Circumcision?

[Libertine]

It's actually like pruning a shrub. It grows back much larger, thicker and healthier.

As for sensitivity- an orgasm occurs from within, and must feel the same in the urethra whether one's trimmed or not. The only difference is the the glans, now being uncovered permanently, toughens, loses some sensitivity, and thus would require more stimulation, i.e. a longer period of contact before climax is achieved. In other words, sex has to last longer. Is this a problem, ladies?

My friend Milt the Greek noticed he was the Odd Man Out in the locker room when we were in High School and had it done at age 16, to the horror of his dad, and the amusement of our little peergroup of desperate nerdy male virgins. After his recovery, he delighted in telling anyone within earshot- even announcing it proudly in history class when the (very busty) teacher asked why he'd been absent- in hopes of getting to use it on someone/anyone. To our horror and envy, he did.

Or so he said. But then, he'd also tell girls his name, Milt, was easy to remember because it also meant 'fish sperm'. Etymologically true and certainly an aide-memoir, but hardly the world's best pickup line.

But I digress. I've never met a woman who wasn't happy that I'd been 'altered'. I suppose that's the ultimate reason for a man having it done. Thanks, mom and dad.

BTW, a man in New York needs a watch repaired, so he sees a shop with a large clock in the window, and enters.

'I don't repair watches', says the bearded old man behind the counter, 'I'm a Mohel- I perform ritual circumcisions.'

'Then why do you have a clock in your window?' asked the would-be customer.

'So what would you put in YOUR window?', asks the old man.

 

[milagros317]

BTW, a man in New York needs a watch repaired, so he sees a shop with a large clock in the window, and enters.

'I don't repair watches', says the bearded old man behind the counter, 'I'm a Mohel- I perform ritual circumcisions.'

'Then why do you have a clock in your window?' asked the would-be customer.

'So what would you put in YOUR window?', asks the old man.

At the risk of going off topic, that is hilarious.

 

[Bohemianne]

Ah... I will relinguish myself from this topic and why?

- FGM doesn't exist in at least 1000 (?) miles my radius

- I haven't done anything directly or indirectly that concerns this on any male primate

- People in my radius and axis never had any side issues and complaints on this so far

 

[Icycle]

It's actually like pruning a shrub. It grows back much larger, thicker and healthier.

Huh? People are not plants. Circumcision is amputation of tissue. Nothing gets bigger or thicker as a result.

As for sensitivity- an orgasm occurs from within, and must feel the same in the urethra whether one's trimmed or not. The only difference is the the glans, now being uncovered permanently, toughens, loses some sensitivity, and thus would require more stimulation, i.e. a longer period of contact before climax is achieved.

Actually, sensitivity loss isn't just the coarsening of the mucous membrane on the glans. The inner lining of the foreskin and the frenulum are some of the most pleasurably sensitive areas on an intact penis. Some or all of this tissue is removed in a typical circumcision, leaving only the less sensitive outer foreskin.

 

[locker669]

2. Surgery is done without patient's consent
[/U][/B]

So is any other surgery or vaccination when your under 18.

3. Surgery is done at young age
4. Surgery is excruciating without anesthetic
[/U][/B]

I don't remember having it done nor the pain.

5. Surgery removes large percentage of sexual sensitivity
[/U][/B]

I find this one the best. I have NEVER had any problems with a lack a sensitivity during sex. If anything I have too much sensitivity. If you had 10 billion dollars, and someone told you you used to have 100 billion dollars but your parents took it away, would you be mad that you only have 10 billion?

12. Age-related memory loss argued as shield against emotional trauma
[/U][/B]

How about the trauma of birth?

 

[locker669]

Word.


Doesn't matter. He's circumcised and that's how I wanted it.

He could always get it back.

http://www.4restore.com/

 

[Libertine]

Huh? People are not plants. Circumcision is amputation of tissue. Nothing gets bigger or thicker as a result.

