Un-Circumcising ? [Archive] - ClothesFree Forum

NoodJuggler

04-23-2003, 09:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Oh lord Jesus, give me a break people. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Helloooooooo, it is just a damn dick. It is not the most important thing in your life. It is not like a dog, or a child, or a mortagage or a cancer. It is just a dick. I seriously do not know why men are so in love with their penis. Do so many men have that much time on their hands?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If there was a way to rate you honey I'd give you a big 10!! Crude and insensive as that was I'd still give you a 10. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It's cut off, gone, missing, Stop worrying about it, it won't grow back.. I am not circumcised, really never though about it, just wondered why I was the only one in Gym Class that was different. If you look at my pictures it looks as tho I am, I just keep the skin pulled back. I can have it both ways. When I got married the Doctor advised me to do that to reduce the risk of my wife getting cervical cancer. And it is easier to keep clean. What usually happens is right at the base of the head of the penis, if you pull the skin back, on the underside you will see where the skin is attached to the head of the penis, and this is very sensitive, kind of like a womans clit. "When a man gets circumcised they cut this skin away, taking away the most sensitive part of a mans body", why they do it is stupid as hell. How much pleasure would you women get out of sex if the doctor cut your clit away? The foreskin also lets the penis slide back and forth in the woman because the skin is pressed up against the side of the hole letting the penis slide back and forth within the skin thus helping to keep from rubbing her raw. And giving the man more pleasure also. Circumcised men do not have these extra benefits, that is why some women complain that it hurts. But even if they do put the foreskin back in place of what was cut off the feeling will not be the same. Circumcised men do not know what they are missing, having not been able to have that pleasure, they can only guess. Believe it or not, It really is the most important part,(the foreskin) just not the most important thing.

If you want to see where the skin is attached, if you don't know, and really want to know. send me a private message.

Corey can delete this post if he wants, I just tell the facts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Fresh Air

04-24-2003, 03:34 PM

I think it's fine to be or not to be. I am myself circumcized. While it is curious how it would be otherwise, I don't hold any regrets and am content with how I am. I'm not really interested in 'restoration'.

From a medical stand point there are benefits in both choices, hence it has not been deemed ethical or unethical either way. As far as length goes, circumcision does not affect lenght, unless one counts the extra skin as part of the length.

Fresh Air

04-24-2003, 04:01 PM

um, keithmj, thanks for the imput, but that was just a little too much info. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I do like to read your other posts though. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

04-24-2003, 06:16 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:

From a medical stand point there are benefits in both choices, hence it has not been deemed ethical or unethical either way. As far as length goes, circumcision does not affect lenght, unless one counts the extra skin as part of the length.

Fresh Air <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually your info is wrong... there are no benefits to having it done. Any that had been previously used were found to be unfounded. There are negatives to having it done. I've seen a few that were cut wrong. I know of a few cases where the entire thing was cut off. Not my kid!

NoodJuggler

04-24-2003, 10:31 PM

Sorry hw. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . Um, I don't really know what you mean. Sometimes I just get carried away. I also do not believe in sugar coating. We were never allowed to ask questions about sex or anything having to do with that part of the body. I might have been blunt but I tell it as it is..What would be better, the foreskin on your penis or the skin on your weewee? The foreskin has a purpose, that what I stated. Some people probably never knew that or why the skin is there. It wasn't just put there so the Doctor could cut it off. It is put there for protection, to protect the glan. Cutting it off is not going to kill you or do any damage, so they say, but it serves a purpose. Beside, the more you know about your body the healthier it will be for you. Think about it, they say there is an Easter Bunny, a Tooth Fairy, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, they say you can cut the foreskin off the penis, that you don't need it, is anybody after knowing the truth going to believe what they say? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Something else to think about. Think about long and hard, Santa Claus...Santa has 5 letters in his name. Satan has the same number and same letters, Santa wears Red and Black. Satan wears Red and Black. One likes it Cold. One likes it Hot. Have you ever see them both at the same time? I think Not. http://www.naturalandnude.com/devil.gif

desertdude

04-25-2003, 01:05 AM

Actually Fresh Air is right. There are many benefits to circumcision. Having had several boughts of painful infections, bladder infections, tearing of the foreskin and subsequesnt bleeding afterward, phimosis, and a host of other maladies that were not present at birth or as a very young child, I can attest to the fact the circumcision is a blessing in many cases. I haven't had a single instance of a single problem since. Granted there can in some cases be complications, but the majority of time there are none. Any surgical procedure carries some risks, and as far as needless surgery goes, look at the number of breast augmentation surgeries done every year. There are more botched cases of them than there are of circumcisions. Only a person who has experienced a foreskin because he has had one and has suffered with the possible consequences of it is qualified to express valid opinions about the "benefits" of having one. Conversely, I do not proclaim to tell women what is the best way to maintain proper genital health since I do not possess a vagina. Respectfully, this is my opinion only.

04-25-2003, 04:57 AM

Desertdude, of course there are cases where it is medically necessary and I am glad it helped you but for the average man without problems there is no justification for cutting off body parts that have a reason for being there.

Keith, I don't think you did go too far. Most people don't know that sex causes lots more friction in cut men. If we are to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of this entire topic it must include all the reasons.

