Circumsized

[brahman]

year 2005 right, are you sure 55% of all done in america get jacked up?

[RayKay]

year 2005 right, are you sure 55% of all done in america get jacked up?

 

I am not sure what you mean by "get jacked up"

 

But the 55% I was referring to have complications, including problems with infections after the circumcision, problems taking off too much skin, or other reactions to it. Sometimes these are REALLY minor, like a small infection, that needs antibiotics, to something that causes far bigger complications. It is a surgery, and it is trauma, so yes, of course there will be complications to it. Such things can happen in modern medicine facilities, just as much as others. There was a recent case here a hospital even circumcised the wrong infant (whose parents had not consented).

[traz]

Slightly off topic, but does anyone know the statistics for the percentage of males in North America who are circumsized or not?

 

I'm not, and quite honestly, I haven't seen any other penises except my dads (when i was young, don't get freaky on me), and in porn. My dad is uncircumsized, where as most porn movies I have seen the males are...I never knew what the norm was. I never felt self-conscious about not being circumsized before, but recently I have started to...as if I might not be "normal", as in girls might be surprised?

 

thanks, and sorry for jacking the thread ;p

[sparticuss]

Six months is plenty of time to recover from circumcision.

Crikey I didn't even take six days to recover from my vasectomy. (On the doctors advice I didn't ride my motorcycle home but I could have if need be. )

 

I smell a bit of botched surgery. In any case this is not the place to discuss it simply cause there's no doctors here.

 

Normally circumcision isn't necessary in this day and age.

It is more hygenic in cultures where water is in short supply. IE Desert dwelling cultures. This is why its part of the relegious rites of most Arabic races, including Jews, and also many native Americans, Africans, and Austalians.

All of them desert environments or from desert environments.

 

Where water is plentiful normal hygienge is enough to keep things clean.

[sparticuss]

I also recommend you look for some videos on babies getting the procedure you can find on the site above - simple? Far from it. Contrary to what is said it IS very painful.

====================

That depends on the surgeon. There's a doctor in Queensland uses a local anethetic, a ridgid plastic ring, and a rubber ring.

The skin just shrivels and drops in a few days. No pain at all. Not a peep out of the babies.

 

They used to make a fuss over the strange doctor holding them, not the pain, so now he just gets a parent to hold the baby while he does the work. Babies are always more comfortable in the arms of a good parent.

 

Mind you this guy is an expert and this is about the only procedure he ever does.

[RayKay]

I also recommend you look for some videos on babies getting the procedure you can find on the site above - simple? Far from it. Contrary to what is said it IS very painful.

====================

That depends on the surgeon. There's a doctor in Queensland uses a local anethetic, a ridgid plastic ring, and a rubber ring.

The skin just shrivels and drops in a few days. No pain at all. Not a peep out of the babies.

 

They used to make a fuss over the strange doctor holding them, not the pain, so now he just gets a parent to hold the baby while he does the work. Babies are always more comfortable in the arms of a good parent.

 

Mind you this guy is an expert and this is about the only procedure he ever does.

 

Interesting, thanks sparticuss.

 

I'll have to do some more looking into that.

 

Surgeries in most hospitals over this way at least, tend to use a table to hold infant, and so forth, basically the whole procedure is more traumatic and painful.

[Dako]

My dad wasn't circumsized and I was. It never made a difference to me until I learned it involves cutting off perfectly normal skin from a baby's peanut, often without anesthetic. I honestly can't believe there's a reason to do it unless there's some serious deformity, and the hygienic angle seems like bogus/irrelevant statistics are used to justify an old custom.

 

I was snipped without my permission. That's probably the crux of why it seems odd.

[darkblue]

I don't fully understand American's need for circumision.

the hygienic angle seems like bogus/irrelevant statistics are used to justify an old custom

That seems to be my thinking, too.

 

Is there any, logical reason as to why a child should be circumsized?

[RayKay]

I don't fully understand American's need for circumision.

 

That seems to be my thinking, too.

