as a baby I may have felt the pain then... but who knows... I don't have a recollection of it... as I was just a baby.. just like I could have fallen out of a window If I don't have a memory of something I don't see how it affects someone... yes I had human senses like pain etc... but everyone is acting like its 100% incorrect to be circumsised. The parent should make the choice there and then imo I am happy I am circumsised have had friends with infection who are not circumsised yeah they may not have been as clean as they should be but id rather just not have to have a risk of the issue occurring at all...

And those who say it is less sensitive or not how the hell do we know... if you have it done at age 21 and are circumsised then no doubt your going to have issues with sex IMO.

But I have a crazy high sex drive... it has nothing to do with been circumsised or not everyone is an individual... has their own opinions just mine.

Some people here are acting like their opinion is the only right one the parent has to make the decision the child has to live with it... should it really affect a child that much I don't think so.

Some will always say it is correct and incorrect but I am happy with my parents decision if it had been either way... and those who say circumsided people are not as sensitive how the hell would you know...

Just a couple of points and opinions to make.

The old testament, circumcision was considered a mark of God. That all boys had to have it done. In the new testament. It is neither important. All are children of God. It comes down to more Tradition in my opinion. As far as doctors or medical personal thinking that it is better to be circumcision.

I say, Why were we made with skin there in the first place, and then have it taken off. Too me it does not make any sense. Painful procedure, yes. For adults, babies , etc...

As far as cleanliness, that is why it is good to teach children how to clean their private properly then there will be less chanch of infection.

We were made a certain way and I think that instead of man messing with it, we should keep it the way it is naturally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

Just a couple of points and opinions to make.

The old testament, circumcision was considered a mark of God. That all boys had to have it done. In the new testament. It is neither important. All are children of God. It comes down to more Tradition in my opinion. As far as doctors or medical personal thinking that it is better to be circumcision.

I say, Why were we made with skin there in the first place, and then have it taken off. Too me it does not make any sense. Painful procedure, yes. For adults, babies and etc....

As far as cleanliness, that is why it is good to teach children how to clean their private properly then there will be less chanch of infection.

We were made a certain way and I think that instead of man messing with it, we should keep it the way it is naturally.

---

Less chance of infection not 100% reduction in infection... which is why circumsion is still done yes you won't be completely infection free but you won't have any kind of trouble those who are not circumsised may come acros...

I respect your opinions though yes maybe we should keep things Natural but then why shave... growing hair is natural...

Shaving hair is completely different then removing skin.

As far as not circumcised, I am not and have had no problems with any infections.

I respect each and everybodies opinion, but I am happy that I still have that skin that I was born with. Same as my son.

It is a matter of choice and belief for some people.

Just to put my 2 pennies in...

I don't have a son, no clue how I'd feel about circumcision for him. I'd probably leave that up to the hubby, really.

As far as personal preference, I've had sexual experiences with both. I prefer circumcized.

Not to get too much info or anything, but it is less likely to be "dirty" tasting, and I prefer the feel of a circumcized penis down lower.

But... that's my opinion.