Personally I prefer uncut men. Oh, and what your doctor told you about cervical cancer has been found to be insignificant. By keeping the foreskin back you are allowing the head to become desensitized just as it would for a cut man.

Angel

04-25-2003, 06:01 AM

My 2 cents worth of experience on the subject:

My current husband is, my ex wasn't. My first son was, the second son got a botched job of it, and my third son isn't.

As an "outside observer", I've never noticed any functional difference in it. Sure, it looks different soft, but erect looks pretty much the same (and feels the same). And I had to teach my youngest a bit differently in terms of hygiene.

That's all, folks! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NoodJuggler

04-25-2003, 07:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Personally I prefer uncut men. Oh, and what your doctor told you about cervical cancer has been found to be insignificant. By keeping the foreskin back you are allowing the head to become desensitized just as it would for a cut man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is good reasoning. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Alot of what they use to say has changed over the years and yes they have insignificant proof about this. This is just what a country doctor told me back in 1972. Some like it cut, some uncut. That is what makes the world go around, not everybody liking the same thing. Wouldn't it be weird if you and I acted and though the same about everything? No variety in likes or dislikes. As a uncut person, the sensitive skin part is still there, thus I am not really desensitized that much, some maybe, I really haven't noticed that much difference. All I have to do is pull the skin forwards for a day or two and its normal again. I prefer it back because it is easier to keep clean. Really my wife likes it that way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Desertdude mentioned some problems he use to have, in some men they do have these problems and the only way to correct this is to get it cut. We can't be washing it 24 hours a day. I had better quit, I know HW doesn't really like to talk about this before lunch. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Enjoy...Keithmj

Trailscout

04-25-2003, 08:32 AM

For those of us who are already circumcised, attempts to reverse the process may be futile or make matters worse because our foreskins produced lubricant that the stretched skin from reconstructions doesn't produce.

The best we can do is to protect our newborn sons from this unnecessary procedure. Extra attention to hygiene is imperative. With the foreskin comes extra responsibility to protect it.

I do have a question for any uncircumcised males who enjoy hiking nude. Is there any danger of snagging the foreskin on branches as you walk along? I think this would primarily be a problem for pre-adolescents with less than fully developed penises, but is it also an issue for adult men? Is that why loincloths are sometimes worn by men in the tropical rainforest, for foreskin protection?

04-25-2003, 09:44 AM

keithmj.........I don't care what is discussed before lunch....we're in different times zones anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I am not upset, this topic needs to be discussed, at least for the younger generation who may not have boys yet. Maybe if they get more info before hand, they can make more informed choices. Have a good day everyone. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Fresh Air

04-25-2003, 11:14 AM

I still have to say my own oppinion is that circumcision is a personal choice. There ARE benefits which pertain to both choices.

We all know the benefits of leaving things intact. Such as all the nerves are still there, the glans is protected from abrasion, the female partner potentially experiences less pain...so, I will just review quickly some benificial aspects of circumcision.

First, it is important to remember that the body adapts. Circumcised men have a thicker epithelium covering their glans. This is aprotective mechanism of skin. This is only in regards to the abrasive aspects of circumcision. Uncircumcised men may not see that as a positive thing.

Also, while nerve endings are removed when skin is removed, we should still consider the dynamic nature of our nervous systems. Our nervous systems are not intact and static from birth. In fact, they are always changing. I know for myself, association with pleasure and penile sensation was not there since birth. It is a learned association, if you will. So, while the nerves are not as numbered to assume this means that sensations are not equal is potentially false. There really isn't a way to measure preception like this example. On the other hand, if circumcision is performed for an adult, where the programing has taken place, I do see how pleasure sensation may be lost.

Here are a couple health benefits. Please note that these are "averages" of a population given average hygiene and lifestyle. If one practices a hygenic lifestyle and is careful about sexual practices, they would not necessarily apply. They are as follows:

1. Urinary Tract Infections. They are shown to be less in circumcised men. Hence there is also less transmission of UTIs to female partners.

2. Some protection from HIV and some ulcerative STDs. The wet epithelium of the prepuce has been shown to increase transmission of HIV and possibly other viruses. In other words the best place to get infected, on the penis, is through that part of the skin. Please note, however, that circumcision, in no way, makes one immune to the same diseases, it only decreases the incidence of transmission.

3. Penile cancer is less in circumcised males. This is both hygine and STD related. Both of which may increase in the uncircumcised.

4. Cervical Cancer in many studies has been shown to be decreased in female partners. I think the insignificance that cyndiann refers to is a direct association. Allow me to explain. The prepuce does not itself cause the cervical cancer. There is no direct relationship shown for that. What may happen, and why this phenomenon is observed is this. Refering to number 2, HPV (human papilloma virus) may be involved. While both cut and uncut men and women can carry this virus, the virus thrives in the epithelium of the prepuce. The link between HPV and cervical cancer has clearly been shown. So, there is most likely an indirect association between uncircucision and cervical cancer. However, please note that the association has more to do with a promiscuous lifestyle than anything else.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Here's a scary fact. Some studies have estimated that HPV is highest in the highschool age population. It has been estimated that 1 in 6 teens in the area studied carry the virus. Doop!