 

Is there any, logical reason as to why a child should be circumsized?

 

It's just...whom knows. It is so prevalently thought of as routine after birth, and as the normal thing to do, I don't think people question it. It's not a religious choice usually, it is just DONE (my partner and his brothers were all cut because it is what they did automatically, not due to religious reasons, etc).

 

It's not even unhygienic, or a bigger risk of UTI's. Read the following link explaining how the foreskin does not cause a significant amount of UTI's to justify the procedure:

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said previously, my brothers were not cut (my mother immigrated here from England, so that may be part of it as it is her culture not to do it) and they did fine, grew up fine, no problems, and I never thought it was "abnormal" either.

 

In my personal opinion...no. I don't think it is worth the risks, or the loss of sensation. It's not "just a piece of skin".

 

But I know many will disagree, as many are often raised with idea it's dirty, or unhygienic not to be, or there is definitely that "they need to look like daddy" mentality. But to me, not having the patience to teach a child to clean himself or teach him that he is unique from daddy, is not worth the tradeoff!

 

If he really wants it done, when he is older, he can make the choice for himself.

 

I just would not and could not do that to my future sons, I have no religious reasons to do so, and since I make a promise when I have them to protect them as best I can, I really can't comprehend handing them over to cut away part of them that will affect them in the future, or even be a complication now. I remember reading before about some instances where boys were accidentally castrated even....because of botched circumcisions. Ugh. Sure, not a high percentage, but risky enough, a UTI is NOTHING compared to that!

 

More reasons on why the foreskin is IMPORTANT and not just a piece of skin:

 

 

[darkblue]

I could just imagine a parent in the UK requesting for their child's foreskin to be taken away. The doctor would be in utter bewilderment.

 

As a man with his turtleneck intact - I see no benefits from removing it.

I can see no reason as to why it would be necessary to remove it at birth, and I have no knowledge of people suffering infections, etc, due to having an uncircumsized penis.

[brahman]

i have read most of the replies and there are 34 so far so i didnt read them all, but being circumsized has a few benefits.

 

it makes you last longer in bed, it makes the penis look like ten times prettier. i have been told that my penis looks very pretty. there is the whole clean thing, but is not really the main reason today. it is a big part of culture. ie the middle eastern culture, jewish, mormone and i think catholic(not for sure). probably several others. there is the whole thing when your in high school and the girls say they wont do anything with a guy who isnt circumsized.

 

i think this thread is starting to go in the direction that being circumsized is outdated, but being that it is part of our culture i think it has its place.

[darkblue]

it makes you last longer in bed,

Who are you kidding?

 

it makes the penis look like ten times prettier

Is this personal opinion..?

 

it is a big part of culture

There you go, brahman.

That's the one.

 

It is tradition - and no one has come forward to think outside the box, and speak out.

I won't get into this debate.

 

And no - not Catholic.

[sienna]

i've never seen a circumcised penis, except in porn. They're very uncommon here in Australia too i think. i have 3 brother's and none of them are circumcised. They've never had any problems. The skin is there when you're born, why remove it? It's a natural part of a man. Think of it as plastic surgery for babies.... weird.

[brahman]

darkblue i love the debate you just startedbut wont get into. i dont know of any large scale surveys on the making you last longer in bed thing. but i know lots of girls who say guys who are not circumsized last a max of 20 minutes on average, and circumsized guys last longer. and as far as making it look better...i have always been told i have a better looking penis than others. its not big or anything, itt just looks nice and tidy, lol.

[darkblue]

I always thought that 'covering up' looked tidy - as it is consistant with the rest of the organ.

I suppose that is a matter of opinion, and I could find many women who disagree that with your opinion on looks.

 

I do not know about the 'lasting longer'.

Somehow, I doubt it.

[RayKay]

It would be possible to last longer as the glans is no longer the sensitive organ it was before. You also lose the friction the foreskin gave to increase pleasure .

 

The glans in a man, is much like the clitoris is in a female...in the uncut version. Once it is cut, it loses it's sensitivity as it hardens against the elements it is exposed too.

