================================
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS

[Link]

Highlander

Edited by - highlander on 1/9/2003 6:14:29 AM

Edited by - highlander on 1/9/2003 6:16:41 AM

[Link]

• I'm gay.
• I'm circumcised.


• I do not dislike being circumcised; however, had I not been circumcised at birth, I would not have chosen to have the procedure performed on me.


• I suspect (but do not know) that I suffer from some (small?) degree of sensation loss because of being circumcised. (I still have great orgasms - they just take longer.)


• Based on what I read, both in medical literature and in opinion articles (some highly opinionated), I see no real evidence that circumcision, done properly, causes any real harm.


• Conversely, I do not see any need for circumcision with the exceptions of minor, easily-corrected physical defects (e.g., severe phimosis - which may often be corrected surgically without total circumcision) and/or religious dogma.


• As a gay male who has been involved sexually with both cut and uncut men, I have a mild preference for uncut partners; however, many other factors are orders of magnitude more important - let's say that I consider my partner being uncut a bonus.


• My slight preference for uncut men is most probably a result of my experience with my first boyfriend (not my first sexual experience with a man but my first long-term relationship with one) having been uncut and its fascination factor because circumcision is the norm in the USA where I reside.


• I suspect that most people (male & female) develop a preference for that to which they are most accustomed.


• I won't come out with a blanket statement that it is explicitly wrong to circumcise males at birth; however, I think that medical guidelines should be revised to discourage the practice except where it is a part of religious dogma.


• And finally, I wish that most uncut men were a bit more careful with their personal hygiene.

[Link]

Highlander

[Link]

Highlander

Edited by - highlander on 1/9/2003 5:59:15 AM

[Link]

flaccid, uncircumsized penis
frenulum
foreskin animation (flaccid penis)

[Link]

Edited by - P-Knuckle on 1/9/2003 12:05:30 PM

[Link]

You probably wondered why so much negative information is written about this topic even though the vast majority of North American males are circumcised and very happy and grateful for it, and that most parents request this procedure for their newborn sons.

So, why is there so much anti-circ info on the net? Well, the answer is quite simple! Many people find it hard to believe but there are actual anti circumcision groups and organizations that have formed over the past twenty five years. They write books, appear on talk shows, protest outside of doctor's offices and medical establishments, spend countless hours writing letters to politicians, newspapers, magazines and medical groups. So it's no big surprise that these people have also saturated the Internet with their own, many times, fanatical points of view containing much misinformation regarding medical, sexual and psychological aspects of circumcision.

Over the past ten years there have been a number of studies showing ADVANTAGES to this procedure which, of course, created frustrations among anti-circumcision groups and individuals. Now, more than ever, they are trying to turn the world against this procedure, and any doctor or lay person who don't share their point of view.

Very few doctors or medical establishments recommend infant circumcision on a routine basis, but at the same time they recognize there are benefits and avantages as well as disadvantages and risks. Therefore the decision to circumcise or not should be left to the parents."

Circumcised Men Less Likely To Spread Cancer Causing Virus. The Canadian Press, April 10, 2002
Clues Found to Circumcision's HIV-Protective Effect Tue May 28, 2002. By Emma Hitt, PhD
Genital Dermatoses, March, 2000
New Urinary Tract Infection Study, March, 2000
Sexually Transmitted Infections Journal- October 1998 Abstracts
Penile Cancer (additional info added 05/09/98)
Circumcision Curbs Cervical Cancer Risk. The BBC News, April 10, 2002
Women's Preference For Penile Circumcision In Sexual Partners
CIRCUMCISION: A LIFETIME OF MEDICAL BENEFITS Dr. Edgar J. Schoen

It even goes over the various "Quotes Of Various Anti-Circumcision Activists"

I don't have any kids, but if I did, I would definitely have him circumcized shortly after birth, and I suppose that would make me a child abuser? This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion, but I can settle it in one word. SMEGMA 'nuff said

[Link]

================================
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS

[Link]

The simple presence of smegma normally only means that there hasn't been careful enough attention to genital hygeine. In fact, it's probably a GOOD thing for a parent to know that their child isn't washing carefully enough.

(Another analogy: The appendix does nothing useful for the body. In fact, it's a potention health risk later on in life. Should all infants have their appendixes surgically removed at birth?)

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/10/2003 10:57:03 AM

[Link]

It's just a little extra skin that is no longer needed, and removing it is not invasive major surgery such as removing an appendix would be.

Even if there weren't also health advantages, the fact that females (at least in the US) clearly prefer circumcized men should be reason enough, don't you think?

[Link]

> I think parents who choose not to have their son
> circumsized have their heart in the right place, and

I think that parents almost always have their heart in the right place, no matter what it is we're talking about. (Some don't, but they're in a small minority.)