An interesting byproduct of circumcision is the ironic sense of humour it produces. This may well account for the statistical overrepresentation of Jewish comedians. Perhaps the over-literal should also try it...

Actually, sensitivity loss isn't just the coarsening of the mucous membrane on the glans. The inner lining of the foreskin and the frenulum are some of the most pleasurably sensitive areas on an intact penis. Some or all of this tissue is removed in a typical circumcision, leaving only the less sensitive outer foreskin.

No, the foreskin is completely removed, leaving behind both a less sensitive organ and problems with hairtrigger performance.

Sometimes the surplus foreskins are collected and given to a tailor, who makes wallets from them.

These are valuable, because when rubbed they turn into suitcases.

yours truly,
Libertine.
(Pruned 'n' Proud)

Adult Circumcision Affects Sexual Performance
Circumcised Men Take Longer to Reach Ejaculation, but That May Be OK
By Jeanie Lerche Davis
WebMD Health NewsFeb. 2, 2004 -- Adult circumcision affects a guy's sexual performance -- but not in a bad way, according to a new study.


Circumcised men take longer to reach ejaculation, which can be viewed as "an advantage, rather than a complication," writes lead researcher Temucin Senkul, a urologist with GATA Haydarpasa Training Hospital in Istanbul, Turkey. His paper appears in the current issue of the journal Adult Urology.


Circumcision -- the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis -- typically occurs immediately after birth or during childhood, in the Muslim and Jewish tradition. In the U.S., 77% of boys are circumcised, according to the researchers.


But what about guys who don't get circumcised as babies, who decide on circumcision when they are adults? Can it give them sexual problems they didn't have before? That's what Sekul sought to determine.


Under the Knife

In this study, Senkul enrolled 42 men -- all about 22 years old -- who had not been circumcised. All but a few wanted circumcision for religious reasons. All were heterosexual and sexually active, and none was using a medication or device to promote erections.


Before the circumcision, doctors evaluated their sexual performance by asking about sex drive, erection, ejaculation, problems, and overall satisfaction.


The men were also asked to note how long they took to reach ejaculation -- during at least three sessions of sexual intercourse.


Twelve weeks after the surgery, the men again answered detailed questions about their sex lives. They reported on how long reaching ejaculation took.


The results: Everything was working smoothly -- except ejaculation, which took "significantly longer" after circumcision.


Adult circumcision may lessen the penis' sensitivity, resulting in a delay to reach ejaculation, Senkul speculates. Or the boost to the guy's self-esteem -- since Muslims consider circumcision to be a "must of manhood" -- might cause the slow down.


"We can say with more certainty that adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function," writes Senkul. The increase in time to reach ejaculation "can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."

http://men.webmd.com/news/20040202/adult-circumcision-affects-sexual-performance

 

[Amnesiac]

Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, it's been a while since I've had such a delicious bout of discussion that hadn't degenerated into a flame war. Okey-dokey, let's see what we have here...lemme address kis first.

1. If this procedure is done literally hours after birth, how does any male know or remember the level of pain?
2a....how does the male infant know down the road that this is a sensitivity issue? I haven't heard one circumsized male post that they're less sensitive due to circumscision. 2b. The female circumsision/mutilation has a lot of info on the books that it decreases sensitivity and it's done on much older females, hence the pain factor. If you're cutting the vulva and the clit, exactly what's left to find sex enjoyable and pleasurable? Not much IMO. She's left literally no more than a hole for her husband to stick himself into and babies to fall out of.

3. There are cultures that suscribe to men enjoying sex and woman doing their wifely duties for their man. They don't care if women enjoy it.

