Are you cut?!- Page 2

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:31pm

It's a great question, JG2.

I do know that there are other areas in the world where it is a common occurance to circumsize. I recall a conversation with an acquantance I worked with who asked me straight out on day if I was and he informed me he was and it was common where he was from. I'm not sure where that was, but his name was Mohammad and from the middleast. It was not for religious reasons for him either. It sure was an odd conversation since I barely knew him.

I dated a french guy for a bit and after a few dates he asked me about being Jewish. I said I wasnt and realized why he thought so. He got very angry during the discussion about why it is routinely done in America when I mentioned hygiene...as if I did it to myself! Interestingly, you could barely tell he wasnt. His foreskin was barely noticeable. He was a jackass.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:36pm

For what it's worth, I prefer cut men myself. Not that I think it's more hygienic, but it looks and tastes better to me. In the end, I think it's all about preference.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:40pm

I forgot about Muslims (a large proportion of circumcized men, apparently).
Prevalence of circumcision

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:44pm

I remember my circumcision as much as I remember being in my mother's womb. It was the norm when I was born, so my mother followed norm. They (mothers) were told it was in our best interest to have it done now, so we wouldn't have "problems" when we were older. Not sure what those problems are. The whole "hygiene" thing was another issue. Like stated before, as long as you bath there shouldn't be an issue. Most of the men I was with in Asia were all uncut and they had no hygiene problems . I didn't realize that Muslims are also cut for religious beliefs. Who knew I would get such an education from my tricks in Asia? My only regret with being cut is that I miss out on docking.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:55pm

"My only regret with being cut is that I miss out on docking."

Get one of these:

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 2:57pm

Doodley doo, I think I'll just leave with that regret LOL

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 3:00pm

I think Mr Matt's point about how, if it's going to be done, then it's better to do it when the boy won't remember is probably the best. However, I too know of only two cases of circumcision being carried out on adult friends of mine and that's a pretty low statistic. And I would add that I was considered for circumcision and having my tonsils removed when I was about seven. They only did the latter and it was painful but I got over it.

"Convenience. Nothing to pull when you pee."

That all depends on the length of the foreskin. Again, I'd say in my humble experience that the number of cases where the foreskin extends beyond the glans is relatively low.

"He got very angry during the discussion about why it is routinely done in America when I mentioned hygiene"

I was gobsmacked when Bree van der Kamp came out with that argument on Desperate Housewives; I was shocked that anyone could believe that. Did she ask Susan about Dougray Scott?

Still, the EU has statistics that suggest French men are the dirtiest in Europe...

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 3:05pm

The problems my friends had were to do with phimosis, I believe. Both men are roughly the same age, but had to have the procedure during different stages in their lives. There are definitely more health risks involved when you are not circumsized, but probably not to the degree with which it needs to be legislated or anything.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 3:10pm

Scripps, for the record, I wasnt defending the practice, just trying to name the reasons many do it even in this day and age.

I had a friend who had to get it done at about 30 as it was too uncomfortable when he was erect. It was quite the success for him, apparently.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 11:32am

I am, and glad I was.

1. The idea of "putting a child through it" makes no sense to me...I was a baby, hence I remember nothing.

2. It's one less thing for me to clean, whether that be simple to do or not, one less thing to clean always is good.

3. Were this a porn site, I would tell you a story about me, a french MP, and a church in Germany. Frankly I should not have to tell someone to take a bath because they smell...

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 12:04pm

"The idea of "putting a child through it" makes no sense to me...I was a baby, hence I remember nothing."

There is something called "pre-verbal trauma" and it is real and exists. Many men have trauma associated with circumcision. Babies remember alot and their bodies remember everything. look it up.

Those men who are circumsized who extol its virtues were not injured, disfigured or hurt by the procedures. Millions of men suffer after effects from botched jobs that they are unware of often until adulthood.

Also, those who are circumsized can not speak to the sexual pleasure they have lost because they never had a sheath to protect their glans. Their glans are over stimulated their entire lives due to rubbing against underwear, etc. so they definitely lose sensitivty due to overstimulation. That is not saying they don't enjoy sex, but they can't speak to what they have lost.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 12:24pm

"...I would tell you a story about me, a french MP, and a church in Germany. Frankly I should not have to tell someone to take a bath because they smell..."

It's always the French.

And they like to look down their noses at the English as being inferior lovers. Well, neighbours, it sure helps in the superiority stakes if you don't repulse your partner through lack of personal hygiene.

(And those same statistics I refer to suggest English men are the cleanest in Europe)

"Were this a porn site..."

It is. Please continue...

Updated On: 11/17/11 at 12:24 PM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 12:40pm

Bettyboy those who were uncut into adolescence or later and then chose to be circumcized could address the differences in sensitivity. It's a personal choice, really.

"Millions of men suffer after effects from botched jobs that they are unware of often until adulthood."

Do you have links for proof of that statement? it seems kind of, well, unedited. It may need parsing or cutting.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 12:50pm

I think millions may be a stretch, but even if the number are 1 in a million, is it worth the risk? Obviously, I don't think it is.

Let's not forget the botched circumcision Bruce Reimer. His penis was burned off and he was raised as a girl.



And someone who is circumcised in adulthood can't really speak to the difference in sensitivity, as it's not an instant thing. It's years of rubbing against cloth that supposedly causes the lack of sensation, much of which would have been during childhood.



Dr. Money and the Boy With No Penis.

Updated On: 11/17/11 at 12:50 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 1:06pm

"And someone who is circumcised in adulthood can't really speak to the difference in sensitivity"

I did wonder about calling my friends who were circumcised in adulthood to ask them if they noticed the difference but, like you say, they can't really answer because their discovery that they needed to be circumcised was almost certainly a result of early sexual experience.

