One small cut for man not kind

[Czarcasm]

Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.

[treis]

Finally, a problem we can blame on the Jews.

[Scott_Plaid]

@treis

Finally, a problem we can blame on the Jews.

Now hold on just a second!

We can blame christianity on them.

Wait, no. I don’t mean the killing jesus thing. That was the romans. I mean the fact that christianity traces it’s origins back to the god of abraham, etc.

[Scott_Plaid]

P.S. I am a victim of this. I think it is barbaric.

[rexnervous]

@Scott Plaid

P.S. I am a victim of this. I think it is barbaric.

I too am a victim. Of course, I don’t remember it at all. And my penis seems fairly normal to me. It does all the things it’s supposed to, and from my experience certainly feels the right things when female attention is paid to it. And of all of the women I’ve been with (not a huge sample size, I’ll admit), not a single one has mentioned anything other than … well, I don’t want to say admiration, that would be stretching it (no pun intended) … how much they enjoy it.

And, to be honest, whenever I see uncut penises, at the gym or in porn, they look pretty damn ugly. YMMV.

[Anastasaeon]

This is just personal experience, adn naturally everyones MMV. That said…

My first lover had an uncircumsized penis, and had enormous trouble with it. He couldn’t pull the skin back over the head, and the head itself, when it peeked through, was often a disturbing reddish-purple colour. It was often infected, and quite frankly, smelled terrible, though I’m sure that had something to do with the infection.

A male friend of mine several years ago had to have his cut at 25 years old. This man was very meticulous about his personal hygiene, but it kept getting infected. (I know he was meticulous… I wasn’t his lover, but he had no problems being naked around me.)

My ex-fiance was circumsized, and he blamed all of his erectile problems on being circumsized. I am not a man, and so I have no idea what is myth and what is fact when it comes to erection problems, but I feel I should at least mention that this fellow was not a very bright bulb, and he often jumped to a “simple” conclusion and ran with it. (ie: he believed most stereotypes to be absolutely true, most urban legends to be true, and that once he was right, he was right all the time - so I have no idea if it was truly because of the circumsision that he had erection problems, or if it was just something he decided to blame all of his problems on once and stuck with it for good - since he can’t get his foreskin back, he may have found it easier to pin the blame on its absence.)

My husband is circumsized and has no problems (and has never had problems) whatsoever.

I think this issue is more than just black and white. There are many factors and circumstances to take into consideration. I just can’t find people who have it done to their children evil, terrible people - their experiences with it may have more depth to it than simply “I want my son to be just like daddy.” Daddy may have had a terrible experience with his foreskin and had to have it removed late in his life and doesn’t want his son to suffer the same way he did. Shoddy circumsisions may have been done by shoddy doctors. I’m not saying this is true in all cases. No matter what parents decide for their child, they should talk to several doctors about it, and talk to people about their experiences with it.

As for an older child, it should be done with their consent, of course, unless it is truly a health problem and it needs to be done.

[andros]

@Alsoran

If only 1 in 100,000 go wrong surely this is too many.

Why?

[XT]

Ah, the anual To Cut or Not To Cut…that tis the question thread.

Well, as I did last time this came up, here is what Unca Cecil has to say on the subject:

I say it doesn’t make much difference, on average. Which is not to say it doesn’t make much difference. It’s just that individual reactions to circumcision run the gamut and there’s no telling how things are going to turn out for your kid.

Cecil knows this because he has been inquiring once again on the Internet–not the most scientific technique in the world, but how else are you going to find out about things like this? I turned up four men who were circumcised as adults and were thus in a position to compare. Two said sex was better before, two said it’s better now. The two who bitched said that over time the foreskinless glans (the tip of the penis) became less sensitive. This may be due to abrasion from clothing. It certainly isn’t because the foreskin contains the greatest concentration of nerve endings, as some circumcision opponents allege; from an anatomical standpoint, God’s little mudguard is basically ordinary skin.

