Queries about circumcision

[Nuke_em_05]

On the flip side, my brother-in-law was not circumcised, he got an infection in his 20's, and they had to circumcise him then. I don't remember my circumcision, and I don't care. I guarantee you that my brother-in-law remembers his, and I'm sure he cares a great deal.

So your argument is that it's better to inflict pain on a baby than on a consenting adult?

There's no argument. My point was that it happened to me, and I just don't care. As seems to be the case with many circumcised folks.

As for the rest of the ridiculous "arguments" I've seen in this thread; like washing or not washing; it's not a matter of convenience. If I had a foreskin, I'd take the time to wash it. The point is; I don't, so it is irrelevant. Even then, folks with diligent foreskin hygiene can still get complications.

The strongest advocates on this issue seems to be people in the "anti" camp, who also seem to be folks who never had one anyway. There aren't many people in the "pro" camp, but they tend to be circumcised; and the rest of the circumcised people tend to be in the resounding "meh" camp.

Those in the "anti" camp seem to be all about this violation of the children's rights. Even though all of the children who have grown up having this "right" violated seem to be none the worse for wear, and couldn't care less about it.

I don't resent my parents for circumcising me, and I wouldn't resent them if they hadn't and I got an infection.

It's the same thing as men deciding on women's rights, first world students coming in to "third world" countries to "help" them, and the "rich" making assumptions about the "poor".

You haven't been through it, so you don't know what you are talking about. Most of the people who have been through it could. not. give. a. fuck. less. Which makes it even less of an issue to fight for than poverty or civil rights.

It is a non-issue.

That's the long-and-short of it (heh). Most studies and anecdotal evidence is that those who have and haven't been circumcised have the same experience after the fact. So, the answer to the OP is that it doesn't matter.

 

[thom_cat_]

I must say, I enjoy not having shmegma... or however it's spelled.

Just mentioning this.
I have never experienced smegma. Maybe it's the fact I shower? Or maybe I'm just awesome in general... but I have never seen the stuff.

My opinion is that you should be able to give consent. I don't care what parents think is right for their child. Men don't need nipples but there's no good reason to cut them off.

 

[thylasos]

In the US, areas of Africa and the Middle East, it's the norm. In the rest of the world, it's not.

I can see no reason for the automatic assumption that newborn boys are better off being circumcised, personally.

There are religious reasons, and certain medical conditions which necessitate it, but otherwise there's no reasons for it which aren't either aesthetic, based on bias of the culture you're in, or easily remedied with a basic level of hygeine.

People who have serious problems with the appearance of a natural wang... that's odd. I've no problem with the appearance of a modified one.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Really you couldn't use the search bar on this? This has been done many, many, many times before and should be one of those banned topics on the Escapist. Long story short it will decrease sensitivity but if that decreases pleasure is subjective and any performance "benefits" are not scientifically worth mentioning either way.

As an aside what is circumcision in American hospitals is a far cry from what was done in religious faiths years ago and continues to be.

 

[The Gnome King]

OK, so I know that this can be a somewhat private issue (not just for me, but for many people), but I want some discussion and insight into it anyway.

Bottom line, it's unnecessary and no major medical organization recommends it. Here are some links to check out:

http://www.drmomma.org/2012/04/circumcision-decision-who-made-you.html

A really good link by a mom arguing that men/boys should have the right to do this; she compares it to removing a girl's clitoral hood - because it's the same thing; the hood surrounding the clitoris basically keeps it moist and sensitive which is what the foreskin does for the glans of the penis.

http://www.circumcision.org/confessions.htm

Written by a man who was ticked off they chopped off thousands of nerve endings on his penis.

http://www.intactamerica.org/

An entire website dedicated to informing people about the evils of circumcision.

http://www.alancumming.com/blog.php?id=525

Alan Cumming is a funny guy and this was his take.

And lastly, when people throw the anti-semite insult at you, here's a Jewish group that opposes circumcision:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Please, read the sites and decide for yourself. This definitely isn't something I would do to my sons.

