Yeah, I found that odd as well. Cleaning your uncircumcised penis is no more onerous than, say, remembering to clean behind your ears, or that sort of thing.
The very fact that circumcision is even a subject is rooted in completely unscientific religious belief. Were it not for ancient religious practice (which may or may not be related to ancient hygiene; there’s enough arrant nonsense in old holy books to make me think the latter), I’m sure that nobody in their right mind would even consider it: it’s ridiculous.
I come from a largely uncut country, and I think we do just fine. Cleaning is simple and part of everyday hygiene, like cleaning your butt.
However, recent reports that infant male circumcision can reduce HPV and HIV transmission gives me pause and makes me reconsider, and think that my current opinion may be wrong, even if honestly motivated, even though emotionally I think it is barbaric.
As a female who has been around most of the blocks regarding dating/living with males both cut and uncut, I’ve only ran across one who wasn’t cut who probably should have been. He was pretty thick down there, and it caused problems for him. And ME…no matter how clean he was <and he was CLEAN, trust me> he’d end up with yeast infections. Only time in my life I ever had one, and I got it from him. Poor guy. I’m sure by now he’s had it taken care of; that collar was just WAY too tight.
Mr. Tao got circumcised at around age 25 for similar reasons, and had his sons both circumcised so as not to have to go through that.
Despite that, I would choose to let the boy/man make his own decision regarding that, with the caveat that if I were to bear a male child to a man I was convinced was going to be there for the raising, I’d not have much of a problem if the father wanted a circumcision at birth. I just don’t see a reason to do it unless there IS a reason to do it. I mean, ffs, if all women had their lips cut off at birth, I bet THAT would cut down on yeast infections but…ugh. No. Not without a good reason.
And ‘God says so’ is not a good reason. FFS, if we’re made in his image, wtf is he having us cut off parts for? Did he fuck up?
For what it’s worth (though it doesn’t bear on the question of whether circumcision is in fact a good thing or not), I think it’s unlikely to the point of ludicrousness that the slight STD transmission rate drop apparently associated with circumcision was, in any sound way, the ultimate motivator of the ancient Jewish prescription for circumcision. That the former exists is just some lucky coincidence, it seems to me; I don’t think any ancient belief that circumcision might have been more healthy or hygienic (if indeed that even was an ancient belief) had scientific support at the time.
Also from your cite:
mmm
This. Where I live, circumcision is only seen among Muslim and Jewish people, and they are a minority. Everyone else - perhaps excepting the occasional immigrant from the US - is uncut. Personally, I can’t remember ever seeing an uncut penis in the locker room or in a public bath (not that I use to examine other guys’ penises, so I may well have overlooked one or two). And I’ve never heard of anyone here needing a circumcision for medical reasons (although I’ve read about the procedure, as an minor detail in literature dealing with penises and foreskins, like sex ed curriculums). I get the impression that since circumcision still is fairly common in the US, small problems which could be solved otherwise are quickly “fixed” by snipping the thing off.
In fact, I’m wondering what kind of problems one would fix by circumcision since it’s such an uncommon procedure here.
Just note that far from all infants and small children have foreskins which are designed to be rolled back. For quite a few, there’s quite a bit of resistance to pulling back the foreskin, and one should never force it. For 99.9% of those, the situation changes when they reach puberty, though. And if it doesn’t, some stretching excercises usually fixes the problem.
So, how’re YOU doin’? 
Given the rest of your post, I suspect you have overnegated here.
How? Why? Please elaborate.
You claim overall that circumcision (that is, cutting the foreskin off of penises) is rare where you live. In other words, you claim that most penises where you live are uncircumcised.
Yet in the quoted sentence, you also claim to have never, to your memory, seen a penis which was uncut; that is, never seen a penis whose foreskin hasn’t been cut off; that is, never seen an uncircumcised penis; that is, you claim to have only seen circumcised penises.
Those two are in conflict.
:smack:
Yes. I meant “cut”, not uncut.