1. You have a point, since they likely won't. But there has been some evidence collected that sometimes post-op infants become withdrawn following the procedure, including withdrawing from nursing. Now, this doesn't happen EVERY time, but often enough that people took notice, and its eerily similar to the state of hypervigilant shock that rape victims suffer: they withdraw, they sequester themselves, and they react to being touched/approached. Pain has a way of affecting emotions and even the wiring of the brain, even in short but intense doses; long-term pain can actually drive someone to insanity, and short-term pain can induce temporary PTSD. Now, as humans age, that response becomes more complex, but in infants who are absorbing/experiencing everything emotionally rather than intellectually, it might have unknown consequences that don't register consciously, but manifest themselves in one's everyday life.

Philosophically, is age-related memory loss an excuse inflict pain on people? As I said, you could rape a 4 month-old, or stab a 6 month-old in the hand with pins, and all sorts of other things that won't kill them...you can't go in court and use "Your honor, they're not gonna REMEMBER it or anything!" as an excuse. From a PRINCIPLE standpoint, a violation/assault is a violation/assault regardless of age or recollection...and oftentimes, penalties are drafted IN CONSIDERATION of age. Even in adults, trauma can be forgotten by a victim, but the evidence can still be used against the victimizer.

Also, parents everywhere use believe that bombarding the fetus with soothing classical music can affect prenatal mental development, so if music can affect them before they're born, what can a skinning surgery do AFTER they're born? However, there's no evidence to really give this argument any weight so don't invest too much in it, I just felt it was a nifty point.

2a. How do girls who undergo FGM when they're less than a year old (yes it happens) know either? Just like the males who were cut at 2-8 days old, they won't know what they're missing...unless the uncut women around them start telling them all the time. Somehow, this doesn't get a pass when considering FGM, but does when considering MGM. 2b. It disgusts me to say this because I'm completely against FGM, BUT TECHNICALLY, there is still VAGINAL stimulation; a woman is more than the sum of her clitoris. YES I KNOW, vaginal is almost never enough, but, just like the glans/head of a circumcised penis, it's SOMETHING...and in the US, that "SOMETHING" is "good enough" in most women's minds when they send their sons off to the outpatient ward.

Another thing I hate to bring up is that there are at least 4 WHO categories of FGM, and not all of them remove the clitoris (Type I & some Type IIIs), which means that the devastating loss of sensitivity is not universal...but that of course doesn't make a difference when referring to WOMEN does it? Men it's okay, but in WOMEN that's different, right?

*interesting note: the clitoris is only the tip of the iceberg; the clitoris extends internally into a network of nerve-rich branches embedded in a firm Y-shaped tissue that actually becomes "erect" during stimulation. This "Y" is called the clitoral crura, and can be stimulated via pressure from inside (and rarely outside) the vagina. The clitoris is homologous to the penis, meaning it's the same tissue, and it's likely that those nerves in the "Y" would line the foreskin had the genders been different, but in the case of women, those nerves are protected from surgical removal by being internal rather than external. So the clitoris doesn't get ALL of its sensitivity in the head, but also along the clitoral crura, which means that in a way, male circumcision removes what could very well be the G-Spot in women...NOW let's see if the women can feel men's pain at that little item.

I won't address #3 because this answer is too long already...otherwise I WOULD! Moving on...

an orgasm occurs from within, and must feel the same in the urethra whether one's trimmed or not. The only difference is the the glans, now being uncovered permanently, toughens, loses some sensitivity, and thus would require more stimulation, i.e. a longer period of contact before climax is achieved. In other words, sex has to last longer. Is this a problem, ladies?- Libertine

In the FGM argument, ANY LOSS OF SENSITIVITY is considered unacceptable and reason enough to ban the procedure outright, and label any WILLING participants as "crazy brainwashed women who are kowtowing to cultural pressure". The difference in sensitivity loss between men & women in genital cutting is about 20%, which is very close together, but apparently enough to say "eh, s'okay" for men. But also, the skin of the penis is not the same as the skin on your arm: yes, it's epithelial tissue, but its not epidermis, and although the glans does thicken and toughen, its not actually SUPPOSED to, and there's still ongoing research as to whether this process attributes to the "painful rubbing" syndrome that occurs when you apply direct contact to the head before/after orgasm (you might still find clips in TIB's HJ store that emphasize this phenomenon).

