Post deleted by Partagas

Thanks for the story.

I don't know if your need to post the whole entire story.
Maybe you should edit it.

You know snip it down a bit

I saw that coming. :p


TIS

My 2 cents on the topic...

The foreskin is there for a reason, to protect the glans of the penis. It also leaves the glans quite sensitive, enhancing sexual pleasure.

If your religion dictates it, then so be it. But I am pretty much against what has been routine circumcision on newborns except in the extremely rare cases that it is medically necessary.

The decision (except in those cases) should be left to the boy himself, when he becomes of age. If he doesn't want it any more, then fine - that should be his decision. It's much easier to remove a body part than to get it back.

There is absolutely no reason for it to be removed simply because "everyone" gets it done, or because a parent may think it's "ugly". I think it's barbaric.

Is there any question as to what the answer to that would be?

Only because of the on-going mutilations here in North America could your question even sound humorous. If it wasn't so commonplace and "expected" for so long, then it wouldn't be an issue. :p

Other places in the world have no problem with it, why should we? Aren't we supposed to be a civilized culture by now?? Putting newborns through unneccessary pain for what many would consider cosmetic reasons is not civilized (IMHO).

PS - I should've known it'd be with DMC that I'd get into a penis debate!!

I don't think I follow what you are saying JG, I meant if it was me and I was 14,15,20,30,50 and someone said I'm going to cut your penis, I think I'd pass on it, no questions asked.

Oh! I read what you said backwards then, sorry... Now you're making more sense!

Geoff feels very strongly about foreskin, ironically he also feels foreskin very strongly.

Not so long ago, many pediatricians felt that circumcision was also better for cleanliness, especially with younger children...though many now say that isn't the case.

Way back when I had my kids, included in your estimated payment and/or insurance payment was the fee for a circumcision, should it be a boy, as though it were a given. Having only girls, I never had to deal with it, but is it considered not as necessary now as it was in the olden days?

TIS

Way to go, JGeoff!!

My friend adopted a 1yr old little boy from Russia a couple of years ago. The child was uncircumciced and my friend being an typical American woman, was just not used to the...um...look. Anyway, she told me she did plan to get him circumcised, but when she mentioned this to a doctor he STRONGLY advised against it, for just the reasons you mention above. At that point, there would have been absolutely NO reason to do such a thing except to please the mother. The boy would have gained nothing healthwise, and would had to have been put under general anasthesia. Although very young and assumedly resilient as most kids are, there was no telling how he'd react to the wound since he was no longer a newborn.

Needless to say, the mother finally did decide against the procedure. It will be entirely his choice when he's older.

Heck, I've changed the kid's diapers and it looks odd to me, too! But I haven't really seen enough of those things to really be an expert.

Apple

I don't want to know the details, either...but I bet he began washing under the ol' foreskin after that!!!

Glad I'll never get to meet your father-in-law...

Apple

And I'm sure you don't want him to know that you're
the one who told us about it !!

Apple

If he had experienced rejection by a woman a few times because he was uncircumcised, I'd bet he'd opt to get one.

The practice really didn't start in America until the Victorian era, when "germs are every where waiting to kill you."

Also out of (or born in) the Victorian era-

- White counter tops in the kitchen allow you to see germs. When a counter top is pure white, its clean.

- Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin

Those were messed up times. Needless to say, mainland Europe didn't follow the crazy Americans.

My entire point can be summed up as: evolution created such protection for men, and for a reason. Period.

And as I said, if for religious reasons you decide to have your kids mutilated, then, I guess that's fine.

But, besides that, there is absolutely, positively, 99.99% NO reason to have this mutilation done to any newborn!!

If someone thinks it's ugly (and it's not theirs) then that's the problem of our brutal society creating that imposed image to begin with. Quite ridiculous, if you ask me.

And I'm not blaming any parents who've made that decision for their children -- that was how it was -- but it is the 21st Century now, and no one's died that I know of, nor had any ill health whatsoever, from how GOD created us to begin with, 1000s of years ago.

Anuses can be quite ugly - why don't we extract those? *sigh*

It's b.s., as far as I'm concerned. But I stand by what I think: NO ONE should have ANY right to decide to SURGICALLY REMOVE A BODY PART from you, other than yourself.

Period.

Apparently you missed my entire point...

Many doctors do this operation for free. They just work for tips.

You forgot the " :rolleyes: " after that....

Sorry.

:rolleyes:

Thats right.... I'm a post count whore. :p

Apparently you missed my entire point... [/b][/quote]No, I think your point was that no one should have the right to remove a body part of another, so those decisions should be left to the owner of the body part in question when they are old enough to decide for themselves.

But suppose you had a child who was born with, say, ear lobes that were two or three times larger than normal sized ear lobes?

No healh issue involved, they just looked a little ridiculous based on our society's standards.

And the doctor tells you that while the baby was in infancy would be the best time to surgically correct the problem. Just a little snipping.....

Wouldn't you do it?

Now, I know that this example isn't the greatest. All men are born with a foreskin, so it's not considered a deformity, as three inch ear lobes would be.

But if you want to give me a "God" argument, then I could certainly argue that God intended for this child to have ear lobes that were three inches long.

Bottom line: It would be surgery performed for purely cosmetic reasons.

Look, religious reasons aside, if we could go back several hundred or a thousand years or whatever, and nip the practice in the bud (so to speak), so that today it was the American men with the circumcisions that were in the vast minority and those without were considered the norm, then I'd agree with you.

But, unfortunately, we can't go back in time and change the way we've been doing it for so long.