Finally, please know that the medical commuunity as a whole does not recommend routine circumcision. In other words, it is left upto the parents and not advised one way or another. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be. This is mostly because taking everything into account the benefits of one choice over the other do not exist. It is a personal choice for the parents, which introduces ethics, but that's another issue all together.

Anyhow, if anyone cares to find out more, the NIH has a website called PubMed that is good for journal searches. My sources mostly came from "The New England Journal of Medicine" and "Sexually Transmitted Infections".

Fresh Air

soundman

04-25-2003, 12:16 PM

Way too much information for me.

Rik

04-25-2003, 02:56 PM

NoodJuggler

04-25-2003, 10:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by hw:
keithmj.........I don't care what is discussed before lunch....we're in different times zones anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I am not upset, this topic needs to be discussed, at least for the younger generation who may not have boys yet. Maybe if they get more info before hand, they can make more informed choices. Have a good day everyone. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool Dude /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif So you can have breakfast when I'm having dinner...COOOLLL. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I don't know if your a male or female, but when I view your profile, I do that now and then, I'd say from your interests that you are of the female gender? Am I correct? Or just a guy in touch with reality...I hope you know that I'm just teasing you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm really a nice chap. My wife says that I should be a detective, Yea, right...Have a good one..Bye..Doctor.PHD.Keithmj

gamblefish

04-26-2003, 03:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
Oh lord Jesus, give me a break people. This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Helloooooooo, it is just a damn dick. It is not the most important thing in your life. It is not like a dog, or a child, or a mortagage or a cancer. It is just a dick. I seriously do not know why men are so in love with their penis. Do so many men have that much time on their hands? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok, I think if you enjoy your mortgage more than your member, then you are the one with too much time on your hands. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But in a way, Croydon, I agree. If it is done, then it is done. No sense in crying over cut foreskin, now is there.

I bet the "smoothies" would agree with us. I mean, they are always going on about being more naked than the rest of us because they shave and all. So, I think that "cutties" are more naked than those who still have a hood on their head.
Or a skin on their fore, or something...

04-26-2003, 03:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:
I still have to say my own oppinion is that circumcision is a personal choice. There ARE benefits which pertain to both choices.

We all know the benefits of leaving things intact. Such as all the nerves are still there, the glans is protected from abrasion, the female partner potentially experiences less pain...so, I will just review quickly some benificial aspects of circumcision.

Also, while nerve endings are removed when skin is removed, we should still consider the dynamic nature of our nervous systems. Our nervous systems are not intact and static from birth. In fact, they are always changing. I know for myself, association with pleasure and penile sensation was not there since birth. It is a learned association, if you will. So, while the nerves are not as numbered to assume this means that sensations are not equal is potentially false. There really isn't a way to measure preception like this example. On the other hand, if circumcision is performed for an adult, where the programing has taken place, I do see how pleasure sensation may be lost.

Here are a couple health benefits. Please note that these are "averages" of a population given average hygiene and lifestyle. If one practices a hygenic lifestyle and is careful about sexual practices, they would not necessarily apply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To put it more plainly, if you wash your body regularly there is no reason to chop off body parts. The reasoning used here would be similar to saying that it would be beneficial to cut off a baby's ears so that they would not need to be washed. Doctors (and sane people in general) feel that if something can be accomplished by merely washing one's body why go through something as drastic as cutting off parts? It is an extremely harsh solution to an easy problem.

The AMA says:
Data Synthesis. A majority of boys born in the United States continue to receive nonritual circumcisions. Circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life. However, the low incidence of these conditions minimizes the potential medical benefits compared to risks of circumcision. The circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases, but behavioral factors are far more important in preventing these infections than the presence or absence of a foreskin.

In other words, you are at a higher risk of a botched circumcision than you are for actually getting penile cancer or UTIs. The cure is worse than the possible illness!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Finally, please know that the medical commuunity as a whole does not recommend routine circumcision. In other words, it is left upto the parents and not advised one way or another. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be. This is mostly because taking everything into account the benefits of one choice over the other do not exist. It is a personal choice for the parents, which introduces ethics, but that's another issue all together.

Fresh Air <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't think a parent should choose surgical removal ever and that it is child abuse. Let the child grow and determine for his self if he wants to be cut.

Why is it that female circumcision is illegal and male circumcision is not???

stevenf64

04-26-2003, 05:36 AM

Croyden most are great points /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but I am not that interested in my mortgage. HW also good points. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Gamble great points. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Florida David I dont know what you are always so mad about. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif EVERYONE if its there its there if its gone its our parents fault, what would you at 3 or 4 days old have said. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
that being said I am circumsized /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif not my choice but unknow what to late
the choice I could make was my son and he is not.If he wants or needs to be he can do it later in life.
Great thread though and to everyone who could be blunt I give you a standing ovation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Topics like this and others need to be out of the closet so to speak. Maybe if people were not so tightwaded about discussing things that needed to be discused we wouldnt be in the position that we are in,ie pervs sneaking around, people in athority sneaking around. Everything out were all can see.
for what its worth just my 1.5 cents (new taxes and all) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

florida-david

04-26-2003, 07:33 AM

steven, i'm not mad. see the little happy guy waving. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but i do think the medical industry likes cutting those little skins off, makes them more money. i don't think they do them for free!?!?!?

fordmustang

04-26-2003, 07:37 AM

I'm so glad, that everyone's gotten involved in this discussion. I know of a few guys that have done the complete foreskin restoration, and they tell me that the head, is become moist, and IS more sensitive than before. Therefore, I think it is a worthwhile endeavor to undergo.