 

This is why for most men, that area right under the V is most sensitive (for cut men) as it is truest to how it was meant to be.

 

For me, the tradeoff of lasting longer would not worth reducing the sensitivity. Men can learn to hold off, or learn to delay using oral or manual stimulation on women, ad 20 minutes is not too bad with me, rather know he enjoyed it!

 

As for appearance. That depends on where you are from, and used too. As others posted on here, and other threads of similar nature, to them a cut penis is strange to them. Honestly, you may have heard it is "pretty" but not every female will feel the same, and that may also be because she cared about you, I would hardly think she would tell you it looked anything but attractive if she was going to sleep with you. My partner is cut, and I think he looks great. But if he was not, I would STILL think he looks great.

[Dako]

it makes the penis look like ten times prettier.

Call me a flaming hetero, but I've never, ever seen a pretty penis.

 

I bet every guy thinks his tool is golden, but pretty? Oy gevalt.

[italianstalian]

What is wrong with you ppl sayin that being circumsized is more "hygeniec".....its called, take a shower and wash yourself everyday, and there will be no problems with your uncircumsized penis...are americans really gettin that lazy that they have to get circumsized so they dont have to wash themselves??

And ya.....us uncircumsized guys............have a better time during sex....you know why??? cuz its the way it was meant to be...

 

 

STOP TRYING TO BE JEWISH!

[Dako]

STOP TRYING TO BE JEWISH!

 

And no one here is Jewish?

Did your magic foreskin tell you that?

[darkblue]

LOL!!

Oh, well done.

[brahman]

it seems i sparked a little bit of anger with my reply. i guess i do have some opinions not everyone agrees with.

 

everyone keeps talking about the hygiene thing. what about the fear thing. i asked my parents why they had it done and i was told because they feared i would get an infection that would go unscene as when i am one or two years old. if an infection goes on for too long then i would need surgery.

 

and im sorry to tell you folks, if being cut means you are less likely to get an infection, then it is more hygenic.

[Kimmikazi]

My ex was uncirc'd...when I first found out...I was SO turned off..Ex's before that were all circ'd..and I literally backed off for weeks...eventually things got more serious, and by that time, it was "normal"...I began to think how weird it'd be to go back with a circ'd guy lol...like wouldn't certain things kinda -hurt- cause the extra skin wouldn't be there for extra feeling? -so i swore by uncirc'd....

 

I'm back to a circ'd and realized its more my thing. Knowing it's more clean(which IS NOT a myth..) and just the way it looks is much more of a TURN ON

 

 

ANYWAYS though....duuude, you need to ask a doctor about that...you might have kind of sort of put yourself in a tough spot.... hopefully not forever...good luck!

[darkblue]

I state again, brahman.

I do not know of any studies which outline that it is more common to have an infection because you are uncircumsized, nor do I know of anyone who has had an infection because they were uncircumsized.

 

As for hygiene:

If you wash regularly, which you should, there is no increased risk.

That is just a statement used by people to rationalize their actions and opinions.

[RayKay]

it seems i sparked a little bit of anger with my reply. i guess i do have some opinions not everyone agrees with.

 

everyone keeps talking about the hygiene thing. what about the fear thing. i asked my parents why they had it done and i was told because they feared i would get an infection that would go unscene as when i am one or two years old. if an infection goes on for too long then i would need surgery.

 

and im sorry to tell you folks, if being cut means you are less likely to get an infection, then it is more hygenic.

 

Right, and the whole point is research has shown that "that fear" is unfounded. It is something that many people BELIEVE in, but falsely.

 

Why would an infection go unseen for so long, when your parents are still taking care of you at that age and keeping you clean? It's the same thing with little girls, you need to make sure the area is well cleaned, why is it so hard to do with boys? The foreskin PROTECTS the glans from infections, as long as you also take care to keep the area clean.

