It all boils down to a fact that i am sure we all can agree on, except in quite rare circumstances (like mine) the operation is completely unnecessary. All the studies that state that it causes no harm, do not suggest that it should be done simply relieve peoples misgivings about having had it done.
Cut vs Uncut
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
- Status
I'm circumcised and I'll be honest, I do wonder how much sex would be better if I was uncircumcised. I don't remember the procedure itself, so no physical/emotional trauma. However, my wife does think my penis is a lot prettier circumcised though, lol!
I agree, but disagree. The studies aren't saying to do it, they are just dispelling myths surrounding sensitivity.
However, the World Health Organization recommends circumcision in areas of the world with high HIV rates and primary heterosexual transmission. They state that there is compelling evidence that circumcision reduces the chance of a male being infected by HIV by 60%. The other studies talk about the increased transmission of other sti's to their female partners. Obviously condom use is most effective.
What claim? That roughly 30% of the penis' nerve endings are found in the foreskin? Or, that removing those 30% can be classified as "harm?" Respectfully, sorry man but the empirical evidence backs my claims.
Further, Imma go out on a limb here and gently suggest that your widely sourced info reflects western culture where circumcision is the norm, and those lucky few who remain unmolested often don't get the education they need to take care of themselves, loosely supported by the anecdotal evidence found throughout this thread, for starters. This results in, among other things, bleeding, and where bleeding is involved in intercourse, transmission of STI's is sure to follow. You probably could have figured that out on your own if you simply thought about it. In any event to suggest that this is a reason to mutilate our boys genitals is, at best, worthy of a Monty Python sketch.
Well, right off the top, circumcision actually isn't the norm in Western culture, only in Canada and the US (but with falling rates), and not in Europe or Australia/NZ.. Muslims make up 68.8% of the world's circumcised men (most Muslims live in Asia and Africa) and the circumcision rate of Ethopian men is 92%.
You may want to read "The Circumcision Indecision: The ongoing saga of the world's most popular surgery" and "Vital or vestigial? The foreskin has its fans and foes" or even the whole six part series in the Canadian Medical Association Journal on the circumcision debate.
I came into this discussion neutral and with an open mind, hoping to learn something, but as I delved deeper and researched claims being made, for the most part it is the anticircumcision movement that is spouting pseudo science. A hypothesis, no matter how reasoned, remains a hypothesis, until demonstrated and repeated. Not to further politicize things, but I find it kind of scary that there is a popular trend towards spurning empiricism, when it doesn't support our values or world view.
So all pseudo science aside, there is a moral debate here as well.
There are some cultures in Africa that circumcise little girls, and there was a huge movement to outlaw, an ancient custom within primitive tribes to stop the practice....and for the most part it was.
Right or wrong, a decision is being made in different cultures to baby males, that have no say in what is happening to them.
They are slicing a body part from a helpless human being.....for health, cleanliness ,or cultural reasons.
It is a practice, from what I understand.....that helped with hygiene when people didn't bath with regularity ....that, in North America isn't usually the case in today's society.
Not to start a shitstorm argument here but......my question is, I wonder if the circumcision was left to choice, say at 18 years old, and left up to the individuals choice on their own.....I wonder how long the volunteer line up would be for that surgery?
There are some cultures in Africa that circumcise little girls, and there was a huge movement to outlaw, an ancient custom within primitive tribes to stop the practice....and for the most part it was.
Right or wrong, a decision is being made in different cultures to baby males, that have no say in what is happening to them.
They are slicing a body part from a helpless human being.....for health, cleanliness ,or cultural reasons.
It is a practice, from what I understand.....that helped with hygiene when people didn't bath with regularity ....that, in North America isn't usually the case in today's society.
Not to start a shitstorm argument here but......my question is, I wonder if the circumcision was left to choice, say at 18 years old, and left up to the individuals choice on their own.....I wonder how long the volunteer line up would be for that surgery?
As a circumcised male, I definitely feel a little jipped knowing I may not be experiencing the amount of pleasure an uncircumcised male might have. I don't know if this is even true, but the simple suggestion of it is enough to kind of irk me. The more I research into it, it does strike me as wrong. It's my understanding that adults can opt for adult circumcism? In my opinion, let's leave major elective surgeries for when the individual has the ability to decide.
I like my helmet, and don’t consider it mutilated. It’s sleek, does the job, looks good in the bright light and operates well in damp climates. Maintenance is easy and I’ve never had to worry about doing foreskin stretching to keep it from becoming painful, or need to set aside time to chip away debris. This might be even more important when I’m elderly.
