[brassplayersrock²]

Pertaining to the new baby thread. The question arose, and I'll make this anonymous as well.

Have at it!

[subego]

At 22.

[olePigeon]

I was circumcised as a baby, but I'm very much against circumcising babies. It's nothing but genital mutilation. If you want to circumcise your child, then I think you should wait until they're 16 and ask them. That's my opinion on it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

At 22.

Seriously?

Please don't be serious.

An elderly man my family takes to eat every week claims he circumcised himself in a barn with a razor blade at 16.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Seriously?

Please don't be serious.

Nope. Totally serious. Not in a barn though.

It was surprisingly less bad than one would expect. Lots of high-octane drugs, so not much pain.

[Shaddim]

Aye, I was, and it's made no difference for me either way.

[Teronzhul]

Nope. Dad wouldn't allow it when I was a baby, and I'm sure as hell not gonna do it now.

[Jawbone54]

My brother and I were both circumcised during our first week, but I'd say only half of my family's male members over the age of 40 were. Everyone that wasn't has admitted to having at least a small complex about it.

[mduell]

Boy or girl?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

My brother and I were both circumcised during our first week, but I'd say only half of my family's male members over the age of 40 were. Everyone that wasn't has admitted to having at least a small complex about it.

My cousin wasn't and I don't think it's bothered him much, since he has 8 kids from 5-6 different women.

[OldManMac]

Nope. It's a barbaric practice which is based on superstition and mythology.

[subego]

And swimming faster.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Nope. It's a barbaric practice which is based on superstition and mythology.

Might be the way it started but I can tell you this
A) Cut is less prone to infections
B) Cut is cleaner looking and smelling (personal experiences with dudes)
C) Looks Better
D) HIV infection stats favor Cut people 5 to 1 in not getting infected
E) Gay guys and girls generally prefer Cut

When I have a kid and if its a boy, its being snipped for all above reasons with nothing related to superstition, mythology or religion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Nope. It's a barbaric practice which is based on superstition and mythology.

You must be a real hoot at parties. Try to relax and turn that down a little.

Actually it does have a non-religious purpose. Circumcision helps, at least to a small degree, with hygiene. No folds for moisture to collect down there, which means less places for bacteria to hide. It would appear that a guy is less likely to contract certain types of infections if they've been clipped.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Might be the way it started but I can tell you this
A) Cut is less prone to infections
B) Cut is cleaner looking and smelling (personal experiences with dudes)
C) Looks Better
D) HIV infection stats favor Cut people 5 to 1 in not getting infected
E) Gay guys and girls generally prefer Cut

All those reasons are debatable, and some are just preference.

[Athens]

There is a reason I like Jewish guys the most, you can always count on whats under the zipper being likable

Everything is debatable, hell even the color the sky is debatable. Don't change the fact its blue

[Salty]

Athens: when it comes to gay men liking cut penises you seem to be imposing your preferences on others. In general I find it's much more common for gay dudes to fetishize foreskin than a lack of it. Besides you pull it back and it looks the same (unless you weren't smart enough to learn how to pull it back when you were a kid.)

I think you're reading your own preferences on other men.

Also, this thread is useless without pictures.

[auto_immune]

Smegma-free since 1961.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Also, this thread is useless without pictures.

 

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Athens: when it comes to gay men liking cut penises you seem to be imposing your preferences on others. In general I find it's much more common for gay dudes to fetishize foreskin than a lack of it. Besides you pull it back and it looks the same (unless you weren't smart enough to learn how to pull it back when you were a kid.)

I think you're reading your own preferences on other men.

Also, this thread is useless without pictures.

No, no not really no. Besides spending time on gay sites (a lot of them) there is a consistent theme of people saying Cut only way more often then no preference or uncut. As well manhunt did a poll last year on this very topic and 80% of 900 men responded to a preference for cut. Its the hygiene factor mostly so looks don't really matter. A lot of uncut gear is not cleaned well. I refuse to play with dudes who are not cut. A woman's magazine did a similar poll and while not 80% it was still a large preference for cut. And one of my good friends went under the knife at 20 because of the constant rejections he faced over the matter. I never said 100% all men, I just said a majority I only know a few that like it. A few more that will tolerate it and a lot that avoid it. Im not reading into my own preferences just saying how it is at least in this city. Who knows what Jamaica or Australia men prefer.


What is still debatable is the loss of sensation from the snipping.

[Lateralus]

Nope. Mom says it's 'only for Catholics and Jews'.

In hindsight, I'm not sure I care either way - there were a few incidents as a child before I learned proper hygiene. But on the other hand, I hear that cutting it and the ensuing lack of moisture entrapment can lead to desensitizing by way of callusing of the skin.

Not sure which way I'd go for my future son.

[brassplayersrock²]

How is it debatable about the loss of sensation? snipped = less skin on the more pleasurable part of the body.