 

Trust me, if you had an infection it would not go unseen, and certainly not unheard....UTI's hurt, and there are many symptoms that someone would notice. How does being cut change the fact you may have an infection that needs to be noticed? It doesn't. Because you can still get infections! UTI's are NOT selective to people whom aren't cut.

 

It is one of the justifications people give for female circ's.....yet you see that is illegal in most countries.

 

Sorry, but the minimal risk of infection does not in my eyes make it worth it AT all. Even if you are cut, you can get infections....not only UTI's but also infections now from the surgery!

 

Sorry, but to me, not wanting the responsibility of teaching my child to clean himself and to learn more about it through research, is not worth

the desensitization, and other risks.

 

"People thought that boys would not keep themselves clean if they werent circumcised,"

a mother answered when her intact son asked why circumcisions were done.

Her little 5 year old said, "Well, thats dumb mom!!

What are they gonna do? Cut their butts off too?!"

Out of the mouths of babes. This is quoted from a bulletin board post at link removed

 

Read the following, which better explains the fallacy of the UTI risk, and see why the fear has been perpetuated.

 

link removed

Risk of Urinary Tract Infections

Among Uncircumcised Boys Remains Minimal

by Mary G. Ray ©1997

 

 

 

Mothers who want to take steps to reduce the liklihood of UTIs can do so without surgical risk by breastfeeding their babies. In a Dec. 1997, policy statement from the Work Group on Breastfeeding [Pediatrics], the American Academy of Pediatrics, has concluded that there is strong evidence that breastfeeding decreases the incidence urinary tract infection. [Pisacane]

 

Interestingly, one of the many reasons given to continue the practice of female circumcision in Egypt is the claim that it lowers the rate of UTI's among girls!

 

Based on the often-referred-to Wiswell study, "Noncircumcised male infants had a 10-fold greater incidence of infection than did circumcised male infants." Standing alone, this statement sounds pretty powerful and is probably quite effective in convincing many people who have no other facts to go on that circumcision is a good idea. It implies that the foreskin is to blame for any UTIs that occur among intact infants. However, when you look at the actual figures in the study, it is obvious that UTIs are rare among the intact.

And when they do occur, they are most often caused by factors totally unrelated to the foreskin.

 

The Wiswell study fails to point this out. "60% of children with UTIs have anatomic abnormalities in their urinary tracts. UTIs are significantly more common in girls." [urinary] "UTIs are rarely seen in boys and young men." [u.S.] It also fails to mention other links to UTIs which include malnutrition, diabetes, constipation and incomplete drainage of the urinary system. [New] Infections have also been caused by exposure to E. Coli. Additionally, serious problems can occur in uncircumcised males who experience invasive inspections, overzealous cleaning efforts and retraction attempts. "It has been proven that retraction and washing of the infant foreskin can cause urinary tract infections." [Hodges]

 

A parent or doctor might be alarmed if they notice that the tip of the penis under the foreskin is pink or red rather than flesh tone. They might suspect an infection and run a test. False positive results for UTIs occur in 16% of the tests. [schlager] [Fleiss] Because the intact penis is protected by its sheath, the tip of the penis is pink or reddish in color. This is normal and not cause for alarm. The coloring by itself is not an indication that an infection is present.

In the rare case where a boy does have an abnormal upper tract, and has suffered from recurrent UTIs, a doctor may suggest circumcision in an attempt to eliminate at least one possible cause of another UTI, -- from bacteria in the foreskin. However, even if he is circumcised, the child may still suffer from more UTIs caused by other factors as indicated above.

 

The Wiswell study "reviewed the occurrence of UTIs in 209,399 infants born in US Army hospitals worldwide from 1985 to 1990. During the first year of life, 1,046 (0.5%: 550 girls and 496 boys) were hospitalized for UTIs." This draws me to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that about 45 boys were circumcised and about 450 were intact. According to this study, about one boy out of 464 uncircumcised males gets a UTI during the first year of life.

 

The Wiswell study has been challenged and questioned by many. The American Academy of Pediatrics said "It should be noted that these studies in army hospitals are retrospective in design, and may have methodological flaws."