Not only for hopefully some more sensitivity, but as one put it, the less friction/rawing of the wife will actually be a blessing for her as well. I'm hoping that with the explanations you all have given, she will be more forecoming in helping me through the year or two long experience of restoration.

"IT'S NOT ONLY A DICK", I can attest to that!

I want to also thank all of those who have privately emailed me on the subject, and who have divulged that they already have done the restoration, and also are in the process. You'd be AMAZED at how many there are!

PLEASE, PLEASE - If you are of kid bearing age, or have influence on those that are, make sure that everything possible is done not to have the SON's circumcised.

For the women who have joined in the discussion, thanks even more for your support, and any that don't support the effort here, how about going out and getting circumcised, then tell us how you wish you weren't, or tell us that it's only a vulva!

04-26-2003, 09:55 AM

I'm uncut and I can asure you that the head of mine is EXTREMELY sensitive. My knees literally buckle when I just wash under the skin. I'd be willing to bet that sensitivity is lessoned considerably after being constantly exposed to clothing.

I had a brother who chose to be circumcized as an adult. His skin afterwards was black from his waist down to his knees because of another botched job.

Vin

04-26-2003, 08:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:
Finally, please know that the medical commuunity as a whole does not recommend routine circumcision. In other words, it is left upto the parents and not advised one way or another. Or at least that's how it's supposed to be. This is mostly because taking everything into account the benefits of one choice over the other do not exist. It is a personal choice for the parents, which introduces ethics, but that's another issue all together. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly -- that's how it's supposed to be. I know of at least one hospital a few years ago where the nurses felt free to share their opinions with a new mother in the new father's absence. The resulting row after the browbeaten father agreed to the circ, then got some accurate information, very nearly resulted in a divorce. It definitely resulted in a unilateral change in family plan.

Sorry, this is a topic that I feel strongly about.

Vin

04-26-2003, 08:04 PM

Naturist Mark

04-26-2003, 08:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Why is it that female circumcision is illegal and male circumcision is not??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, for one thing male circumcism does not cause sexual dysfunction or the inability to achieve orgasm. The (relative) desensitization of the glans can also be a sexual benefit.

I don't see a vast number of cut men living lives of misery or deprivation, it in no way compares to the devastation caused by the barbaric practice of clitorectomy.

That in no way is an endorsement of wholesale circumcism. Lacking an urgent medical reason I see no need for it. But no one should ever compare a properly done circumcism to clitorectomy.

Fresh Air

04-27-2003, 01:11 AM

Ethically, (from an 'american' standpoint) I suppose I agree it is wrong to make the decision for the baby. But, we can not neglect religion or clutural aspects. For some, it may be unethical to not circumcise.

Also, before we imagine a world (the world ratio is about 50:50) of noncircumcised men, we have to remember there are four catagories.

1. Circumcised men who are content with the choices their parents made.
2. Circumcised men who wish they were uncircumcised.
3. Uncircucised men who are content with their parents choice
4. Uncircumcised men who wish they were circumcised.

All this tends to make the ethics of it confusing.

Trailscout

04-27-2003, 07:18 AM

May I propose two subcategories of men in the circumcised but wish they weren't?

A. Those who believe that reconstructive surgery is a viable option.

B. Those who don't believe it will work, but wish it did.

I am a "B" because I suspect that without the smegma (nature's lubricant), a reconstructed foreskin would not glide properly over the glans.
Foreskin produces smegma, the grafted or stretched out skin does not.

Vin

04-28-2003, 06:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fresh Air:
Also, before we imagine a world (the world ratio is about 50:50) of noncircumcised men....

All this tends to make the ethics of it confusing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With respect, where did you find this statistic? Even in the US, the ratio is more like 60/40, and it is altering even further as circs fall out of social favor. In most of the rest of the world, I understand that it's very rare to routinely perform this surgery, so I suspect that the world ratio is not even close to 50/50.

And I'm afraid I fail to see where the ethics is confusing. It's wrong to perform amputation absent medical necessity under any circumstances. It's doubly wrong to do it to a newborn; I don't care which "cultural" or "religious" excuses are used.

BigTim

04-28-2003, 09:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Why is it that female circumcision is illegal and male circumcision is not??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, for one thing male circumcism does not cause sexual dysfunction or the inability to achieve orgasm. The (relative) desensitization of the glans can also be a sexual benefit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mark, don't take this as a personal attack on your reply...but rather a general comment to a reply I have often heard. But, how do we know that male circumcision does not cause sexual dysfunction? Have we surveyed every circumcised man in the world? I've seen some men at the beach who seemed like they had such botched circumcision jobs that I'm certain couldn't be sexually pleasing. I'm not sure that there is any good reason for circumcision other than religious reasons, which I also disagree with, because the reasons most religions may circumcise a boy for are irrelevant according to my personal study of the Bible. (But I guess that's a whole different forum.)

