Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

[sonic myst]

seee what i bolded...serious how long does it take to pull the skin back for 2 seconds and scrub it..thats seriously all that it is..its not that hard to keep clean.. people make it seem like its a 30 min job to wash your penis

 

Exactly, there's so much ignorance in this thread it's astonishing. Besides, supposedly, being cleaner what else do people say consistently about circumsized males, i.e not "premature ejaculating", takes longer to orgasm etc.. Take the reduced sensitivity, it's a fact it causes loss of feeling, and take the idea of female circumsizing and what do you get? A way that reduces the ability to masturbate, and reduce the "evil good feeling". It's like people back then thought feeling good was a sin or something, as long as you did it with your spouse it's ok.

 

 

Being uncircumsized, I can tell you the ONLY problem I had with it was forcing the skin off the base of the glans(head) when I was younger, but once it finally broke free it was like I took off shoes 4 inches too small and slipped into some nice big ones that had room to grow.

 

 

As for the cleaning part, I have to say I take at least! 30secs to wash my pelvic area, it's seriously something every guy should do everyday uncut or not. Now to be pretty big jerk every post about saying cut BFs would suck in bed, or they would always want fallacio, I think wow, just having the tip touched feels ammazzzinngggg, I've pulled my foreskin back to see what it'd be like and there's no WAY the sensitivity is the same. Also, to all the "premature ejaculations" people for the uncut's, this is sort of like lactose intolerant where being lactose intolerant is actually NATURAL, so "premature ejaculation" is basically ejaculating at the right time because our sensitivity is increased at least 10 fold.

[jononfire]

My boyfriend is uncurmcusized and I love it. I think it shows his parents were unwilling to hurt him as a baby, which means they had some good insticts as parents.

I like pulling back the skin and how sensitive he is underneath it.

I also like that during intercouse it's all smooth. There's not that ridge that you get from circumsism. Which can irratate me on the inside.

 

I'm a guy who's "cut", and I'm at peace with that, but I find uncircumsized penises much hotter to look at, and fellatio and anal sex much smoother, as you say -- it's all good. Plus, my uncut BFs have been much more attuned, sensitivity-wise, to what's going on. And while I'm all for cleanliness, a little smegma is the icing on the cake.

[BritterSweet]

This thread is from 2005, guys.

[pl3asehelp]

I'm not religious at all and I'm circumcised and had my two sons circumcised as well - I helped in fact. It doesn't hurt that bad at all. The body basically stops transmitting pain signals to your brain in situations like that. Ever talk to someone who was stabbed? They say it just feels like being punched or pressure. Same thing. I like the way it looks and feels and those are my only reasons. I know of no facts that support anything about cleanliness, health, or desensitization and would find any claims on those fronts dubious at best. All I can speak of is from my own experience and it feels great to me - if anything I'm too sensitive. You like the look and feel? Do it. You don't? Then don't. Mostly you're just going to find people defending themselves for bogus reasons. Of course they're both fine options.

[SuzieQue]

I think one of the trickiest things about male circumcision is that it's not a choice, since it happens when guys are babies. But I agree with the above poster. I don't think either version is better or more clean than the other.

[Lonewing]

This thread is from 2005, guys.

 

And guys will beat each other's heads in about which is better until, well, people stop doing it so everybody has a foreskin when they're old enough to debate...

[Lonewing]

I think one of the trickiest things about male circumcision is that it's not a choice, since it happens when guys are babies. But I agree with the above poster. I don't think either version is better or more clean than the other.

 

I think that's the part that bothers me most. We wouldn't EVER let anyone alter our own bodies without our expressed explict permission, but then we feel we have the right to go ahead and do this because "they're our chidlren and we know what's best for them." Riiiigggghhhhhtttt......BS

[Coconut Twin]

I've only been with one uncircumcised guy and it was....how should I say....interesting...