[subego]

My personal experience:

Less sensitive.

[besson3c]

Risk of infection? Who has ever had an infected penis? (Maybe this question should be a new poll)

[lpkmckenna]

I was, and there doesn't seem to be any reason why. My dad wasn't, and my mom simply followed some conventional wisdom when deciding to have it done.

I really didn't have any opinion about it for years. But one day I saw some porn of a girl giving a guy a handjob in the intro, he wasn't cut, and it looked like it felt fncking awesome. I really wasn't aware of the mechanics in how the foreskin folds and unfolds over the glans until I saw that, and it pretty much changed my opinion about the importance.

The issue of keratinization of the glans is also a horrible concept really. Imagine someone suggested altering your lips from mucous membrane to skin to make them look better, smell better, and protect you from infections, but a kiss would never, ever feel as good again. Good trade-off? I doubt it.

I also have strong doubts about the study in Africa that circumcision yields protection against AIDS. They never completed the study, claiming the benefits were so obvious early on. Sorry, but an incomplete study without double-blind clinical results and peer review in the journals isn't science. Think about it: these people went into a study with a hunch that circumcision might protect again AIDS, and they proved it without completing the study? Gee, that's not suspicious at all. I have no doubt that this "study" will eventually be unmasked as the Alar hysteria of this generation.

Speaking of hysteria, the only reason circumcision came into vogue was an anti-masturbation hysteria in the 1800s. All claims of medical benefits were invented to support this hysteria. Snip your son and feed him corn flakes! Protect him from Satan!

There have been attempts to ban circumcision in various places, and I think we should. The law should ban non-medical child circumcision without a religious exemption. This would effectively ban circumcision from everyone but Muslims and Jews. This would maximize the number of boys protected without infringing on religious freedom. If you belong to a quirky Christian group that requires circumcision (Seventh Day Adventists, maybe?), then a form from your church leader would suffice.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The issue of keratinization of the glans is also a horrible concept really. Imagine someone suggested altering your lips from mucous membrane to skin to make them look better, smell better, and protect you from infections, but a kiss would never, ever feel as good again. Good trade-off? I doubt it.

My personal experience:

The difference didn't bother me.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by subego 

My personal experience:

The difference didn't bother me.

Was there a noticeable difference?

I hate to ask questions about your penis, but I guess there no other way: how long did it take for the pink colour to fade? I'm curious to know how long keratinization would take.

[Doofy]

Nope, fully intact.

We don't really do snipping over here - we're not a Judaic nation like the US is.
And my meat is lovely and clean. 100% of women "poled" said they prefer it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Was there a noticeable difference?

I hate to ask questions about your penis, but I guess there no other way: how long did it take for the pink colour to fade? I'm curious to know how long keratinization would take.

Ask away!

It was definitely less sensitive, but it was kinda too sensitive before. I'd have to say the larger effect was having that piece missing, but a pie without a slice is still a pie, if you catch my drift.

I wasn't really paying attention to the color.

[Athens]

I just live by the motto cant miss what you never had. Feels damn good now which is good enough for me, if it was any more sensitive I probably would have less sex lol

Interesting read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glans_penis

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Might be the way it started but I can tell you this
A) Cut is less prone to infections
B) Cut is cleaner looking and smelling (personal experiences with dudes)
C) Looks Better
D) HIV infection stats favor Cut people 5 to 1 in not getting infected
E) Gay guys and girls generally prefer Cut

When I have a kid and if its a boy, its being snipped for all above reasons with nothing related to superstition, mythology or religion.

And none of the above justifies genital mutilation of an infant or child.

Once you are over 18, it's your choice.

No offense, but if you are so concern with infections, smelliness, and HIV risk, I suggest limiting the amount of gay sex since it's a highly risky behavior. I'm pretty sure the butt smells a lot more than an uncircumcised penis, and at a much higher risk of infections.

[Athens]

Offense taking, I provide accepted reasons to why its done and you make a personal attack on it, homophobe. All sex is risky behavior, the more partners the greater the risk. Its not the kind of act but how many partners, gay or straight, drugs, lack of protection. And a side note, the HIV protection from cut junk only applies to straight men. Had no difference to gay/bi men.

Its also proven to reduce balanitis xerotica obliterans, paraphimosis, balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis and urinary tract infections which is why its still performed today for the medical benefits even by those that are NOT religious.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Offense taking, I provide accepted reasons to why its done and you make a personal attack on it, homophobe. All sex is risky behavior, the more partners the greater the risk. Its not the kind of act but how many partners, gay or straight, drugs, lack of protection. And a side note, the HIV protection from cut junk only applies to straight men. Had no difference to gay/bi men.

Its also proven to reduce balanitis xerotica obliterans, paraphimosis, balanitis, posthitis, balanoposthitis and urinary tract infections which is why its still performed today for the medical benefits even by those that are NOT religious.