Anyway, I'm uncut and happy for that...as is my father and my brother. Although I don't have children, I have been influential in the non-circumcision of three boys...and PROUD of it!

Naturist Mark

04-28-2003, 04:20 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BigTim:
[Mark, don't take this as a personal attack on your reply...but rather a general comment to a reply I have often heard. But, how do we know that male circumcision does not cause sexual dysfunction? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) Don't confuse the issue by claiming botched circumcisms cause dysfunction. They can and do.

2) I haven't interviewed every male in the universe and neither have you. But the strong empiric evidence is that healthy circumcized males are able to acheive erection, intercourse, and ejaculation accompanied by orgasm with relative ease (provided opportunity).

3)I am not a circumcism advocate, I see no medical or hygenic justification for it except in rare cases of medical necessity.

Some of the debate has become hysterical and hyperbolic. That is unnecessary.

-Mark

Bob S.

04-28-2003, 08:32 PM

I am going to assume that you are all referring to non-ritual circumcisions and are not against Bris done by a Rabbi.

And as for the removal of certain parts of the body, that's what some of the field of plastic surgery is about. Liposuction removed fat. It is unnecessary and can have negative side effects such as death, but worth it to those who have it done.

Now I know what your argument is, that people who have plastic surgery done are old enough to make such a decision. But that's where parents' judgement comes in. Parents have a wide latitude of decisions that they can make in regard to their children. From naming, which in my opinion is one the most important decision that can be made, to what religion, where they live, lifestyle, etc. Circumcision is one of those decisions that should be made by both parents (if possible) or by the grandparents if the mother is too young to understand all of the aspects.

To answer cyndiann's question of why male circ and not female circ? Because female circumcision is all about repression of women. Removal of the clitoris to make sexual intercourse less pleasurable so she will not be tempted to have premarital or extramarital sex.

And just so you all know, as if you care, I was circumcised as a baby and I do not care. I am not happy that I was circumcised but I am also not upset. For me, being circumcised was of little consequence in my life. I didn't even know of the word for a lot of my childhood and, having not been exposed to that many naked males, I only knew of my brother and father, who were both circed. I didn't even see the first uncirced male until I started looking online at nudist pics. That was the first time that I had even seen an uncircumcised penis.

That is how I am sure the vast majority of people feel as well. Whether they are uncirced or circed, most of us probably don't care and have just accepted it as who we are, a non-issue. When I have kids, I plan to have them circumcised as I am Jewish at heart.

My opinion, leave it up to the parents to make an informed decision. And then let it go.

Bob S.

desertdude

04-29-2003, 01:04 AM

Female circumcision isn't illegal. It's not common but is performed here in the states more often than you might think. Mind you I'm not talking about the type of female circumcision most people think about, that is like is done in parts of Africa or some middle eastern countries where the entire clit is removed. In this instance I'm only talking about the clitoral hood being removed or sometimes split. It is a practice that in some cases of female sexual dysfunction is used to alleviate the problem. There are many female posters on www.smooth-naturists.co.uk (http://www.smooth-naturists.co.uk) that have had the procedure performed and are very happy with the resul. Many women that have never been able to achieve orgasm have been helped by it. Lets not let our personal opinions cloud the facts of the situation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Aaron

04-29-2003, 01:26 AM

This topic has brought up some very interesting point of views. I like that everyone is not holding anything back with this subject, it is a good one to discuss.
I am 23 years old as of next month and I am not circumcised. I have found that the younger generations aren't very educated on the subject and instead curious. While playing the dating game I have found that girls seem to be intrigued and actually arroused by the fact that I am not circumcised. As far as health concerns go, all the diference that I have had to go through is just a little more attention while cleaning myself in the shower.
Back to the main topic, I don,t feel that I would want to be cut especially not at this point in my life.
Keep up the good input you all!
Aaron /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

04-29-2003, 05:59 AM

RT here again with his penny

My twin bro Casey and I aren't circumsised either, as Aaron said it does intreage a lot of females during the dating game.

Out of all our naturist mates I would say it's 50/50 circumsised/non circumsised. I'm happy how I am, it only takes a few minutes longer in the shower to wash your self down there.

RT

nudeM

04-29-2003, 06:33 AM

I have been reading these threads lately and it is hard for me to imagine anyone who would want to have reconstructive surgery to attach a forskin. I am circumsised, have been since very small, and I cannot imagine having an opertion on one of the most sensative areas of the male. Except for some of you who may remember having foreskin, and know how it feels to have one, I do not have a clue on how it feels to have one (foreskin). I don't know how it would feel, so I would be reluctant on having an operation to have one re-attached. Talk about having botched circumcisions, what about having a botched re-attachment? Sorry, but I'm happy just the way I am.

Trailscout

04-29-2003, 07:34 AM

I have no problem with people who wish to remain uncircumcised.

I have serious concerns about attempts to graft skin to reconstruct the foreskin.

Grafted skin does not produce the smegma lubricant needed to help the fake foreskin glide over the glans of the penis. Only natural foreskin produces this vital substance.