As for the "lasting longer" argument, evidence suggests a draw in un/cut men. The difference seems to be a case-by-case basis, which makes sense because not all genitals are made the same. But as for whether this is a BENEFIT, I have to step outside my professional demeanor here. Saying that men lasting longer is a good thing is like saying "all women take forever to climax." Which for me seems like something that should OFFEND women more than amuse them: saying a man cums too fast is an insult, but saying a woman takes forever isn't? You may as well be calling them "vagidaires" because it verges on calling them frigid: "Oh you know me, I'm so bad it takes me an hour just to get wet". Women will tell you that they can cum as fast and hard as a man, but it requires more specific stimulation...a LEARNED skill that a lot of men don't master. In this case it would seem that it's more of a chemistry/technique/psychology problem than a time problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesiac View Post
Surgery is done without patient's consent
[/u][/b]
1. So is any other surgery or vaccination when your under 18.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesiac View Post
Surgery removes large percentage of sexual sensitivity
[/u][/b]
2. I find this one the best. I have NEVER had any problems with a lack a sensitivity during sex. If anything I have too much sensitivity. If you had 10 billion dollars, and someone told you you used to have 100 billion dollars but your parents took it away, would you be mad that you only have 10 billion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnesiac View Post
Age-related memory loss argued as shield against emotional trauma
[/u][/b]
3. How about the trauma of birth?

1. Foreskins don't kill babies; polio, diphtheria, and meningitis do. Circumcision is not a life-or-death decision (even in most penile cancer cases) as evidenced by the number of 70-90 year-old uncircumcised men in Europe and Japan. Vaccinations are demonstrably instrumental in preserving your LIFE, which is why parental are allowed to order them in the first place; whether parents should retain that authority in optional cosmetic surgeries is more dubious. And in many cases, parents are now using that authority to refuse inoculations for safety concerns.

2. Yes I would (and I'm not even a bailout recipient) because it means somebody got the other $90 billion and is having more fun than me. Also, $10 billion is great for starting a business or enjoying a luxurious lifestyle, but it isn't enough to do anything world-changing because you'd deplete it just getting the materials and permits. With $100 billion you could buy and restore the entire rain forest because the money wouldn't spend fast enough to run out before the project was done.

3. Could you elaborate on this one? Do you mean like, thermal shock from uterus-to-outside?

*Phew!* Okay, there. Just let me re-iterate for those who think I'm taking an absolutist stance or in case my posts have been repetitious (I hope they haven't been, because I want to have a damn REASON for my opinions) that I'M NOT AGAINST VOLUNTARY CIRCUMCISION, JUST NON-CONSENSUAL NEONATAL circumcision. I just think that performing neonatal circumcision routinely violates freedom of choice and diminishes sensitivity for a paltry amount of debatable benefits with matching complication ratios and a cultural aesthetic founded on faulty 19th century medicine and defended by a gender bias against men: what is important in genital cutting in women is largely dismissed in genital cutting for men, and what bothers me most is that these discrepancies don't seem to register with people in general at all.

To finish this post I'll give you a case in point:
Here's another point I'd like to make concerning aesthetics. Every now and then in my research, I see a video of a neonatal circumcision, and the surgeon--strangely it's often (but not exclusively) a FEMALE nurse/doctor--performing the surgery, once finished and usually with the nervous parent in the room, will reference a raw, bleeding organ with a reassuring chirp of "Oh, it's beautiful!" (yes, I've heard it more than once)

...come on now. If anything like that was said following an FGM procedure, any one of you would likely beat the surgeon half to death for that remark alone. Do you think that the data concerning hygiene/sensitivity loss/cultural bias/etc. has anything to do with your emotional reaction?

 

[Bohemianne]

Sometimes the surplus foreskins are collected and given to a tailor, who makes wallets from them.