[pl3asehelp]

I think that's the part that bothers me most. We wouldn't EVER let anyone alter our own bodies without our expressed explict permission, but then we feel we have the right to go ahead and do this because "they're our chidlren and we know what's best for them." Riiiigggghhhhhtttt......BS

 

We don't just feel we have the right, it's actually legislation most places in the US that followed the same approval process as every other law - majority approval. If you feel strongly enough about it, you can certainly lobby your congressman and do some grass roots campaigning, build a support base larger than that which is in favor of the right to circumcise and change the law. They've been trying it in San Francisco for years, but haven't succeeded. Maybe there is a more liberal community elsewhere that would be easier to convince.

[Dragunov-21]

And while I'm all for cleanliness, a little smegma is the icing on the cake.

 

... Duuuuuuuuuuude...

 

We don't just feel we have the right, it's actually legislation most places in the US that followed the same approval process as every other law - majority approval.

 

Moral right, dude. Not legal.

 

Wasn't that long ago that it was still deemed that you couldn't rape your wife (as in, it wasn't considered rape).

[cupcake22]

I prefer uncut. It's natural and leaves the guy with more sensation.

[pl3asehelp]

... Duuuuuuuuuuude...

 

 

 

Moral right, dude. Not legal.

 

Wasn't that long ago that it was still deemed that you couldn't rape your wife (as in, it wasn't considered rape).

 

Well I vote according to my morals - do you have some other criteria?

[Dragunov-21]

You say that people don't just feel they have the right to cut bits off their babies, but that they do by virtue of the fact that it's legal. I say that nothing is moral simply by virtue of it being legal and that the legality of something adds little strength to any argument for or against the morality of it. Case in point, forcing your wife to have sex with you. Hell, might as well add witch-burning, too.

[pl3asehelp]

You say that people don't just feel they have the right to cut bits off their babies, but that they do by virtue of the fact that it's legal. I say that nothing is moral simply by virtue of it being legal and that the legality of something adds little strength to any argument for or against the morality of it. Case in point, forcing your wife to have sex with you. Hell, might as well add witch-burning, too.

 

Nope, you've got it backwards. I say that people vote according to their morals and voting is how we get laws passed. What the majority of people feel is moral becomes a law if they care enough to do the work to make it so. If you are morally opposed to circumcision and it's legal where you live, drum up enough people who have the same moral convictions as you and get the law changed.

 

Where I live the majority of people both feel the have the moral right and do in fact have the legal right to circumcise their kids.

[Dragunov-21]

You're making the assumption that the public has significant input on isolated issues; no-one who put any thought into voting for a party would do so on the basis of a single issue like circumcision, and typically, legislative change is initiated because the Government wills it or because there is overwhelming public pressure to do so.

 

That said, I'm speaking from an Australian perspective and don't know how legislation is passed in the US.

 

Honestly, to a certain extent I'm playing devil's advocate here, as I don't feel it's a substantial human-rights violation or anything and wouldn't necessarily be in favour of criminalising it, especially since public perception is changing. What I would be in favour of would be an effort to provide education on the effects of circumcision without any of the pro/anti rhetoric.

 

Fact of the matter is that as long as the foreskin is properly mobile, the child is taught to wash it (as you'd teach him to brush his teeth) and you aren't expecting him to be having unprotected sex in an area riddled with HIV, there is no solid support from a medical perspective, and a lot of people simply don't realise this. Just look at all the people in here who think that it is dirty or a health risk to remain uncircumcised. I don't see girls rushing out to have their labia removed; they seem reasonably confident in their ability to keep it clean.

[Coconut Twin]

I don't see girls rushing out to have their labia removed; they seem reasonably confident in their ability to keep it clean.

 

Sorry to butt in here...but that's a good point.