You're offended? Coming from a guy who says Asian culture is dirty and disgusting.

The only difference between your claim and my claim is that I have factual data and you have your anecdotes.

49% of people living with HIV in the US are gay men. Why's that? You don't believe in God, so my guess is that you don't think God is punishing gays. So what's the other obvious answer?

It's not the kind of act that makes it more risky? Really?

You think oral sex is just as risky as anal sex when it comes to getting HIV? You think vaginal sex is just as risky as anal sex when it comes to getting HIV?

I've been on this forum for 10 years and defended gay rights when I can. I'm going to defend your right to have a same-sex marriage. I'm also going to defend a child's right not to have their genitals mutilated.

I support same-sex marriages. However, I'm not going to delude myself thinking gay sex which involves anal sex isn't any more riskier than vaginal sex.

If you are promoting condom use, why does it matter if the person is circumcised or not? All you see is a penis cover in latex and smelling like latex.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Aye, I was, and it's made no difference for me either way.

If you were a kid, you have absolutely no way of knowing, but you're very probably wrong:

Originally Posted by subego 

It was definitely less sensitive, but it was kinda too sensitive before.

Erogenous Tissue Loss after Circumcision
(warning: It's a scientific paper with some photographs—not of the procedure itself. NSFW)

Doing that to a child is physical mutilation.

Less risk of HIV makes sense, as there's much less exposed skin, but if you're worried and not using a condom, you're an idiot.

[hyteckit]

Here's the CDC report on HIV among Gay and Bisexual Men if you are interested.

CDC estimates that 4% of the population are gay men, yet account for 49% of all people with HIV living in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/...nal508comp.pdf

[Spheric Harlot]

Cut it out, hyteckit (hur hur).

This thread is about male circumcision.

[Athens]

Correction, lpkmckenna said Asian culture is dirty and disgusting....

Anyways why is it that 49% of HIV people in the US are gay men (a number I dont believe anyways) is because they are SLUTs. Yes SLUTS. Majority of gay men sleep with 50+ different people a year. Some can do 10 different partners in a WEEK. If straight men did the same thing the numbers would be the same as well.

The chances of contracting HIV through anal sex is higher then vaginal sex for both men and woman who are the receivers of anal sex. If a woman had as much random sex with men as gay men do with men, at the end of the day she will be at just as much risk as a gay man.

And to answer your last point, if your not going to kiss the person your speaking to in front of you why would it matter if they use mouth wash and brush there teeth.... foul smell is a foul smell. And most people don't suck people with condoms on.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Athens 

A woman's magazine did a similar pole and while not 80% it was still a large preference for cut.

If you "pole" [sic] American women on what they prefer, they'll opt for what they know. Duh.

Originally Posted by Athens 

What is still debatable is the loss of sensation from the snipping.

No, it's not debatable.

See the paper I linked to above.

[Athens]

And I bet there are papers that say otherwise out there too, which makes it debatable. Either way I listed the most common accepted reasons for continuing the practice, I don't know why Im being put in the position to defend it when I was just stating a fact for why its still done...I only interjected my personal preference on top of those common reasons.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Correction, lpkmckenna said Asian culture is dirty and disgusting....

Anyways why is it that 49% of HIV people in the US are gay men (a number I dont believe anyways) is because they are SLUTs. Yes SLUTS. Majority of gay men sleep with 50+ different people a year. Some can do 10 different partners in a WEEK. If straight men did the same thing the numbers would be the same as well.

The chances of contracting HIV through anal sex is higher then vaginal sex for both men and woman who are the receivers of anal sex. If a woman had as much random sex with men as gay men do with men, at the end of the day she will be at just as much risk as a gay man.

Wow. That's great. You just called gay men a bunch of sluts. Seems like habit of yours to generalize and stereotype. I wouldn't know, but I'm just assuming it's more anecdotal evidence or you are just projecting.

Originally Posted by Athens 

And to answer your last point, if your not going to kiss the person your speaking to in front of you why would it matter if they use mouth wash and brush there teeth.... foul smell is a foul smell. And most people don't suck people with condoms on.

Um... if you have bad breath, brush you teeth and keep good hygiene. You don't pull out a child's teeth to prevent bad breath, infections, and gingivitis.

If you have a smelly penis, wash your penis and keep good hygiene. Why do you need to chop off a piece of your penis? You think uncircumcised men don't know or incapable or washing their penis?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

If a woman had as much random sex with men as gay men do with men, at the end of the day she will be at just as much risk as a gay man.

Actually, you are wrong. Gay sex is much riskier.

4% of the population are gay men. Yet 49% of people with HIV in the US are gay men.

Think about the probability.