Now, I could be 100% wrong here, but I suspect that when a man's pants come off for the first time in front of a potential lover, that lover is expecting to see a circumcised penis, and that a good many people would, in fact, be completely turned off by the sight of one that wasn't.

If that is not the case, and no one cared, then I think I would agree with you. That's why I suggested a poll, BTW.

Ideally, of course, pants wouldn't be coming off until the people involved were in love, or at least in strong "like", or at the very least at a point in their relationship at which whether or not the penis was circumcised would make a difference but, unfortunately, we aren't at that ideal point in our society.

Sadly, I must confess that if I found myself involved in an intimate situation with a particular woman for the first time, and her genitalia, when initially revealed to me, proved to be radically different in some respect from what any of my five senses had become accustomed to in the past, I would probably be turned off.

I think this 'preference' for one may again be a mostly American thing. Which reminds me of a story....

Some 20 years ago I worked at a Greek Diner in Manhattan. A friend of dropped in and took a liking to one of our waiters...well, the two eventually went out & had some of that foreplay we're all so fond of , and the very next day first thing she mentioned was that this guy much as she liked him was not circumcised!! Because of this, she truly didn't know if she could continue dating and eventually hit the sack with him.

Well, he called her and she pondered over it, did talk about the 'germ' thing but really liked him and in the end they did go to bed and from what I heard a splendid time was had by all . My friend however, made a point of joking to me that the next time they got together she'd be sure to hand him a washcloth before they got too busy.

Now, this guy was Greek-born and had to be in at least his early 40's at the time. Which means he probably had had plenty of experience with women by the time he met my friend. As with shaved armpits, this circimcision thing may just be an American vs. European woman's preference.

However plawrence, I must question your theory about having your hypothetical son circumcised if for no other reason than to not have him rejected as an adult by women...for I would hate to see female babies altered in any way just from her parents' pre-concieved notion that she might one-day be physically 'rejected' by men. And of course, I don't mean when it involves a serious deformity which was clearly not what nature intended.

I think that even in hospitals, and with non-Jewish babies, this whole thing became common practice because of the germ issue. But in many cases, the decision probably is made by parents who are concerned about 'the look'. It will probably take a full generation to turn that around.

Regarding the 'pain' issue though...personally, I figure a newborn infant who cannot yet even think goes through so much discomfort just from being squirted out of that nice, warm, cozy womb that I don't think the minor alteration of a properly performed circumcision would really serve to traumatize that little boy for life. Nor do I think he'd 'remember' it years later. That's psychological hogwash.

Apple

It almost certainly is an "American thing", but the fact remains that reality is reality, and if you read my last post above, your friend's little adventure proves my point to some extent.

By the time things reach the point where everyone is ready to get naked it really shouldn't make a difference, but apparently, to many, it would.

And yes, it will take a generation or two to change things around, but since I don't see that happening yet (although it does seem to be starting to happen slowly), I'd opt for my son having the same, um, "look" as most American males do.

No, it doesn't really prove your point at all. Because as mentioned in MY post above, this guy was Greek and remained uncircumcised well into his 40's (and probably still is, wherever he is) ... which means that regardless of my own friend's misgivings (although she eventually gave in to physical desire), he had probably had many happy rendevous with women who had no problem dealing with that 'little something extra'. Obviously, no female preference had forced him to make the decision to have the procedure done.

Including his wife, whom he probably went home to after having that fling with my friend.

Ahhhhh, youth!!!

Apple

Wasted on the young...

Let's see how many potentially offensive comments are in here: :p (italics mine)

First off, I love it when MEN have such strong opinions about how they think uncut penises are "unsightly" - as if they think cut penises are more pleasant to look at. :p

So let's see... according to Plaw natural penises look a little ridiculous, are a problem, they need surgical alteration for cosmetic reasons, they are radically different, and, he's completely turned off by them.

As for any health benefits of circumcision, I think it's mostly bullshit. One just needs to clean himself - it's called a shower. :p Read this page called Circumcision Positions of Advocates and Critics and the other articles on that site, including Circumcision to Look Like Others and the rest.

Some highlights:

"Circumcision violates a major principle of medical practice: First, do no harm. It also violates all seven principles of medical ethics. (When circumcision is performed, it does not treat any disease, injury, or other health problem)"

"Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to prevent potential UTI (urinary tract infection) problems in the future. There is no disease or infection present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational."

"Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to a severe form of female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost."

If anything, just read this summary ... and these myths from an organization called NORM (National Organziation of Restoring Men) who claim that "a 1991 survey of 301 males seeking restoration information showed almost 70% of those circumcised as infants or as children resent their parents for their circumcision."

Many mothers who have had it done are traumatized for years.

Even Jews are quesitioning the practice , and many choose not to do it. Here is a summary, including:

"In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons. ...Most circumcisions of male infants of American Jewish parents are done in hospitals without any religious ritual."

For even more, check out the sites by National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males ("The most ardent supporters of genital mutilation are men and women who are circumcised, trapped in a cycle of abuse handed down to them, which they perpetuate onto their children."),
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers ("Not one national or international medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision"), and
International Coalition for Genital Integrity ("...when the health professional acts to support the interests of the state or other entity instead of those of the individual in a manner that violates the human rights of the individual") [italics mine], and even Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) which "intends to bring out the facts about this tragic practice."

Talk about human rights, try some of the articles on this page .

And lastly, since this is a long post...

Are supporters for male circumcision also supporters of female circumcision ?

P.S. The circumcision rate in the USA has dropped to 60%. Soon, it'll be less than half, and the minority. :p

And for you women on the board, you might get over the "unsightliness" after reading this :

;)

Another reason why being an Englishman is better than being an American.