[pl3asehelp]

I live in San Francisco and this is actually could be legislated at the city level. We're a very left wing / liberal city, probably more so than anywhere else in the US so you might think the majority here, if anywhere, would be in favor of banning circumcision. Almost every election, there is a circumcision ban proposition on the ballot. It's that specific. It never passes. At the federal level in the US laws get made by any citizen contacting their Representative from the House who, if he feels you have presented significant support, will write up a bill to bring to the House where it's examined and debated on by various expert committees and then put to a vote first in the House, then the Senate, then finally the president has a chance to veto it. At any point during these votes, you can lobby your House Rep or Congressman to ask they vote they way you would like them to (as you are their constituent) - if your congressman or rep ignores you and doesn't vote your way, you don't vote for them next time they're up for re-election and choose someone who better reflects your wishes and try again.

 

The anti male circumcision camp in the US is either in the minority, too lazy, or doesn't know enough about their government to do anything to further their wishes.

[Lonewing]

Nope, you've got it backwards. I say that people vote according to their morals and voting is how we get laws passed. What the majority of people feel is moral becomes a law if they care enough to do the work to make it so. If you are morally opposed to circumcision and it's legal where you live, drum up enough people who have the same moral convictions as you and get the law changed.

 

Where I live the majority of people both feel the have the moral right and do in fact have the legal right to circumcise their kids.

 

Yes, and yet for centuries we felt it perfectly ok to go around killing people of one race and enslaving people of another race. We all voted on it, nd we came up with "it's legal to do it!"

 

Following your reaosning, it would be morally sound to take a baby's kidney, too, if it were legal in your area, if a parent felt compelled to do so.

This very line of reasoning is why I believe the practice should be outright banned. The only person who should be able to decide if and when they should have their foreskin removed is the person who's born with it, NOT anyone else.

[Lonewing]

Fact of the matter is that as long as the foreskin is properly mobile, the child is taught to wash it (as you'd teach him to brush his teeth) and you aren't expecting him to be having unprotected sex in an area riddled with HIV, there is no solid support from a medical perspective, and a lot of people simply don't realise this. Just look at all the people in here who think that it is dirty or a health risk to remain uncircumcised. I don't see girls rushing out to have their labia removed; they seem reasonably confident in their ability to keep it clean.

 

The most disturbing problems about the studies that have been done is the fact that they are studies of statistics and nothing more. They take a body of people, count up who has foreskins and who doesn't, and then who has HIV in the populaitons and who doesn't, and then dance upon whatever result they get.

 

These results fail to take into account the actual causation behind therelaitonship, because correlation does not mean Causation - these same people would see that the instance of ice cream sales goes up at the same time the instance of sunburns goes up and declare that Ice Cream causes Sunburns - Wrong, it's SUMMER that causes both!

 

But alas, I live in a coutnry that barely has an 8th grade literacy; I doubt we'll be passing any laws based on logic any time soon.

[tiredofvampires]

I have just gone through this process in an intensive way, with my state Legislature, lobbying for a bill. Gone through the committee hearings, testifying, speaking to both House and Senate members. And in fact, my position is favored by a majority of the state's population, even though it affects a sub-group (people in low-income housing). It was passed, to everyone's surprise, in both House and Senate (surprise, because it's still a very controversial issue, and had failed to come even a third of that distance in the past when introduced.) But the Governor vetoed it. Simply because of political alliances.

 

So as much as I love the democratic process we have open to us, and as little as I want to veer off here into anything political, I just want to say that it's not as easy as turning hearts and minds if you make a lot of noise. There are a lot of other forces that are much louder in the end, sometimes.

 

What is just and fair, unfortunately, is really not a matter of majority rules, which is why the system is flawed.

 

Ideally, justice is based upon what is ethically the soundest principle -- not popularity of an idea. This is why we do not elect members of the judicial branch.

 

I believe that every person has the inalienable right to bodily integrity and choice, starting from birth. Circumcision goes against that. Until the tide shifts socially and culturally, and beliefs change as knowledge reaches critical mass with enough people, that right will continue to be infringed upon, with doctors who know better catering to this (doctors now openly stating in a consensus that circumcision is medically uneccessary, and only a cosmetic issue.) That doesn't make it just or morally correct. The majority isn't always right, nor is it a justification that a lot of people get dragged into the groupthink for political, economic, or other insubstantive reasons.