Without this lubricant, sex would be painful and the grafted skin chafed and damaged.

Suntied

04-29-2003, 08:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RT:
it only takes a few minutes longer in the shower to wash your self down there.
RT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is yours, you can wash it as much and for as long as you want. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Hee Haw

I don't like to think about my mom and dad having sex, but it must have happened because I'm here as are my two brothers, but my father is uncircumsised yet he had his three sons snipped as babies. So, if it is better to have the foreskin than why would him and mom agree to have us cut? The lubricant thing is a bit interesting, I thought that was the females responsability. As far as replacing the foreskin, you can't miss something you've never had. I won't cut myself short, I still have some foreskin and it seems to be the right amount for the purpose it is intended for which is... a... a... a lent catcher? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Body accemptance with or without the foreskin,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Trailscout

04-29-2003, 09:09 AM

Sundried,
Yes, women produce lubricant and no, it is not 10W40!

Even with circumcised men, the skin on the outside of the penis will be lubed by the both the man's pre-ejaculate fluids and the woman's fluids, but here's the problem: both these fluids will not reach under the foreskin, so nature provides a more viscous substance called smegma for men with real foreskins. Grafted-on skin will not produce it and that's where the friction will occur, on the inside of the foreskin between the foreskin and the glans (head) of the penis.

For a man who is circumcised, the couple's fluids easily bathe the genitals in lubricant. And for the reasons I explained, an uncircumcised man won't have problems, only a man with a so-called reconstructed foreskin will run into bad problems.

Suntied

04-29-2003, 09:45 AM

Trailscrot,
Thanks for Sex Education Class. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Was the "Sundried" comment a way of telling me I'm all dried up without my foreskin or is it my humor that is dried up. I agree with you on the restoration thing, but my thing isn't all dried up and I'm not sure whether I produce any stegma or not as the lubrication from the female partners has been plenty sufficiant in my past experiences, but I'll try to figure it out tonight. Is there a test kit for that? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif SunTIED! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
(making fun of my name... that's not nice)

Vin

04-29-2003, 10:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
And for the reasons I explained, an uncircumcised man won't have problems, only a man with a so-called reconstructed foreskin will run into bad problems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting. I've never run across this as a complaint of men who have attempted foreskin restoration. What's your information source for reaching this conclusion?

AlaskaRoy

04-29-2003, 10:35 AM

Actually, both male and female circumsision interfere with sexual response. Some woman who have undergone removal of the clitoris can still experience orgasm, but it is difficult.
Non-religious circumcision of BOTH men and women was introduced in the US in the last quarter of the 19th century as a means to reduce sexual interest and decrease the amount of masterbation, which was thought to be a major health problem.
Roy

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
. . . .
To answer cyndiann's question of why male circ and not female circ? Because female circumcision is all about repression of women. Removal of the clitoris to make sexual intercourse less pleasurable so she will not be tempted to have premarital or extramarital sex.
. . . .

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AlaskaRoy

04-29-2003, 10:42 AM

Trailscout,
While some surgeons DO perform surgical foreskin restorations (and have for the last two thousand years), NON-surgical means are superior in the long run. The remaining mucosal skin (forward of the circ scar) can be expanded through tension such that the glans ends up being covered with appropriate protection.

I can provide more information on non-surgical foreskin restoriation if people want to know. I don't know if this is getting too far off-topic for clothes free forum.

One more thought, though, in light of discussion in other threads about wearing genital jewelry: Male circumcision calls visual attention to the penis as much as a Prince Albert would, it seems to me.
All for now.
Roy
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
. . . .

I have serious concerns about attempts to graft skin to reconstruct the foreskin.

Grafted skin does not produce the smegma lubricant needed to help the fake foreskin glide over the glans of the penis. Only natural foreskin produces this vital substance.

Without this lubricant, sex would be painful and the grafted skin chafed and damaged. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

floridanudeman

04-29-2003, 11:09 AM

uncircumsized has any women here ever tried giving oral sex to an uncut man there is alot of smell and is gross head cheese and smegma is not lubricant its sweat uncut is very dirty i must disagree and when god created us we didn't have clothes my penis is covered by underwear most of the time in esence being protected now a nudist might want to be uncut because your penis is exposed and before you have sex with an uncut man he should wash it off first

AlaskaRoy

04-29-2003, 12:00 PM

For those who might be interested in reading some of the arguments against involuntary genital mutilation of children, I'll recommend this link:

http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

Roy

Trailscout

04-29-2003, 01:04 PM

Vin,

I admit giving out unqualified medical advice, but it does not constitute practicing without a license because I am not charging for my advice. However, if you do want to send me a gift of thanks for providing this information, I will try to set up a Paypal account to handle your donations.

AlaskaRoy, Your point is well-taken, if mucosal skin below the scar can be extended over the glans, then you will get the lube you need.

However is there such thing as a "botched" job? As NudeM suggests?

Tiedied, I apologize for calling you "sundried", that was stepping over the line. I will overlook the "Trailscrot" jibe. I have also been called, "Tailscout", but I do not deserve that nickname either.
I happen to be "circed" like you so we are in the same boat. To clarify, you and I do not have a lube problem. I assumed that it would be only be a problem with a grafted or stretched foreskin restoration. AlaskaRoy seems to think otherwise.
I'll let him get the procedure first and report back to us after a year.