Seeing as you asked, my foreskin was so tight that in my entire life (I am 37) I had never retracted it. The view was that with stretching/creams and whatnot I would only end up ripping it and causing more of a problem. Several Doctors (GP and two different urologists - I chickened out of it five years ago) agreed.
Is that OK with you?
Yes, thanks for the clarification.
I’ve read about problems with tight foreskins, but I’ve seen other operative procedures being prescribed for that. Like a slight slitting of the opening on the upper side of the penis to increase the size of the opening and thus allow complete retraction, rather than a full-blown circumcision. I guess the choice of procedure depends on whether one consider the foreskin something one wishes to retain, or if it’s expendable.
Since I’m happy with my foreskin and appreciate some of the tactile effects it can provide, I’d probably prefer the former procedure if I were in your situation and were given the choice. Also, given the high sensitivity of the glans and unpleasant experiences when wearing underpants when the foreskin is retracted, I’m quite skeptical to removing my foreskin completely.
Not every tight foreskin is the same. Some may get by with lesser procedures. I apparently could not.
The sensitivity of the glans reduces quite quickly due to keratinisation. In the space of five weeks I’ve gone from a glans so sensitive that touching it was instant “ow” pain to happily wearing clothes that are up against it.
[/SIZE]
LOL, I don’t think Mekhazzio is the gender you think he is.
My son is 16 months old and we chose to leave him intact. My husband was cut, which seems to be the norm for males of our generation (born in the 80s), but he and I both felt it was an unnecessary procedure. We’re not religious and we plan on teaching cleaning of the foreskin as a routine hygiene step like washing your pits and cleaning under your nails.
There’s a chance that, like some of the men here, he might have complications or adhesions later on. But there was also a chance of complications with the procedure itself, and I’d rather it be his decision as an adult if he wants to be circumcised or not. It’s his body, and he can have it whichever way he prefers.
Also at his 15 month appointment the pediatrician showed me how to retract and clean gently underneath it, which was very nice of him seeing as how neither my husband nor I have any experience with uncircumcised boys.
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
For what it’s worth (though it doesn’t bear on the question of whether circumcision is in fact a good thing or not), I think it’s unlikely to the point of ludicrousness that the slight STD transmission rate drop apparently associated with circumcision was, in any sound way, the ultimate motivator of the ancient Jewish prescription for circumcision. That the former exists is just some lucky coincidence, it seems to me; I don’t think any ancient belief that circumcision might have been more healthy or hygienic (if indeed that even was an ancient belief) had scientific support at the time.
[/quote]
Just to clear up some misconceptions about the religious basis of circumcision - in Judaism, it has nothing to do with God wanting everyone circumcised, or that the practice made you more healthy.
What it was, was an indelible and undeniable marking, more akin to a tribal tattoo. It marked you as a part of the Jewish tribe, an acceptor of the Covenant (or rather, you parents as acceptors of the Covenant).
Its use presupposes most people are not circumsized.
It has nothing to do with some religious notion of correcting God’s creation (or indeed, necessarily requires any belief in any god, as membership in the tribe does not require belief).
Good luck with that. Most boys don’t kick into good hygiene until they are about 13-14, when they suddenly become interested in girls, even if their mom has been telling them for days that they stink to high heaven.
I don’t disagree with your premise and assumptions, but I’m not sure I’d draw the same conclusion. It’s not a gimme that fully-informed males would choose to remain intact because of sensitivity. A lot of guys have a hair trigger, and the last thing they would want would be more sensitivity.
I bet that if you could give men the option to magically, retroactively restore or eliminate their foreskins based on the “sensitivity” argument, you’d still end up with a fairly mixed population.
Do you really think its difficult to get a boy to rub his dick in the shower?
Plus an uncut penis is not as high maintenance as some people seem to think it is.
The hygiene argument is another one that doesn’t work for me. Yes, boys are stinky and often filthy. The usual solution to this is to tell them to go wash. Not to surgically remove the offending body part.