Of the two satisfied customers, one was circumcised because he had a tight foreskin that split and bled copiously during his first attempt at intercourse–admittedly (and mercifully) not a common problem. The other guy just didn’t like the way his stalk looked. Now, he says, not only is he more sensitive, he doesn’t have problems with odors, splash when urinating, or get his foreskin caught in his zipper. Your kid’s prospective partners (in a moment of heterosexism, Cecil assumed they would be women) are also divided in their views; several said an uncircumcised man had more to play with, while others prefer the streamlined look.

This isn’t really helping you, is it? It gets worse. One cost-benefit analysis (Ganiats et al, 1991) found that circumcision had a “net discounted lifetime cost” of $102 and a health cost of 14 hours of healthy life. In other words, you wound up poorer and sicker–but only slightly. “These results suggest that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other and that factors other than cost or health outcomes must be used in decision making,” the researchers wrote. But I guess you knew that.

In English-speaking countries routine circumcision of newborns began in the latter 19th century as a quack medical technique intended to curb masturbation and other ills. Circumcision opponents, a passionate lot, decry the practice as “ritual genital mutilation.” Those unhappy with their circumcised members (a common complaint is that the skin is too tight, making intercourse and, yes, masturbation painful without lubrication) sometimes resort to “foreskin restoration,” in which the skin is stretched with clamping devices. Sounds awful, but they say it works.

The medical establishment first began questioning the wisdom of routine circumcision in 1949; since 1971 the American Academy of Pediatrics has opposed it. Apart from cultures where it is done for ritual purposes, it remains common only in the U.S. but is dropping in popularity there–from 86 percent in 1975 to 71 percent in 1984, according to one study.

So chuck it, eh? Not so fast. In 1989 the AAP withdrew its opposition to circumcision because accumulating evidence suggests it does have health benefits, preventing penile cancer and reducing urinary tract infections in infants. And circumcisees do wind up with a basically maintenance free tool. Bottom line? Your kid will survive either way. Flip a coin.

Flip a coin indeed. For myself, I’m snipped, don’t remember anything about it and have received no complaints, so I’m happy. For those unsnipped, if you are happy with it I’m happy for you.

-XT

[Bryan_Ekers]

Elaine: [regarding an uncircumsized sexual partner] It had no face, no personality.

The little dance she does on “personality” always cracks me up.

[Eolbo]

It was done to me, but I’d struggle to call myself a victim though as I dont remember it. I still think it’s primitive barbarism though. While the chance is low, it is an operation, and every year otherwise perfectly healthy baby boys die as a result of complications. Fortunately the medical profession here now strongly advise against it, as unnecessary and more likely to do harm then good. And I dont think we have the right to chop off bits of our children on a whim.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Eolbo

And I dont think we have the right to chop off bits of our children on a whim.

You’re right. I look forward to the great and glorious haircut embargo.

[XT]

@Eolbo

It was done to me, but I’d struggle to call myself a victim though as I dont remember it. I still think it’s primitive barbarism though. While the chance is low, it is an operation, and every year otherwise perfectly healthy baby boys die as a result of complications. Fortunately the medical profession here now strongly advise against it, as unnecessary and more likely to do harm then good. And I dont think we have the right to chop off bits of our children on a whim.

Didya read Cecils take on it?

Not true. Complications from circumcision are low, approximately 0.2 to 0.6 percent. A total of three deaths have been ascribed to circumcision since 1954. In contrast, more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year, 225-317 of whom die. Circumcision effectively prevents penile cancer. Of 60,000 cases since 1930, fewer than 10 have involved circumcised men. Circumcision also eliminates foreskin problems such as inflammation, failure to retract, etc. These persist in non-circumcising nations such as the UK despite presumed familiarity with proper foreskin hygiene.

.2 to .6 percent complications with a total of 3 deaths since 1954? Its hard to imagine a proceedure thats safer. IIRC more kids were killed by being hit by baseballs in the chest. While, again, according to Cecil “more than 1,000 U.S. men develop penile cancer each year”, which seems to be much more common among the uncircumcised. So…its not ALL just plain barbarism it seems.

I guess I fail to see why folks get so up in arms about this. What frigging difference does it make? Seems pretty much a wash to me…get it do or don’t as your coin flip says. Maybe I should start a debate about WHY people seem to care about this so much…

-XT

[Marley23]

@xtisme

I guess I fail to see why folks get so up in arms about this. What frigging difference does it make? Seems pretty much a wash to me…get it do or don’t as your coin flip says.