These are valuable, because when rubbed they turn into suitcases.

(Pruned 'n' Proud)

^ thought I'm done here, but reading this...


EDIT:

*interesting note: the clitoris is only the tip of the iceberg; the clitoris extends internally into a network of nerve-rich branches embedded in a firm Y-shaped tissue that actually becomes "erect" during stimulation. This "Y" is called the clitoral crura, and can be stimulated via pressure from inside (and rarely outside) the vagina. The clitoris is homologous to the penis, meaning it's the same tissue, and it's likely that those nerves in the "Y" would line the foreskin had the genders been different, but in the case of women, those nerves are protected from surgical removal by being internal rather than external. So the clitoris doesn't get ALL of its sensitivity in the head, but also along the clitoral crura, which means that in a way, male circumcision removes what could very well be the G-Spot in women...NOW let's see if the women can feel men's pain at that little item.

^ Okay no problem about the tip of ice berg thing... but I'm moved when you compared it with g-spot removal...wow! I understand you now.

 

[kis123]

Amnesiac:

You have left me scratching my head.....really you have.

You have very strong arguments, but you still leave me where the two "surgeries" are without the same impact sexually. I still have no evidence that a man who was circumcized as an infant is complaining about sexual performance issues. If you cut a woman's clitoris or her vulva at age 8-10 years old, she's gonna' remember the so called surgery and she'll never know real sexual pleasure. It's not a apples to apples comparison and it never will be.

A forum member mentioned that if a man truly wanted his foreskin back, there's a way to do it. Is there anything out here that will give a woman back her clitoris and vulva after it's been cut away from her with full memory of what happened to her? I'm going to get real crazy and say......NO!

As a parent, I made the decision to have my son circumcized. As parents, we make decisions for our children until they're adults. That's our job whether the kid likes it or not. When they screw up, we get to clean it up whether we like it or not. It's a sick and twisted relationship that legally gives me no options. Sometimes, it simply is what it is.

If you want to start an anti-circumcision movement, knock yourself out-it's certainly your business. It's my decision if I want to sleep with a man who is not circumcised. I won't do it with a gun pointed to my head and I don't give a rats rear end what studies say I can.

 

[Libertine]

In the FGM argument, ANY LOSS OF SENSITIVITY is considered unacceptable and reason enough to ban the procedure outright, and label any WILLING participants as "crazy brainwashed women who are kowtowing to cultural pressure". The difference in sensitivity loss between men & women in genital cutting is about 20%, which is very close together, but apparently enough to say "eh, s'okay" for men.

Well, a typical 'romp' can all too often involve a man fantasising about garbage, death and going down on his grandmother to delay his orgasm, atop a woman fantasising about being gang-banged by a crew of pirates who all resemble Brad Pitt to bring on hers.

I suppose anything one can do to balance things out would be a blessing.

 

[Amnesiac]

You have left me scratching my head.....really you have.

Yyyyyup, I KNEW I must've missed something.

You have very strong arguments, but you still leave me where the two "surgeries" are without the same impact sexually. I still have no evidence that a man who was circumcized as an infant is complaining about sexual performance issues. If you cut a woman's clitoris or her vulva at age 8-10 years old, she's gonna' remember the so called surgery and she'll never know real sexual pleasure.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, okay, okay...

As far as sexual FUNCTIONING GOES, you're right, and I never meant to imply you were wrong. Evidence on either side of the argument shows that, unless a crippling complication occurs during the procedure, circumcised men PERFORM just as well as uncircumcised men do; circumcised men have sex and have kids...so they obviously work. And I SURE AS HELL wasn't trying to downplay what women go through in FGM. What I was TRYING to get across was that circumcised men and in women mutilated as infants/toddlers (not juveniles) have a common thread: they never get to experience FULL sexual pleasure (or any in the case of the women)...and so they not only lose their tissue, but they also lose the chance to know what that's like; a man can't complain something he can't compare to, and in the case of infant FGM, neither can the girls...but the women are encouraged to be aware of their loss, but the men are told the loss is negligible. And in women that theft is considered as heinous as the cutting...but in men that same condition is considered irrelevant. I was just trying to point out the similarity and the disparity in sympathy/empathy.