The fact “dick cheese” is even a term should be an indication of the hygiene levels of some men, but I suspect those men are generally disgusting in other areas. Why they inflict themselves on women is a mystery.
If you’ve ever had a woman who was reluctant, hesitant, unenthusiastic or refused to give you a bj, it’s possible it’s because you’re one of “those”. That also goes for men who complain women won’t put it in more than an inch, or only do 10 seconds.
Might not always be the reason, but it’s possible.
Bottom line - Cleanliness, the way you behave and use your cock is probably more important to most women than whether you’re cut or uncut.
The fact “dick cheese” is even a term should be an indication of the hygiene levels of some men, but I suspect those men are generally disgusting in other areas. Why they inflict themselves on women is a mystery.
If you’ve ever had a woman who was reluctant, hesitant, unenthusiastic or refused to give you a bj, it’s possible it’s because you’re one of “those”. That also goes for men who complain women won’t put it in more than an inch, or only do 10 seconds.
Might not always be the reason, but it’s possible.
Bottom line - Cleanliness, the way you behave and use your cock is probably more important to most women than whether you’re cut or uncut.
where have I heard this.... "cleanliness is next to Godliness" :laugh:
but, YOU'RE TOTALLY RIGHT!!!
Yes yes yes yes yes, all of this, exactly. It just seems so common sense, doesn't it?
I just read them, and TBH having read them, it makes me wonder if you read them, also; while it's clear where you got your statistics from, the underlying tone in the articles seem to support that circumcision is bad, put simply.
In "The Circumcision Indecision..." they describe circumcision as follows:
"It wasn’t until the mid-19th century, though, that circumcision gained popularity in the medical community. In Britain, it was seen as a means to promote chastity and deter masturbation, which at the time was seen as a pathological practice that led to all sorts of harm, including blindness and mental illness. The Victorian-era abhorrence of many forms of sexual activity even led to the creation of a disease: “spermatorrhoea.” A man could acquire this ailment by emitting semen outside of marital intercourse."
"The rise of circumcision in the US can be attributed, in part, to the work and writings of Dr. Lewis Sayre, an orthopedic surgeon, in the late 1800s. He claimed to have healed one patient from paralysis of the legs by removing an excessively tight foreskin, and later went on to promote circumcision as a cure for other boyhood ailments.
'I am quite satisfied from recent experience that many of the cases of irritable children, with restless sleep, and bad digestion, which is often attributed to worms, is solely due to the irritation of the nervous system caused by an adherent or constricted prepuce,' wrote Sayre (American Medical Association. Transactions of the American Medical Association. 1870;21:205–11)."
From "Vital or vestigial?...":
The pro-prepuce crowd, however, says these and other health problems are better addressed through such activities as education on proper hygiene. And there is much to lose, they claim, when the penis ditches its hood, not the least of which is sexual satisfaction. Though research in this area has yielded inconsistent results, Denniston, for one, has no doubt that the foreskin contains tissue with erogenous properties.
In particular, an area called the “ridged band,” the wrinkly skin at the end of the foreskin, is loaded with nerve endings that are stimulated by motion during intercourse or masturbation. If a man is circumcised as an infant, says Denniston, he has been robbed of sensitivity without his consent.
“The ridged band is important for sexual joy. No one has a right to take that away from someone.”
The foreskin also protects a man’s female sexual partners, says Denniston. First, an intact penis glides in the foreskin during intercourse, reducing friction. Second, the exposed glans of a circumcised penis becomes coarser over time, a process known as keratinization, and is more abrasive to the internal mucous membrane of the vagina.
“You take the foreskin away and let the glans callus and you end up irritating the hell out of the vaginal mucosa,” says Denniston. “Everyone in the US uses lubricants because the basic function of sexual intercourse has been disrupted.”
The only arguments for circumcision I'm hearing are:
-aesthetic preference, which should be left until a person is older and can make the decision on their own;
-hygiene, which I would suggest the solution is education on cleanliness, not needless surgery which reduces sexual pleasure;
-transmission of STI, and this is the big stick advocates claim is irrefutable, however what is always overlooked with that argument is that it's not little kids transmitting STI's. If you're a parent and an advocate for circumcision on the basis of STI transmission, maybe talk to your child about circumcision around the time they're becoming sexually active, and let them decide. However the reality is that, while yes, there is greater STI transmission ,that is mostly related to bleeding that sometimes occurs, and where there is blood involved of course transmission increases.