 

[Belaam]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

 

[The Gnome King]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

Every time I hear a circumcised man describe how much fun sex is (for the record, I'm circumcised as well and I think sex is so much fun I have two partners I live with) -

... I think of what Alan Cumming said. Because he's on the money with this quote:

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

No man wants to hear his sexual prowess might have been compromised, which is why you get all the circumcised men jumping up to say "my sex life is just fine!" - well, yeah, but what if it could be even better?

 

[Zerstiren]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

 

[Naeras]

Shit.

This won't end well.

Anyone who wishes to survive may join me in my bunker. I have all the hookers and Blackjack you could ever want.

OT: Any doctor worth their salt will tell you that any medical procedure has risks and removing a small boy's foreskin for anything less than a medical concern is not a great idea.

This post summarizes everything we ever need to know about this thread.

 

[Belaam]

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

Good quote, though I definitely don't see myself as "defensive and protective of the procedure" as I indicated that I would not circumcise any sons if I had any. I think the whole procedure is a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo and serves no real purpose.

I was simply trying to calm the OP's concerns that though circumcised, he will likely still find sex enjoyable. It is entirely possible that I could be having even better, longer, etc. orgasms; the point to the OP was that circumcised orgasms are still rather enjoyable.

 

[Shpongled]

Circumcised since about 5 min after birth here.

No complaints/issues sexually. Lots of fun. ;p

That said, all the peer-reviewed medical studies I've seen on it show no real benefit and increase risk of infections as a child.

While I only have daughters, if I had had a son, I would not have circumcised him.

Every time I hear a circumcised man describe how much fun sex is (for the record, I'm circumcised as well and I think sex is so much fun I have two partners I live with) -

... I think of what Alan Cumming said. Because he's on the money with this quote:

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

No man wants to hear his sexual prowess might have been compromised, which is why you get all the circumcised men jumping up to say "my sex life is just fine!" - well, yeah, but what if it could be even better?

I've had sex with and without a foreskin, and i much prefer without in all honesty. It's not that i feel any less sensation than i did before, just that it takes longer to build up, which is only a good thing for me. All my most memorable orgasms have been after the op. The only disadvantage is in my wallet, lube isn't as cheap as it could be, but it's definitely worth it.

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

You and your dick are missing out on a world of pleasures, everything's always better when things are slippy, take it from me.

 

[The Gnome King]

"Of course no man wants to hear that he is missing out on sexual pleasure by something that happened when he was a few days old and is therefore irreversible as well as impossible for him to even conceive of the difference. That?s why I think a lot of men who are circumcised are initially defensive and protective of the procedure, and see any opposition to it by people like me as hysterical and cranky. I get it. Maybe I would be like that too if I wasn?t intact, and if I spent most of my life never encountering anyone who was."

Good quote, though I definitely don't see myself as "defensive and protective of the procedure" as I indicated that I would not circumcise any sons if I had any. I think the whole procedure is a bit of religious mumbo-jumbo and serves no real purpose.

I was simply trying to calm the OP's concerns that though circumcised, he will likely still find sex enjoyable. It is entirely possible that I could be having even better, longer, etc. orgasms; the point to the OP was that circumcised orgasms are still rather enjoyable.

Sure, orgasms feel good. Even some women with their entire clitoris removed in some Middle Eastern countries claim that they still have full orgasms. They're enjoying sex.

They just might be enjoying it a lot more with a clitoris. And men might a lot more with a foreskin.

I commend your decision to not mutilate your own sons!

 

[The Gnome King]

I've had sex with and without a foreskin, and i much prefer without in all honesty. It's not that i feel any less sensation than i did before, just that it takes longer to build up, which is only a good thing for me. All my most memorable orgasms have been after the op. The only disadvantage is in my wallet, lube isn't as cheap as it could be, but it's definitely worth it.

Interesting. I'm a bi guy who has been with men who have had foreskins, some who have not, and some who were in your shoes. I've never met a single man who had his foreskin removed that said sex was better afterwards; most are ticked off at a lack of sensation. The only man I know that said sex was better had a foreskin that didn't properly retract (which was his reason for the operation in the first place) if you have a medical REASON for a circumcision it might make sex better, but I have yet to meet anyone that had it done as an adult for religious purposes that says sex is BETTER after they were cut.