> for choosing to have this done while it is still a
> relatively simple and safe procedure.

Just because it's relatively simple and safe doesn't mean it should be done.

> since it's cleaner and since there are no adverse effects
> or loss of sensitivity that has been proven, I would

Nothing's been proven either way. It certainly hasn't been proven that there *aren't* adverse effects.

> putting this on his shoulders, it is much more painful
> and scary for older boys or men, and I'll bet that a lot

Sure, but so is cutting off a hand. Or getting your appendix out. <grin> The fact that it *appears* to be more traumatic later on (and that may have more to do with memory than experience at the moment) isn't a sufficient reason. Especially if the boy/man opts to not have it done.

> It's just a little extra skin that is no longer needed,

What if people went around claiming that the labia majora was just a little extra skin that is no longer needed?

As I've said before, if it had been done to me, I'm sure that I would have grown up not caring. But I can't say that for certain. And it's certainly true that there ARE men who've cared a great deal about what they feel to have been an injustice. That's their feeling and right. I don't think it's fair to project your (I don't mean you specifically) beliefs on somebody else. What's no big deal to one person can be a major deal to somebody else.

> and removing it is not invasive major surgery such as
> removing an appendix would be.

I don't know. I'd say cutting off a piece of somebody's body is "invasive". Even if not to the same degree.

> females (at least in the US) clearly prefer circumcized
> men should be reason enough, don't you think?

No. Only if you're a guy who's concerned with what women / society thinks - assuming that that is what they think in this case, which seems to be a somewhat sweeping statement. (I certainly wouldn't encourage my daughter, if I had one, to run out and get breast enhancements, botox injections, etc., just because "men prefer centerfold women". I'd hope she'd grow up to not be so superficial and hold personality above all of that.) I also wouldn't say, by a long shot, that circumcized men are "clearly" preferred. However, to extend your argument, are you saying that if you lived in England you would NOT choose circumcision because, in Europe (at least theoretically here) prefer uncut men?

NOTE: I "argued" with Highlander, who is against circumcision, and I'm "arguing" with you, although you're in favour of it. I haven't meant it personally in any way - I'm just enjoying the overall debate, sometimes in a bit of a Devil's advocate role.

Personally, I've agreed with points from each, and disagreed with others. I'm neither pro nor con in a "which is better" sense - I think that's a "silly" argument and it all comes down to a simple matter of personal / individual preference. I only come out a little more on the "con" side because of the personal choice issue.

But I'm definitely in favour of parents doing what they think is right for their children, and while I might disagree with some of their decisions, that doesn't mean I don't support their right to make them, so long as they really are thoughtful and well-meaning decisions. I will always applaud (the intention anyway) of anything that is done, sincerely, in the perceived interest of somebody else.

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/12/2003 12:13:01 AM

[Link]

" (I certainly wouldn't encourage my daughter, if I had one, to run out and get breast enhancements, botox injections, etc., just because "men prefer centerfold women"

I totally agree with that, but I don't think that's quite the same thing. Circimcism is mainly done for health reasons, although there is definitely a preference among American females that goes beyond that, and shows no sign of changing, right or wrong. I can see there is still the tendancy to overdramatize the procedure and little interest in reading the facts as provided by CIRCUMCISION ONLINE NEWS , so here's the short version of one of the many studies they have published -
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local anesthesia, silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism". Removal of the foreskin may be viewed as preventive care, not unlike procedures done in other areas of health care (such as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom teeth).

Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for continuing the practice.

In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 91% ultimately decide to have their newborn son circumcised. Even those women whose husbands were uncircumcised overwhelmingly opted for circumcision.

The reason must seem important enough to women for them to withstand pressure from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominate reasons for favoring circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had their sons circumcised.

A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that 89% of woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of circumcised penises over uncircumcised ones. Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer circumcised sexual partners.

Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men, is resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis., studies have since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the incidence of urinary tract infection in male children. Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly more medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in circumcised boys. Good hygiene, which itself can be difficult for even the best intentioned parents, does not entirely eliminate these problems.

[Link]

I think that there's a crucial flaw in any such study. What these women "prefer" are pictures of penises that *appear* to have been circumcised. Or, in other words, pictures in which you can't see the foreskin. Round up 500 guys, half circumcised and half not, all of whom having strong erections, and I bet you'd be hard pressed to identify which is which during a quick line-up.

A flaccid penis is a different story - but is anyone really interested in one of those, circumcised or not?

Also, static pictures of things aren't nearly the same as dynamic videos or in-person encounters.

Edited by - Mythsong on 1/13/2003 12:05:32 AM

[Link]

================================
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -CS LEWIS

[Link]

Secondly, even if I prefer red m&m's to brown m&m's, it may be of little importance to me, one way or the other. And women, on the whole, don't seem to judge men mainly by their body parts.