 

Also, where circumcision is concerned, it's probably more an issue of people believing others should have the prerogative to choose what to do with their baby boys, that it shouldn't be mandated one way or the other; but I would imagine the actual number of people who personally don't support circumcision (especially in San Fran) may higher than the votes indicate.

[pl3asehelp]

Yes, and yet for centuries we felt it perfectly ok to go around killing people of one race and enslaving people of another race. We all voted on it, nd we came up with "it's legal to do it!"

 

Following your reaosning, it would be morally sound to take a baby's kidney, too, if it were legal in your area, if a parent felt compelled to do so.

This very line of reasoning is why I believe the practice should be outright banned. The only person who should be able to decide if and when they should have their foreskin removed is the person who's born with it, NOT anyone else.

 

There is no right or wrong when it comes to morals, only opinions. If most of us feel it's morally ok to take kidneys from babies and we legislate that, then the law just simply reflects the majority's opinion of morality which is always changing, as do laws.

 

It's this system that leads you to believe circumcision should be banned? Not sure I follow why/how. You're advocating that the majority opinion of what is moral be disregarded? Why? Because it's not your opinion?

[pl3asehelp]

So you and the people who share your opinion on the housing bill need to weigh that against all of your other personal concerns, shared or not, and then vote for a governor who won't veto your bill. It's not easy at all. There are people who are professional lobbyists who get paid very high salaries to dedicate their lives to doing this stuff. They can be hired if you and your support base can raise the money to hire them. You also need to look at it in context of all the other things that are important to you. The system may be flawed, but show me a better one.

 

Morals are just opinions - nobody can say the majority or minority opinion of morality is correct. The only thing you can do with your opinion of morality is act on it and hope you can turn it into a law. Then it's not even 'morally correct' universally, it's just a law that reflects the majority's opinion of morality. I agree with you that there are probably more people against circumcision in SF than the votes reflect, but if those people choose not to participate in the democratic process that is their right, they have nobody to blame but themselves. I mean, the potheads got out the vote and changed the law in CA - could there be a more disorganized group of slackers? But they (we) did it. Just gotta do the work if something is that important to you.

[tiredofvampires]

Well, without getting into a long bit about law and morality, there IS a concept in law called "natural law" -- which essentially states that some laws reflect a state of "inherence", or universally innate states determined by nature. And that we "discover" such laws (kind of like we discover mathematical principles) -- but can't create them. This is in contrast to "positive law", or "man-made" constructions of law.

 

We have laws that we consider to be inherent rights to the human, as an extension of natural law (aka natural justice), and if you want to argue the principle that such a thing exists, you have a lot of heavyweight philosophers over millennia and U.S. nation-founders to disagree with. Civil and international human rights apply themselves to an acceptance of these principles.

 

Recognition of these is still incomplete, and I believe male circumcision is one case in point.

[pl3asehelp]

Well, without getting into a long bit about law and morality, there IS a concept in law called "natural law" -- which essentially states that some laws reflect a state of "inherence", or universally innate states determined by nature. And that we "discover" such laws (kind of like we discover mathematical principles) -- but can't create them. This is in contrast to "positive law", or "man-made" constructions of law.

 

We have laws that we consider to be inherent rights to the human, as an extension of natural law, and if you want to argue the principle that such a thing exist, you have a lot of heavy-hitting philosophers and U.S. nation-founders to disagree with. Civil and international human rights apply themselves to an acceptance of these principles.

 

Recognition of these is still incomplete, and I believe male circumcision is one case in point.