My point was about pleasure and the forced ignorance OF...I was NEVER saying that a circumcised penis works as much as a mutilated vagina, that's ridicamalous...all the evidence says that FGM severely damages the functioning of that organ!

A forum member mentioned that if a man truly wanted his foreskin back, there's a way to do it. Is there anything out here that will give a woman back her clitoris and vulva after it's been cut away from her with full memory of what happened to her? I'm going to get real crazy and say......NO!

That's not crazy, that's pretty much true, you can't restore what a woman's lost from FGM. As for the foreskin restoration thing, I've glanced at the subject but I admit I need to do more research on it to see if it actually works. To the best of my knowledge (and science in general) there's no known way of growing back nerve cells...it's not just the cell, it's also reinitializing the cell's "memory" so it can communicate with other nerve cells. Anyone who can do that is getting airlifted to Stockholm on Air Force One the day of publication.

But let's say that it was true. Let's say that plastic surgery innovations COULD restore working nerves and tissue to women who suffered FGM...the overwhelming response from the world in general would be "SO WHAT?! YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE CUT IT OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE!" They wouldn't share the same attitude with circumcised men in the same situation, and that conflicting perspective that irks me.

As a parent, I made the decision to have my son circumcized. As parents, we make decisions for our children until they're adults. That's our job whether the kid likes it or not...It's a sick and twisted relationship that legally gives me no options. Sometimes, it simply is what it is.

Those decisions you mentioned, as far as medicine goes (everything else about parenting is kinda winging it, even I know that), are usually based on informed consent and have a concern for well-being AND even consideration for what will happen down the line. For instance, if you haven't had your son vaccinated and you want to know what to do, the doctors will tell you what can happen if he isn't; if your son's arm is severely damaged and you have a choice between amputation or imperfect corrective surgery (imperfect as in it can't fix it back to 100%, not imperfect as in won't work), you stop and think about how your decision will affect his life and his QUALITY of life down the line. You care about your kid, and you wouldn't ignore his point of view in that case unless his life was at stake. So in the case of circumcision, which is not a life-or-death issue, the decision doesn't have the same gravity, weight, and sense of urgent parental override merit as, say, a vaccination or reconstructive surgery, etc.

But to be fair I will admit that the medical community doesn't always provide the complete or balanced information on this issue and many parents make a decision based on one-sided consultation. I'm just wary of an institution where an irreversible but non-essential surgery is the DEFAULT rather than request-only.

It's my decision if I want to sleep with a man who is not circumcised. I won't do it with a gun pointed to my head and I don't give a rats rear end what studies say I can.

Oooooooooooookay, I dunno where I screwed up to give you THAT idea, but I can at least say that I sure as hell didn't plan on it. I never said (or at least INTENDED to say) anything to the effect of "ALL WOMEN MUST SLEEP WITH UNCIRCUMCISED MEN AND LEARN TO LIKE IT!" because that's even more ridicamalous than the other ridicamalous things I mentioned above.

My whole spiel has been about non-consensual neonatal circumcision...I never tried to put down consensual ADULT CIRCUMCISION unless the guy was doing it for ill-advised reasons. Like I told sasaxrah (holy shit I spelled that right this time), THERE'S ALWAYS GONNA BE CIRCUMCISED MEN AND THE WOMEN WHO PREFER THEM AND THAT'S FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE!

I just wanted to be sure it was THEIR idea, that's all. It IS their body after all, it should be THEIR decision. As a woman, I'm sure you can understand the outrage about when a person of the opposite gender in authority makes insensitive, overriding blanket decisions about reproductive organs that don't belong to them.

*crosses fingers* Okay, here's hoping I didn't leave any confusionisms behind this time.