[Link]

I'm Jewish and do porn, as such;

Is it right that I have sex with Un-cut men?

Should I raise my rates when working with un-cut men. (I'm already considering charging by the inch)

If interracial is popular because its considered "taboo" due to its association with racisim and sterio types. Why isn't there a line of videos called "Jewish Chick Un-cut Dicks"?

There are a fair number of Jewish people producing porn. Why hasn't anyone invited me to dinner?

I'm married to a circumsized Catholic meat puppet. Is that the reason I can't make him feel guilty for having sex with other women or is it my influence over him that makes him a bigger whore for the money?

Are there any Jewish black men in porn?

Kelly Steele
www.kellysteele.com

[Link]

I'm kind of new here, but is it cool to discuss such personal information here? Is there a more appropriate forum?

[Link]

Welcome to the forum.

[Link]

The whole point I'm trying to make here is that people should just accept both as normal and girls I guess should be more open minded.. I mean I've talked to many girls and most of them prefer circumcision, but there are some that dont care, and some that say, "I prefer circumcision, but if I'm in love with the guy, it doesn't matter to me". That is the attitude most girls should have. I also don't think it should have to come to uncut men being embarrased in the shower.. its your body, and you should be proud of what you got.

As a final point In my opinion I believe that circumcision is so widely preferred and accepted, that mothers of sons that protest it are just feeling ashamed for not having their sons cut and are finding ways to speak down against circumcision, such as Mothers Against Circumcision. Otherwise, why would they really give a crap? Note, this is just my opinion and I am not trying to say that is the case.

[Link]

My father was circumcised but I am not. He led me to believe that in his day circumcision was more popular in the UK than it is now. I may be wrong but I do feel, having brushed over the subject with him, that there was some slight discomfort on his part with not having me circumcised as it provided a father/son issue that he was slightly ignorant on. To extrapolate this further, may it not be the case that the reason circumcision remains popular in the US and remains unpopular in Europe is simply that parents are more comfortable bringing up children physically the same as themselves?

With regard to most of the issues I think it makes little difference either way.

I do have some sympathy with the idea that an uncut penis is more sensitive in an absolute sense. If I were to try and walk around in clothes with my foreskin retracted the touch of the fabric on my exposed skin would be really very painful - it would feel very similar to if my eyeball was rubbing on something: really quite unbearable.
Does this really matter? Probably not. Cut fellas seem to have no problems whatsoever and, as has been discussed in a recent thread on masturbation, reducing stimulation levels and lasting longer prior to orgasm generally produces the greatest intensity anyway. I also wonder if the movement of the foreskin during intercourse tends to cancel out the extra sensitivity a little (I know this personally is true, if I hold the foreskin tight at the base so as to stop it moving the apparent sensitivity increases greatly).

I would just like to comment on a couple of related issues Dumblonde brought up: smegma and health risks. Reading some of her links on the health risks it seems that most of them are actually caused by poor hygiene which is, of course, also true of smegma. So is this a valid issue to bring up?
Well that really depends on how hygienic you are or expect your partner to be. I would certainly accept that for women who prefer unkempt unwashed men there may be a strong case for a circumcised man over his uncircumcised brother, but given how high most peoples expectations of hygiene are nowadays I don't see that these are issues.

I'll sum up by embellishing a point made a couple of times before.
It would seem a lot of women aren't exactly awestruck or obsessed with the sight of a flaccid penis anyway; whether it be cut or uncut it does not seem to feature high on their list of sexually stimulating imagery. Couple this to the fact that once erect the visual differences all but disappears and it becomes very hard to see what all the fuss is about.

SNP.

[Link]

I was circumcised on my doctors recommendation 11 years ago when I was 22. I have experienced sex as both a circumcised man and an uncircumcised man, with the same woman.

I have more sensitivity now than I ever did before. My wife enjoys me more now than she used to. The supposed loss of sensitivity (which was freaking me out before the operation) is a myth. My worst dream, that I would be left with an insensitive piece of meat, never happened. My God, if only I knew what I had been missing out on I would have taken myself off to the surgeon a lot earlier. By the way, my wife is a European girl who, contrary to what many might think, had experienced quite a few circumcised men in her own country (Denmark) before we ever met.

For those of you who advocate letting your son choose when he's ready, just bear in mind that the cosmetic results of any surgery are never anywhere near as good in an adult as when that same surgery has been done in infancy - it might be a consideration. I imagine it would also be quite confronting for many young men to raise this subject with their family physicians (it would have been for me if my GP hadn't brought the issue up for me).

Peace

[Link]

Welcome to these forums. Can I ask you why your doctor felt you needed the procedure?

SNP.