Suntied

04-29-2003, 01:33 PM

Ok TRAILSCOUT (every letter in it's proper place),

Are you sure that lubricant thing you are talking about isn't just sweat and goo. I have been with a few women in my years and of the ones I have asked, which aren't alot as I am not smelly or goooooy, they have told me that the cut male penis is much more stimulating and prefered over the uncut. Of coarse this is just my personal opinion, or theirs, so you gentlemen who intend to undo the doings of your parents can have at it. I think me and Trailscout would agree that we will leave our penises (I've never tried to spell that before) ALONE! For you uncut men, I wouldn't know and really don't want to know how your sex matches up to us cutters. Just use what you have and research for your sons sake. Once again, my father is uncircumsized and he had his three sons circumsized... why is that? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Sundried, Tiedied, your mamma cried, and someone lied,
/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Suntied /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
(leave my name alone, I worked hard on it... sniffle, sniffle, whaaaaah)

Vin

04-29-2003, 02:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
I admit giving out unqualified medical advice, but it does not constitute practicing without a license because I am not charging for my advice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said you were practicing medicine without a license. You made at statement that, to the best of my knowledge, is not supported by evidence. I merely asked for your source of information so that I, and anyone else who wants, could determine whether I think it's valid. It's customary in debate to support one's assertions.

Of course, it's possible that you're just expressing your opinion. Given that it was offered in the form of a factual statement, I assumed that you were speaking authoritatively.

NakedGary

04-29-2003, 02:18 PM

I think the uncircumcised or intact male has the better of the two choices by being able to retract the foreskin to look like a typical circumcised male having a loose cut, or just leaving the foreskin naturally covering the head and shaft of the penis, retaining the Protection, sensitivity of the natural intact penis. I have only seen one or two uncircumcised males [in 30+ years of being a nudist] wearing a Prince Albert ring holding the foreskin from covering the head of the penis, and one which had the foreskin over the Prince Albert which looked rather strange and unusual. I can remember when I was young in junior high school I would always retract my foreskin while undressing to take a shower as I wanted to look like a majority of the cut males taking showers, and didn?t want to be the subject of jokes, difference, or laugh, and to clean under the foreskin during a shower you have to retract the foreskin anyway, so no big thing or deal. Since my dating years I have been proud and enjoy my intact natural foreskin sensitivity protection, and natural look, as does 85%-90% of the world male population. I sometimes think to myself those unsightly and uneven circumcisions & scars, & unprotected skin that gets leathery must have some effect on the sensitivity sensation, and protection of the penis. I think you will find that this barbaric mutilation process or practice is completely unnecessary [unless for specific religious or medical reasons] will turn around & be a minority for males in the U.S. as it is in most of the world and Europe. I shutter at the thought that circumcisions are mostly done without much anesthesia by inexperienced student interns who literally have to rip, tear or separate the foreskin, then cut or crush the foreskin off as the tiny baby screams in pain out of site of the parents. Later on in life these men find out that one third to more than half their penile skin, or approximately 15 sq. inches, the size of a 3 x 5" index card has been ripped off without their consent, and someone else has chosen the destiny and less function of their penis for life. The foreskin was put there for a reason and is very capable of taking care of itself without retraction washing or cleaning until it does naturally or by the subject in later years. My thought or suggestion is leave these boys intact and don't mess with their foreskins, let them grow up to look and function naturally, and let them choose the destiny of their own penis.

For nudists and naturists, the function, size, shape, age, or intactness of the body doesn?t matter or should not be of notice or concern to others or yourself. Enjoy people for what they are and the freedom and wonderful experience of nude recreation.

Trailscout

04-29-2003, 05:33 PM

Vin,

I was just speaking in jest earlier, but I don't mind telling you where my opinions come from:
I was a Biology major in college and later I worked as a research assistant to the reference librarian at a medical college. Not only that, I am interested in sex and I read a bit about it from time to time. Working for a medical library at night I had some time on my hands to do some extra reading.

More recently I have visited a few Web sites pertaining to circumcision, some are just soapboxes for people who want to rave in favor of it, some for those who preach against it, and a few are actually medically sound with good information. Recently I ran a Google search to find the specifics.

I think smegma is getting a bum rap. A lot of the unpleasant smell is because the smegma is allowed to putrify. It must be washed off regularly. The body makes more, so regular bathing of the glans should not interfere with lubrication.
Here's a great article by a medical doctor:
How Smegma Serves the Penis (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/)

Croydon

04-29-2003, 07:26 PM

I still stand by my original statement that men in U.S. care way too much about their penis. If you are cut, BIG DEAL, do not cry wolf b/c you feel "robbed" and stop whinning about something you don't have. All these skin restoration equipments are just gimics. They are not different than those pills and lotions promising women big breast. Stop wasting your money on something so unimportant and wasting time to achieve something YOU DO NOT HAVE and CAN NOT have. Many in the medical field especially urology field do not take the whole skin restoration issue seriously. If they did, I am sure majority of urologists would be recommending these skin restoration equipments. That being said, these promises made by these equipmemts, which in most cases are not created by doctors, are FALSE. All these people wish to do is con you and make money off of it.