Say 1 in 10k gay men have HIV. You have a 1 in 10k chance of having sex with a HIV infected person.
If 1 in 100k straight men have HIV, you have a 1 in 100k chance of having sex with a HIV infected person.

Sorry, but you are just dealt with better odds of catching HIV if you engage in unprotected gay sex.

[Spheric Harlot]

Hel-looo...

There is no doubt that the risk of injury is higher in uncircumcised men during anal sex. That is completely obvious, and there is no debate there.

This thread is about circumcision, not about the risks of gay sex.

Or do you favor circumcising every baby boy just in case he turns out to be gay and partaking in non-monogamous unprotected sex?

I can only assume you don't, so take the off-topic soapboxing over to the political lounge.

[ebuddy]

circumcised here and surprisingly, not traumatized.

It is fun however to watch the lefties get all wrapped up in their phobias. What I've learned from this thread: all gays are into anal and engage exponentially more partners.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

circumcised here and surprisingly, not traumatized.

It is fun however to watch the lefties get all wrapped up in their phobias. What I've learned from this thread: all gays are into anal and engage exponentially more partners.

That's like someone who grew up without taste buds telling others he doesn't missed it.

I prefer to keep my senses intact.

[Big Mac]

Your analogy would only make sense, hyteckit, if a portion of people also circumcised their tongues, and if those who did so experienced lower incidences of serious medical problems like infections, cancers and STDs. It's ironic that you claim to want to keep your senses intact when you're so very senseless on practically every (political) issue, including this one. But I digress.

The truly humorous thing is that more and more of the medical community has weighed in decidedly in support of circumcision, sometimes strongly so. The major part of the controversy, to the extent one exists, is one manufactured by the Left, which has no problem crushing baby skulls long after fetuses are viable, but once they're delivered you dastardly parents better not dare follow medical and religious advice to remove some extraneous, often problematic small piece of skin! such fools.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

That's like someone who grew up without taste buds telling others he doesn't missed it.

I prefer to keep my senses intact.

Right and I'm sure when you stub your toe, it hurts much more than when I stub mine.

Certainly, if I couldn't taste food there'd be a problem and I'd be missing something. In the case of circumcision, I don't miss it because frankly, lacking penile sensitivity has never been an issue for me. Otherwise, intact senses is subjective.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Your analogy would only make sense, hyteckit, if a portion of people also circumcised their tongues, and if those who did so experienced lower incidences of serious medical problems like infections, cancers and STDs. It's ironic that you claim to want to keep your senses intact when you're so very senseless on practically every (political) issue, including this one. But I digress.

The truly humorous thing is that more and more of the medical community has weighed in decidedly in support of circumcision, sometimes strongly so. The major part of the controversy, to the extent one exists, is one manufactured by the Left, which has no problem crushing baby skulls long after fetuses are viable, but once they're delivered you dastardly parents better not dare follow medical and religious advice to remove some extraneous, often problematic small piece of skin! such fools.

OMG. Lets reduce the chance of an infection by increasing the chance of an infection with a circumcision surgery.

You know what works better? Washing the penis and good hygiene.

I bet you also spend $100 just to get back $50 in pennies, thinking you are ahead.

Hey, you're just risking your boy becoming a girl or dying from a bacteria infection or lost of blood. No biggie right?

.2% to .6% run into complications with circumcision.

Minor problems are short-term and may include:

1. Oozing or slight bleeding from the surgical site.
2. Infection of the circumcision site or at the opening to the urethra.
3. Irritation of the exposed tip of the penis (glans) as a result of contact with stool or urine.

Long-term minor problems can include: .

1. Damage to the opening of the urethra, which leads from the bladder to the tip of the penis (meatal stenosis).
2. Scarring of the penis from infection or surgical error. For example:
3. The entire foreskin may not be removed, leaving portions of it attached to the penis (skin bridge). This may cause pain during erection.
4. Scar tissue can grow outward toward the tip of the penis from the cut edge of the foreskin. Repeat surgery on the penis may be required to improve appearance or to allow normal passage of urine if the opening from the bladder has been blocked by this scar tissue.
5. The outer skin layer (or layers) of the penis may be removed accidentally.
6. An opening that is too small for the foreskin to retract over the penis (phimosis) can happen if too little foreskin is removed.

Major problems are very rare but can include:

1. A complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing the penis to appear to have been completely surgically removed.
2. Too much bleeding. Stitches may be needed to stop the bleeding.
3. Serious, life-threatening bacterial infection.
4. Partial or full removal (amputation) of the tip of the penis. (This is extremely rare.)

[Big Mac]

Hey look, we've struck a nerve!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey look, we've struck a nerve!

Stuck a nerve? If only.

More like struck thousands of nerve and risking infection, death, and boy becoming a girl from surgical procedure.

[andi*pandi]

I had no idea this was a lefty/righty issue...

Let's keep this out of the pol lounge...