 

I don't argue that what you're talking about exists, but like you said it's incomplete and until someone finds a way to complete it and figures out how to apply this to how every country makes laws, it will remain in the realm of philosophers. International human rights abuses take place hourly and there is no mandatory punishment. It's voluntary for the opposing nations to get together and decide to do something about it. I'm agnostic, but the principles you're talking about would be nearly impossible to implement without infringing upon individuals religious beliefs, such as Jews favoring circumcision for spiritual reasons and each countries governments desire to be autonomous. Nobody has forced Cuba or North Korean to give up communism - the majority of the world has just given them our opinion of it by not cooperating with them. Team America World Police hasn't been very popular.

[tiredofvampires]

Even if there is no effective way to date of uniformly mandating that which can be called an inherent, natural right, and abuses take place everywhere in every corner of the world, violating established laws as well as unrecognized natural laws....what we do have is the continual effort of awareness.

 

The argument here should be about education. Education is what brings a greater chance of progressive justice. Not being able to realize the goal in a given timetable does not mean doing away with the goal, and calling it arbitrary.

 

So as this applies to male circumcision, the education and awareness campaign should be this: that circumcision is not medically necessary and has no known conferred benefits, medically (the few studies indicating it may cut down on AIDS risk were done in hygiene-poor areas of Africa, that make those claims moot.) It is a procedure that removes muscles, lubricating glands, and miles of nerves. Factually, the penis is forever desensitized from this, and the skin of the glans is keratinized (i.e., mucous membranes grow thicker skin, like the rest of the penis), so as to further denervate this most sensitive organ. A protective sheathing is removed, as well as the male contribution to sexual lubrication during intercourse. So many functions of the penis are permanently and significantly altered by this procedure, none of which is consented to by the boy. These are not opinions, these are anatomical facts. Factually, the pain caused by this procedure can and does cause severe trauma in babies, as evidenced by cortisol (a stress hormone) remaining elevated for 6-8 weeks after the procedure, and provoking disrupted sleep patterns in many. (You compare this to a stab wound and how the brain numbs to this pain -- this is due to a flood of opiates, which are released when a person is in shock, and I have to wonder who would knowingly put a baby that has just come into the world through SHOCK, that can be compared with being stabbed). This excludes all the things that can go wrong to disfigure the penis, scarring, and reaction to anesthesia.

 

Some babies may be more sensitive than others, so it's not fair for a man to say, I was fine with it, so another male will be, as well. Each person is individual -- and that's why it's so wrong. We can't ask each male baby if he wants it or whether he'd say "no way." We just assume. The subtler things that happen are discounted, and individual needs are forsaken.

 

So this is what has to be disseminated -- that if you're doing this procedure to your children, you have to think about not just your religious or social indoctrination, but use your own common sense: would you remove any other functioning part of a baby's body because it is cosmetically what you're used to seeing or like, because you had it done to you, or because your religious cannon says so? You have to go through the list of reasons you'd do it and ask yourself if any of them are compelling enough to strap your baby down and put him under the knife. Unfortunately, most people will not be honest at this point, and that is where the problem lies. Your child can still choose to opt out of your religion when it grows up; but it can't opt out of the decisions you've made for HIS or HER body before he/she could even understand any of it.

 

It is true, that religion all over the world continues to blind people to new discovery and human understanding. Nothing new there. People will adhere unquestioningly to custom until eternity, in pockets of the globe. And again, that doesn't make any of it morally acceptable or justifiable, if we agree that natural law exists.

 

Thankfully, more and more religious groups are applying themselves to the science and medicine, as well as the humanistic aspects of their doctrines, seeing no inconsistency or reconciling themselves to a different interpretation of their religious views.

 

All we can do is hope that The Flat Earth Society of Penile Skin keeps growing in the educational efforts, so that we've got a better chance at recognizing through law and jurisprudence what is still in the Dark Ages on this matter.

 

One town, one country at a time -- AWARENESS. That's the best we can do.

 

But the fact that this has such a long way to go doesn't mean there is no morally correct thing here, nor natural, inborn truths that are self-evident.