There is also greater STI transmission rates with anal sex, for exactly the same reason: bleeding. In Texas, where there is a large religious contingent, anal sex is illegal, period. It used to be illegal throughout Canada as well, referred to as "Buggery", until that law was struck down in 1988. This done in spite of the fact that anal sex has higher transmission of STI's (spurning empiricism?). Why? Because Rights. If two people want to have anal sex, that's their business. If folks want to enjoy their foreskin and all the nerves it contains, in spite of a Muslim family or parents concerned of STI transmission, that is their business. Stealing that choice from them at birth is why it's harm.
TL;DR Circumcision is needless and harmful. While circumcision can reduce transmission during unprotected intercourse where one person has an STI, so does using condoms except when in a monogamous relationship where both parties are properly and regularly tested. I'd choose that 10/10, over a surgery that cuts off nerves which would otherwise provide sexual pleasure (harm), but everyone should at least have the right to make that choice themselves.
Last edited:
Love the cherry picking!
NEbaD maybe if you are relying on Denniston as the expert on male circumscision, you should at first acknowledge that the article introduces him as an anticircumcisionist and not unbiased in his judgements.
While the article does include the historical introduction of circumcision in England and the US, however, unlike you, it doesn't imply/suggest/argue that this is the rationale for modern circumcision (outside of those who do it for religious reasons).
And why omit the suggestion that the primary purpose of the foreskin may not have been for sexual stimulation at all, but rather for protection when we were naked primates?
Why not mention that actual nerve sensitivity in the foreskin is not definitive? Or that nerves in our body adjust to stimulus?
The theme of the series of articles was actually that, other than the sexual health benefits of being circumcized, there are actually no definitives when it comes to the circumcision/anticircumcision debate.
** As an aside, the reason for the increase of sti transmission and HIV contraction also isn't definitively known. It has been suggested that it is actually (1) the protected moist and warm environment under the foreskin that allows for the virus and bacteria to be collected and held in contact with cells, (2) that the foreskin contains the cell type that is most susceptible to become infected by hiv and (3) also tearing (as you suggested).
***And it should be noted, unprotected oral sex is considered responsible for the dramatic increase in hpv related oral cancers, and uncircumcised men spread hpv to their sexual partners at a higher rate then circumcized men
NEbaD maybe if you are relying on Denniston as the expert on male circumscision, you should at first acknowledge that the article introduces him as an anticircumcisionist and not unbiased in his judgements.
While the article does include the historical introduction of circumcision in England and the US, however, unlike you, it doesn't imply/suggest/argue that this is the rationale for modern circumcision (outside of those who do it for religious reasons).
And why omit the suggestion that the primary purpose of the foreskin may not have been for sexual stimulation at all, but rather for protection when we were naked primates?
Why not mention that actual nerve sensitivity in the foreskin is not definitive? Or that nerves in our body adjust to stimulus?
The theme of the series of articles was actually that, other than the sexual health benefits of being circumcized, there are actually no definitives when it comes to the circumcision/anticircumcision debate.
** As an aside, the reason for the increase of sti transmission and HIV contraction also isn't definitively known. It has been suggested that it is actually (1) the protected moist and warm environment under the foreskin that allows for the virus and bacteria to be collected and held in contact with cells, (2) that the foreskin contains the cell type that is most susceptible to become infected by hiv and (3) also tearing (as you suggested).
***And it should be noted, unprotected oral sex is considered responsible for the dramatic increase in hpv related oral cancers, and uncircumcised men spread hpv to their sexual partners at a higher rate then circumcized men
Clearly we won't see eye to eye on this; it seems to me, right or wrong, as though you're not looking at the whole picture. Things like "...sti transmission and HIV contraction also isn't definitively known...." we can argue about all day long, but it fails to observe/address the foremost concern, in my opinion, the rights of the children involved. The details are merely academic.
Regardless of whether you, or I, or someone else is "right", the fact that there is a debate, the fact that this is an issue of contention where people hold deeply personal, strong opinions, suggests we shouldn't be performing this on anyone unable to give consent. Don't you think? We're talking about people's bodies, about guys' dicks; respect the gravity of the situation, man! If you think circumcision is dandy, go get snipped yourself; it ranks IMHO a lot lower on the personal health stupidity scale than, say, smoking cigarettes every day. Perhaps we can agree, though, that while you and I may enjoy the privilege of disagreeing with one another on the topic of circumcision, maybe we ought to stop circumcising babies, just in case they also happen to disagree with you, or with me, or with whomever, ya?
There once was a mohel named Keith
Who circumcised boys with his teeth.
It wasn't for leisure,
Or sexual pleasure,
But to get to the cheese underneath!
Who circumcised boys with his teeth.
It wasn't for leisure,
Or sexual pleasure,
But to get to the cheese underneath!
- Status