One wonders if some of those folks were “mutilated” themselves and blame it for, uh, other problems probably unrelated to circumcision. As a guy, you have to admit that you lost size and sensation from your wang chung is pretty disturbing. But like you, I don’t think there’s anything to this.

[MelCthefirst]

@Bryan Ekers

Elaine: [regarding an uncircumsized sexual partner] It had no face, no personality.

The little dance she does on “personality” always cracks me up.

Gee - you just pull the skin down and the “face” appears.
Coming from a country where it is not common, I don’t see what the fuss is all about. I personally like playing with the extra skin on my man!

[yBeayf]

I guess I fail to see why folks get so up in arms about this. What frigging difference does it make? Seems pretty much a wash to me…get it do or don’t as your coin flip says. Maybe I should start a debate about WHY people seem to care about this so much…

Because it is totally unnecessary. Even if only three kids have died from the procedure since 1954, there was never any need to perform the procedure in the first place.

What if a parent wanted to lop off their newborn’s earlobes? After all, they’re an unnecessary body part, and there’s an infintesimal risk of complications, so what’s the harm, right? And hey, if we cut out half of the baby’s tongue, they’d be half as likely to develop cancer on it later in life!

[XT]

@yBeayf

Because it is totally unnecessary. Even if only three kids have died from the procedure since 1954, there was never any need to perform the procedure in the first place.

Well, thats not necessarily true though is it? I mean, if 1000 men get penile cancer a year, and generally its only men who are un-circumcised, then there seems to be a very slight advantage to getting it done. It seems such a marginal thing either way that I don’t see what the fuss is all about. Ok, its not necessary by and large. So what? For both religious and aesthetics reasons (for those who actually LIKE the sleek look…my wife for instance), it seems pretty harmless and certainly not something to get worked up about.

@yBeayf

What if a parent wanted to lop off their newborn’s earlobes? After all, they’re an unnecessary body part, and there’s an infintesimal risk of complications, so what’s the harm, right? And hey, if we cut out half of the baby’s tongue, they’d be half as likely to develop cancer on it later in life!

Well, what if we build a strawman and…

-XT

[dropzone]

Crackpot Theory: Along with losing the yarmulkes it furthers the goal of the Great International Jewish Conspiracy (Reformed) to make Jews blend in with the rest of the population. Is that guy of Italian, Greek, Lebanese, or Jewish ancestry? No longer can you pants him and find out!

[QuickSilver]

@Alsoran

You might have felt different if you were told it was going to be done when you were 10 years old or so - given the choice you would not choose to have part of your gentitals with 20-30% of the sensory nerve endings associated with male orgasim chopped off.

You might feel differently if you had any actual experience with this.

@Alsoran

If you were one of the thousands who were damaged to the point of disfunction you may have a different opinion.

Let’s have a cite for the thousands of suffering victims please, before we start mourning them I mean.

@Alsoran

Imagine you are the parent of a perfect boy, you let loose a doctor on him, he comes back disfigured beyond repare - nice start to father son relations.
Gary

Imagine you’re the son of a perfect boy and you let loose a doctor on him who administers immunization shots and your son reacts badly to them to the point of high fevers and encephalitis causing permanent brain damage.

[VenusProbe]

these are only my thoughts, but I think they have some merit.

1. if you don’t have a penis you have no basis to form and opinion as to how “barbaric” it is.

2. if you haven’t had it done, same as above.

3. if you’ve had it done and don’t like it, go bitch to your parents then get over it.
   Robert (neatly trimmed) ;j

[yBeayf]

For both religious and aesthetics reasons (for those who actually LIKE the sleek look…my wife for instance), it seems pretty harmless and certainly not something to get worked up about.

Then let the individual choose to have it performed once he can make an informed decision about it.

Well, what if we build a strawman and…

Well, what if the parents did think that their son would look better without his earlobes? Would there be any problem with them lopping them off? I see little difference between cutting off the earlobes and cutting off the foreskin.