[Link]

Edited by - lindi on 4/22/2003 11:51:52 AM

[Link]

The doctor recommended I be circumcised because I was suffering from recurrng bouts of balanitis. I'd go through maybe three to four episodes a year. By the time I got to the surgery stage I was just so sick of fucking around with creams all the time that I thought it (the circ) would be the lesser of two evils. As I said before, I shouldn't have worried about it.

Cheers

[Link]

Your comments are most interesting as they contrast sharply with the experience of Pontus Maximus that's linked to much earlier on in the thread.

I do have one other question, and it's not to dispute your comments rather to clear something I find slightly puzzling.

Okay, I once caught thrush off my girlfriend and realised what it was after the chemists had shut on a Saturday leaving me till monday to get relief (chemists didn't open on sundays where I live then). The itching was such that to obtain some relief I fashioned a string waistband that held my foreskin back and wore it all sunday. Unfortunately, the near pain of the exposed tissue on my undergarments, every time I moved, was almost too much to bear (this was not as a result of the infection the same would be true today) so I wonder exactly what you mean when you say you are more sensitive now?
Unless you walk around in permanent discomfort I cannot see how the head of your penis can be this sensitive now. Are you actually saying that the absence of a foreskin makes the experience of intercourse more sensitive/stimulating (which I could well imagine) as opposed to the absolute sensitivity of the tissues having increased? I find it difficult to pinpoint this from your contribution.

I hope I've made that question clear there.

I really believe that some possible answers are coming out of this thread and I'm kind of formulating a hypothesis that accounts for the generally balanced experiences between cut and uncut blokes.

SNP.

[Link]

I guess "sensitive" is a relative term. Perhaps I should have said sensation instead? My eyeball is probably one of the most sensitive parts of my body but it doesn't give me any pleasure - lubing up a finger and stroking it is not going to be that much of fantastic experience!

The feeling I get from intercourse is more "specific" now - a more definitive sense of "My God that feels so good right THERE, and there and there" rather than "Mmmm - that feels really nice". I know It's a bit vague but it's the best I can manage for now. To me, the "sensations" I feel during intercourse are stronger than before.

BTW - I also attempted to keep my foreskin back but my last bout happened in the folds of foreskin that were bunched up behind my glans. The doctor said that this wasn't specifically balanitis, but very close to it.

Be keen to hear your theory.

[Link]

Murphy's Law says that you will get candida on the weekend when the pharmacy is closed.

[Link]

I'm cut and wish I wasn't, but I'm not going to try to regrow a foreskin. I can't imagine that it would by fully functional in the nerve department.

My wife has never voiced a preference one way or another. As long as it's rock hard and rocking her world... All of the men on her side of the family are uncut. We chose not to have any of our sons circumcised, since it really is a needless procedure.

I'm kind of a natural guy. No tattoos or piercings. I don't care if she has them or not. Shaved pussy? Legs? Underarms? I don't care. Make-up? No thank you.

And on another note:

Freakin', GaySatyr, none of my foreskinned friends ever showed me 'docking'. Moving over to Gay DVD Talk to find a DVD with a demonstration...

[Link]

Future of porn - the younger the age at which surgery happens, the better the healing, generally because the scar tissue tends to grow with the growing skin of the infant. And also, the younger a person is, the better their body is working physiologically, usually because they haven't had years of unbalanced eating or bad habits to throw their metabolism out of balance. At least, this is what my doctor explained to me (after the surgery, BTW.

Yes - I have a scar on my penis - a thin white line. From what I have seen and from what my lady has told me, guys who were circumcised at birth usually have a fairly seamless appearance to their penis, or maybe a brown ring where a clamp was placed but that's about it. You can definitely tell that my foreskin was removed. It's not a big deal to me but to some people who prefer circumcision because of appearance it might be.

[Link]

I heard about the yoghurt thing a few years after I had the operation. I probably would have given it a try but then I'd have been wandering around with yoghurt constantly oozing from my dick instead of steroid cream!

[Link]

Steroids have side effects.

[Link]

Cut looks better imo and much cleaner.

The sensitivity of the head changed completely.Before it was ultra sensitive to any touch or feel and now its rugged and tough like leather.

Overall i would say it was a bit easier to get aroused but nothing drastic.

Edited by - JeannaFineAddict on 4/27/2003 10:34:38 AM

Edited by - JeannaFineAddict on 4/27/2003 10:35:23 AM

[Link]

As another aside, one of the side effects of steroid creams is susceptibility to skin infections, so it may aggravate a situation of recurring infections. Especially on the genitals, which absorb more than 4x more than the face does.

[Link]

Edited by - BigFerret on 7/26/2003 7:25:21 AM

[Link]

Cut dicks in female pussies, asses,
& mouths seem more visually appealing
in Porn.

[Link]