 

In Europe, routine infant circumcision is not performed. From what I understand, UTI rates are lower there than in the U.S. In fact, 82% of the world's living men are not circumcised and yet we don't hear about alarming rates of UTIs worldwide.

 

A study was also done in California by a Dr. Martin Altschul of 118,000 births and infants admitted with a diagnosis of UTI. His findings for intact boys was 120 cases per 100,000. That works out to one infection per 833 boys.

 

All of the UTIs in both of these studies were caused by different factors. But let's take a worst case scenario and say they all occurred from bacteria in the child's foreskin. Depending on which study you choose to rely on, either 464 or 833 boys would have to be circumcised to prevent the occurrence of a single UTI that could usually be treated effectively with oral antibiotics. How does this small of a threat justify automatic circumcision of all boys?

 

Even if UTIs occurred at a much higher rate than the Wiswell study concluded, say at the rate of 1 in 100, then it still does not make sense to circumcise 99 boys who will never experience a UTI all because one boy might. To top it off, those who do get circumcised are still at risk of UTI's.

 

Another study was completed in 1995 on preputial development. 603 Japanese boys from newborns to 15 years of age were evaluated. The average age was 3.8. Neonatal circumcision is not common in Japan. All of the boys were intact. During the year long study, none had a symptomatic urinary tract infection. [Journal] The subject of UTIs is covered extensively in The New Child Health Encyclopedia. In it, there is absolutely no mention of the foreskin as a culprit or cause, nor is circumcision suggested as a treatment or cure. The fact remains that UTIs are rare and can usually be treated effectively with antibiotics.

[RayKay]

So, what is lost in circumcision? Not just a piece of skin. AS you can see, this is a topic I am pretty passionate about! It started off when I first studied female circ, realized how critical the Western world was of female circ, then researched male circ, and saw how hypocritical it was.

 

It's individual choice, and if someone knowing all the facts STILL chooses to do it, that is their choice, but too many people do it thinking it is just skin, that will cause problems, and that to me is not going into it with the right information.

 

 

 

When a baby boy's normal intact penis is circumcised, this is what is lost -- forever

 

*1. The foreskin, which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches (the size of a 3 x 5-inch index card). This highly specialized tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing (keratinization), and contaminants of all kinds. The effect of glans keratinization on human sexuality has never been studied.

 

*2. The frenar band of soft ridges -- the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.

 

*3. The foreskin's "gliding action"-- the hallmark mechanical feature of the normal, natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth, comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a one-way valve, scraping vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for pleasurable intercourse.

 

*4. Thousands of coiled fine-touch mechanoreceptors called Meissner's corpuscles, the most important sensory component of the foreskin, encapsulated Vater-Pacinian cells, Merkel's cells, nociceptors, and branches of the dorsal nerve and perineal nerve. Altogether, between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture are lost.

 

*5. The frenulum, the highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its function and potential for pleasure.

 

6. Approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.

 

7. The immunological defense system of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme.

 

8. Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.

 

9. Estrogen receptors - the purpose of which is not yet fully understood and needs further study.

 

*10. The apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheromones - nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absense on human sexuality has never been studied.

 

*11. Sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize the foreskin and glans, normally a protected internal organ - like the tongue or vagina.

12. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body's immune system in a whole penis.

 

13. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans. The connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together while the penis develops is ripped apart during circumcision, wounding the glans and the foreskin remnant, leaving them raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration.

 

*14. Some of the penis length and penis circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

 

*15. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this rich vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the natural function of the penis and altering its development.

 

16. Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infections. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery," and expected to live their lives as "females."

 

17. Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. obscures and ignores.

 

18. By encoding violence on the brain the infant's bonding with its mother is disrupted, with indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate physical contact is inhibited or lost, and in its place a sense of betrayal is instilled in the infant.

 

(*19. Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy's multi-functional foreskin is a "low-grade neurological castration" [immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)