I did also wonder about calling a promiscuous friend to ask him if he noticed any difference between cut and uncut men but ain't picked up the 'phone just yet.

Updated On: 11/17/11 at 01:06 PM

[Broadwayboobs]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 1:23pm

I find that uncut men are more sensitive when you're touching their covered man. They usually ask you to loosen your grip while they make painful faces. Cut men usually scream "tighter, harder" Uncut like quicker motions too while cut enjoy slower. Well that's been my experiences anyway.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 2:42pm

There is something called "pre-verbal trauma" and it is real and exists. Many men have trauma associated with circumcision. Babies remember alot and their bodies remember everything. look it up.

There is a TON of controversy on the subject and there is more evidence to suggest that while pre-verbal trauma does exist, it doesn't begin until an infant has the brain capability for memory or trauma, which is around 10 months at the earliest. And even then, there is generally no indication of trauma regarding circumcision until adulthood when the process and its implications can be analyzed by the individual. I do think there may be legitimate cases for pre-verbal trauma in young children, but when it comes to circumcision in infancy, I think it is most likely that it is a false memory created by a combination of a deeper psychological issue and the application of acquired adult knowledge. Unless the subject has a lifelong history of anxiety regarding their circumcised penis, then it's unlikely a sudden resentment or anxiety would appear in adulthood as a result of pre-verbal trauma.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 2:46pm

I think millions may be a stretch, but even if the number are 1 in a million, is it worth the risk? Obviously, I don't think it is.

And there is the risk of phimosis and paraphimosis if not circumcised. I guess you have to decide which risk is greater and which risk you're willing to take. For some, it has to do with environment and social norms. For others it's religion. But when it comes to health, like everything else, it's a risk either way.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 3:17pm

really? we are to assume it takes DECADES to de-sensitize the altered glans (so that someone who chooses that option later in life can't compare circumized to uncircumsized sensations)? how sensitive do you think that tissue is? like a Richter Scale? i mean, i HAVE heard the expression "rock my world" but that's a bit far of a "stretch."

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 6:10pm

My wife, a trained surgical nurse, has never heard of a medically necessary circumcision here. She said, "God no! Infections are uncommon, but they happen. Antibiotics are given." Is that another thing that's part of culture? If it's infected, cut it off? Here, if a foreskin is blocking the urethra, a small incision is made, but circumcision isn't done. It's honestly only done by people of Muslim and Jewish faiths.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 7:06pm

I think it is ridiculous that circumcision is so common in this country at a time when the age-old argument of cleanliness is no longer an issue. I see circumcision as genital mutilation plain and simple. Yes, it’s true that there are risks either way regarding phimosis, but that is an issue that should be handled case-by-case if the problem arises. Supporting mass circumcision to prevent phimosis is almost the equivalent of removing limbs or body parts to prevent illness before a patient has even been diagnosed. It makes no sense.

I’m not arguing for circumcision to be outlawed as it can, at times, be a necessary procedure. Obviously if a man would prefer a circumcision for personal aesthetic reasons then that is his choice, but it should be up to the patient to decide when he is old enough to make an informed decision. We consider it barbaric to genitally mutilate girls, but for some reason the same practice on baby boys in completely acceptable. It’s nonsense.

Updated On: 11/17/11 at 07:06 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 7:27pm

"We consider it barbaric to genitally mutilate girls, but for some reason the same practice on baby boys in completely acceptable. It’s nonsense. "

It's insulting and nonsense to compare the two. One removes the ability to orgasm forever, and is usually a crude procedure; the other possibly removes some sensitivity, and on rare occasions, causes some issues at the time of the procedure.

That said, I have no preference among cut or uncut men (and have had ample experience with both - don't judge), but were I to have a son, I would not have him circumcised.
Updated On: 11/17/11 at 07:27 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 7:56pm

I didn’t mean to insinuate that the results are in any way similar and I was not attempting to compare the two. I apologize for that. But, that doesn’t change the fact that one is generally accepted and the other is seen as morally corrupt. In my opinion, if a circumcision is without consent, then they should both be considered morally wrong. That was my only reason for bringing it up.
Updated On: 11/17/11 at 07:56 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 8:14pm

I see circumcision as genital mutilation plain and simple.

Okay. I'm circumcised and I have never felt mutilated, plain and simple.

It's insulting and nonsense to compare the two. One removes the ability to orgasm forever, and is usually a crude procedure

Not to mention, female circumcision is performed specifically to control and inhibit the sexual activity of women. And it is a societal practice with no religious roots. And depending on the type of female circumcision, it can be a VERY different procedure that can actually result in severe pain and trauma from sexual activity. It's sort of like saying a blow to the groin for a woman is the same as a blow to the groin for a man. The pain and possibly long-term effects are entirely different.

All I can say is, I don't feel mutilated, traumatized or slighted in the least by having been circumcised. Nor have I ever considered my parents barbaric by having it performed on me. I'm very happy with my penis and it works just fine. Others have seemed pleased with it as well. If the subject is the offensiveness of the practice, then there's really no point to the discussion. But if the question is health, then like I said, there are risks either way (and not just infection, which was not the case with my friends). I'm willing to bet probably 90% or more of the cut and uncut men in the world have never had a problem with their penis that specifically had to do with their foreskin or lack thereof.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 11/17/11 at 8:56pm

I still think it should be the choice of the individual to have their body changed. It just doesn't seem right to perform what is essentially an elective surgery on an infant who is too young to say no.