 

[Amnesiac]

Well, a typical 'romp' can all too often involve a man fantasising about garbage, death and going down on his grandmother to delay his orgasm, atop a woman fantasising about being gang-banged by a crew of pirates who all resemble Brad Pitt to bring on hers.

Dude, that's HAWT.

I suppose anything one can do to balance things out would be a blessing.

Good point. I recommend a sex camp. Every year, 18 year-olds are trucked out to their local sex camps for a month-long fully interactive hands-on training on how to fuck well, right, thoroughly, and improvisationally. The trainers will be recovering sex addicts/nymphomaniacs and porn stars and supervisors will be the finalists for the annual global BDSM Dom Competitions.

If not that...holograms dude. Fucking holograms. Yeah.

 

[InspectorJapp]

For me, this is simple: Circumsicion for non-medical reasons is by definition the removal\alteration of a working organ.
Thus it should not be done. But alas, religion and sexual "morals" make people do ridiculous things.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Wait. Female circumcision is cutting the clit off??

That's like, the best part of the whole vagina.

 

[KittenToes]

My 2 1/2 cents on the topic...

Couple things.

As for the hygiene issue: My dad's a doctor (MD) and he's of the opinion that circumcision helps prevent infection. Don't ask me HOW this came up in conversation with my own father- it's likely that I was reading something about it and mentioned it. Being a doctor's daughter sort of desensitizes a person to topics not normally discussed at the dinner table. Especially since we WERE discussing it at the dinner table.

From personal experience, I've never slept with a man who wasn't "trimmed". This is just by chance, and anyhow, I only have "hands"-on experience with a very few people. However, I have seen many of both varieties in nudist resorts and fetish clubs, and I would conjecture that if anyone produced something that, in my opinion, resembles a burrito, and attempted to convice me to engage in any type of sexual activity with said Tex-Mex food item, I would be very likely to decline the offer.

I am NOT trying to discriminate or saying that one's better than another- it's just my personal preference. Also, some acquaintances of mine from Europe, who are members of a drag ballet troupe and VERY hygiene-oriented as far as theirr own members are concerned, happen to have uncut cocks and say that despite their best efforts, the things can get smelly.

My friend Milt the Greek noticed he was the Odd Man Out in the locker room when we were in High School and had it done at age 16, to the horror of his dad, and the amusement of our little peergroup of desperate nerdy male virgins. After his recovery, he delighted in telling anyone within earshot- even announcing it proudly in history class when the (very busty) teacher asked why he'd been absent- in hopes of getting to use it on someone/anyone. To our horror and envy, he did.

I've known 2 people who were circumcised in their teens. The first had Phimosis (an overly tight foreskin, NOT delusions of being an Egyptian pharaoh) so a definite medical reason for it. As for the second- it was a bit of an odd situation. I was in my final year of ballet training, and we had a kid who recently moved to NYC from Russia in the class.

He was talking to me one day, and he started asking me if it was "more normal" in the USA to be circumcised than not. He said all the guys in the locker room were bragging about having sex, and he wasn't getting any. He wondered if ladies in the USA preferred "cut willies".

I told him that 90% of the guys who said they were getting laid were probably lying. Teenage boys tend to be all talk and no action. I hoped this would make him stop worrying. But he kept asking me about circumcisions and wanted to know the reasons for having them done, and what MY personal preference was. I rather distractedly mentioned hygiene, and that no, I would probably not want to sleep with an uncircumcised guy, because I thought the trimmed ones would look nicer/smell better.

I probably should have told him that whatever he did or didn't have done with his genitals would not affect what I did, or rather, had no interest in doing, with him personally.

But I sort of forgot the conversation, and Dmitri was out of class for a week or so. I didn't think much of it, just figured he'd caught the flu or something.
He walked into class a bit awkwardly after his absence, and announced to me proudly that he'd just been circumcised.

