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...