If you didn't have any medical issues and prefer the cut penis; you are the first man I have ever met in my life that felt this way. And I've been pretty intimate with a *lot* of men. And women. Most women who have experienced both tell me they prefer the lack of chafing involved with a foreskin because of the "sheath within a sheath" effect.

Will there be exceptions, sure, but I doubt nature provided the foreskin for no reason all the while filling it with thousands of nerve endings while producing a fluid that keeps the glans penis wet. Also, they are doing a lot more research now that men who are circumcised have a lot more ED problems - you might enjoy that lack of sensitivity in your 20's but what about 40 or 50 when your issue isn't coming too fast but getting and staying hard at all?

Lots of things to think about. It's definitely not something I would do to a kid without a medical necessary reason. Thanks for sharing your story tho, as I said if you did this for religious reasons as an adult and didn't have any medical reason for it you are the single, only guy I have ever met who claims sex was better post-mutilation.

 

[The Gnome King]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

They never need lube.

Circumcision was ONLY used on a mass scale by religions to stop boys from masturbating. It was only later did they make up the BS that it was cleaner and such.

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/male-circumcision-originally-created-to-prevent-masturbation/

John Kellogg (yes, the guy behind Kellogg cereal) was the main proponent of circumcision in early 20th century America because he taught that it prevented masturbation. Before that it was almost never done to non-Jewish or Muslim boys.

 

[The Gnome King]

I am circumcised, and I masturbate without any lube. I just don't do well with it. Is this okay? Or should I find myself a good lube? And can uncircumcised men masturbate without lube?

They never need lube.

Circumcision was ONLY used on a mass scale by religions to stop boys from masturbating. It was only later did they make up the BS that it was cleaner and such.

http://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/male-circumcision-originally-created-to-prevent-masturbation/

John Kellogg (yes, the guy behind Kellogg cereal) was the main proponent of circumcision in early 20th century America because he taught that it prevented masturbation. Before that it was almost never done to non-Jewish or Muslim boys.

Funny thing is, every time a circumcision thread pops up I have to post that. No one believes me.

It's historically accurate and anyone who doesn't believe you can go do their own research. It is very, very true.

The guy who invented the Graham cracker? He was a total anti-masturbation nut, too. He used to promote his crackers as a way of "reducing unnatural sexual urges" in young boys.

My thought? These old men thought wayyy too much about young boys, their penises, and what young boys do with their penises.

 

[Dimitriov]

See, if I say I like chips better than anything that means I like chips more than everything else in the universe (sex, candy, true love, immortality, EVERYTHING).

If I say I like chips more than cookies it means just that and nothing else. Understand yet? NO?

Okay, what he said was that he considers "religious reasons" more important than one fairly specific thing which he considers unlikely to occur. I have no information to give on the probability of it myself, but the language is pretty clear.

The only thing to say here is that 'anything' is not necessarily a synonym of 'everything'. Just look the word up, please. Your grammer is not gooder than mine.

*sigh*

"I like chips better than everything." (This means that I like chips better than everything in the universe combined).

I like chips better than anything." (This means that I like chips better than any ONE single thing in the universe - but that single thing could be ANY thing that possibly exists).

I like chips better than something." (This means that there is ONE SPECIFIC thing that I like less than chips - there COULD be other things that I also prefer chips to, but the one established point is that there is SOMETHING I like chips better than).

He used a "something" (religious reasons are more important than the minor chance of fuck ups - I paraphrased that - in this case we have a single thing "a chance" that is deemed less important than the other), but you said "anything" which as I have clearly explained above means something else.

I am explaining this because you may have a basic grasp of English, but clearly do not have a handle on logic.

And if I asked you why you like chips more than anything, it might be the case that I find them disgusting and think there's nothing that chips are tastier than. Context has a huge effect on language.

Alas, logic has little to do with this. You don't get to deprive the word of all meanings but one you approve of.

Bolded that bit for you, it's the entire point I am trying to explain to you. This is not my meaning, but the inherent meaning implicit in the combination of words you chose (context? remember?)

But I no longer expect you to understand, and to be charitable I am pretty sure English isn't your first language at this point as most other languages seem to have these kind of logic problems (at least when translated into English) like Spanish using double negatives.

Good day, Sir!