I was a bit surprised he'd have that done at 17, but figured he was concerned about health or something.

It didn't occur to me till years later that his decision was probably a direct result of our conversation and his aspirations towards me, of which I was oblivious. Oops.

And no, I didn't.

 

[BlackestLily]

Amnesiac, as a side note to this thread, you're sticking to it wonderfully and making great points for your side. But I have to say, it drives me nuts when you go crazy with bolding, underlining, and italicizing! I want to steadily read what you write, but when my eye sees this big underlined thing a bit in the future, it wants to jump right to it. I think if they are good points being bolded, they would speak for themselves.

Sorry, I just had to say something. I want to continue reading this thread because it's honestly pretty good. It was just driving me nuts.

 

[SlaverTickler]

What are your thoughts on both male and female circumcision?
Personally, I see no need for either apart from religious tradition (and even that's not a "need", more of a cultural norm) but are there actually any benefits at all?

Circumcision is bullshit. As I understand it men lose about 1,000 nerve ending when the snip them, and the sick fucks who do it to women are of the same mental state as the bastards who throw acid at little girls for going to school... in other words somebody should do it to them.

 

[..Glamorous..]

Amn, I love you to death but,


I just went back to the posts were you said, that there is no consent.. The parents consent to it.. In fact I had to sign like 8 papers and pay 300 dollars out of my pocket.

Second, you used vaccinations as a back up to what you were saying.. but honestly, A LOT of kids aren't vaccinated either, your not forced to give those to your child.. again you have to consent and sign a paper. It all seems to boil down to peoples choices and preferences. People do what they believe is the best for their child, as did I.

It's all personal opinion, you can't force people to believe things they don't believe. I did my research for 6 months before I delivered my son, and I felt it was beneficial to his health.

 

[kis123]

Amnesiac;

You still haven't shown me any evidence that a circumcised male has memory of his "mutilation" or lost any sexual pleasure especially since he has no other point of reference than what someone wrote in a medical journal. Medicine is NOT an exact science, it is a practice. The only person who can answer that question is a man who was circumcised later in life and had sex before and after the procedure. If that is you, then you can answer it. If not, you can only spit in the wind because you don't have that point of reference.

Since parents have the responsibility for their children until age 18, I see no major reason why they shouldn't have their sons circumcised. I had my kid clipped and I don't hear him complaining. I'm not an abusive mother for wanting my son clean and healthy-not buying into that argument at all.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the end I still see an uncircumcised man as multiple infections waiting to happen and all the soap and water in the world won't convince me otherwise.

Kittentoes, I now know why I order the burrito bol at Chipotle instead of the burrito! I'll never see a burrito in the same light again!

 

[Icycle]

Wait. Female circumcision is cutting the clit off??

That's like, the best part of the whole vagina.

There are several different procedures called female circumcision. Some, bot not all of them involve removing the external part of the clitoris.

 

[Deleted member 66627]

There are several different procedures called female circumcision. Some, bot not all of them involve removing the external part of the clitoris.

That's terrible. I would be absolutely against that.

 

[Tortuga]

Currently about to swipe my credit card to purchase one of these bad boys.

HAHA no snip snip of the nu nu!

 

[Deleted member 66627]

Currently about to swipe my credit card to purchase one of these bad boys.

HAHA no snip snip of the nu nu!

You for seriously bought that?

Model it.

That's a hella lot of locks. Gives lockdown a whole new meaning.

 

[LD_Tickler]

Circumcision is bullshit. As I understand it men lose about 1,000 nerve ending when the snip them

Yeah, I'm quite sure that's not true.


I haven't read this thread carefully, but circumcision with men and FGM are not equivalent, even if we use the same word.

FGM makes sex, childbirth, and sometimes even urination painful, and in some cases, life threatening. It's often used oppressively, as a means of enforcing fidelity among women by undermining their capabilities for casual sexual pleasure.

Removing foreskin has no consequences remotely as severe, so the two are completely non analogous.