Finally, just to show you how there's little difference b/w being cut and cut follow this link regarding new findings

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/hl_nm/circumcision_sensitivity_dc_1

Seriously guys, grow up and get over it. Be happy you have you health and a dick for that matter.

04-29-2003, 07:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RT:
RT here again with his penny

I'm happy how I am, it only takes a few minutes longer in the shower to wash your self down there.
RT <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A few minutes? Gee.... how big is it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

04-29-2003, 07:44 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by floridanudeman:
uncircumsized has any women here ever tried giving oral sex to an uncut man there is alot of smell and is gross head cheese and smegma is not lubricant its sweat uncut is very dirty i must disagree and when god created us we didn't have clothes my penis is covered by underwear most of the time in esence being protected now a nudist might want to be uncut because your penis is exposed and before you have sex with an uncut man he should wash it off first <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Being a woman I can tell you from personal experience that circumcised men stink just as bad as those who are not. I won't touch one for any kind of sex unless it has been cleaned off first. You guys don't seem to know much about hygiene. If you think women want to put their mouth on something that has been pissed out of all day and is all sweaty you probably don't get much sex.

I can also tell you that you just posted one hell of a long sentence. (is that what it was?)

Suntied

04-29-2003, 08:42 PM

That was funny Cyndiann... good one!

NakedGary

04-29-2003, 11:08 PM

If one never washed under their armpits the natural body odor after exercise or sweatiness would not be pleasent either.

Even loose cut circumcised males produce smegma which acculmulates in the folds and is deposited on the underware causing body odor. Cut or uncut males should clean and wash the penis area daily or anytime they bath or shower.

Actually some women get turned on by the slight natural musky odor of natural un-accumulated smegma in the genital area especiall during fallatio.

"Croydon": your Yahoo link on sensitivity and cancer is completly inaccurate, flawed and untrue. Being circumcised does not prevent penis cancer, and recent findings and research show that that is uncircumcised males the Smegma acutally acts to nullify the HIV virus through natural aniceptic means, & circumcised males tend to be just as or more susceptal to HIV through friction causing tiny skin abrasions due to the lack of natural lubrication provided the foreskin and smegma.

The pediatrics and AMA in the past have always been pro-circ as Circumcision is a big $$$$ rip-off [no pun intended] & business for the doctors and hospitals in performing this unnecessary unkindest of cuts, and the waiting list for reselling of severed forskins for medical research, grafts, pharmaceutical, & cosmetic research. [thats double dipping and double dollars. Its a different tune today with +50% of new borns being left intact in the west, and these organizations now say this is a unecessary procedure unless for Religious or medical necessity, and the risks outway the loss in protection and function.

Here is some qualified and accurate links from recognized medical organizations on the subject F.Y.I or use:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
http://www.nocirc.org/
www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/)
http://www.circumstitions.com/Glossary.html#SKINONYMS

Croydon

04-30-2003, 05:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NakedGary:
"Croydon": your Yahoo link on sensitivity and cancer is completly inaccurate, flawed and untrue. Being circumcised does not prevent penis cancer, and recent findings and research show that that is uncircumcised males the Smegma acutally acts to nullify the HIV virus through natural aniceptic means, & circumcised males tend to be just as or more susceptal to HIV through friction causing tiny skin abrasions due to the lack of natural lubrication provided the foreskin and smegma.

The pediatrics and AMA in the past have always been pro-circ as Circumcision is a big $$$$ rip-off [no pun intended] & business for the doctors and hospitals in performing this unnecessary unkindest of cuts, and the waiting list for reselling of severed forskins for medical research, grafts, pharmaceutical, & cosmetic research. [thats double dipping and double dollars. Its a different tune today with +50% of new borns being left intact in the west, and these organizations now say this is a unecessary procedure unless for Religious or medical necessity, and the risks outway the loss in protection and function.

[/URL] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cancer? what cancer? The article makes no mention of cancer. READ THE ARTICLE CAREFULLY. The article clearly states that a STUDY by medical researchers concluded and I qoute "there are no significant differences in penile sensation between circumcised and uncircumcised men". I am not sure where you are drawing your conclusion that this study is flawed and untrue. I guess the UROLOGIST and medical researchers who conducted this study are have no credentials and their expertise in this subject are invalid. I did my research on one of the doctors who did this study, Dr. Arnold Melman, and I found that he is well known and is considered the best in his field. It is apparant that you don't wish to take the findings as having truth thus you distort it to something that it isn't in order to validate your belief. Facts do not lie Gary. Whether or not circumcision is unecesary is up to the PARENTS of the child, not the doctors.

florida-david

04-30-2003, 05:41 AM

now now, keep the arguing to a dull roar....

04-30-2003, 07:11 AM

Croyden if you feel this thread is over nothing then why are you still reading it? These guys are entitled to having a different opinion that you do so you get over it.

"Facts do not lie Gary. Whether or not circumcision is unecesary is up to the PARENTS of the child, not the doctors."

And where do most parents go for information and advice? To the doctors that make money on it. Even though the AMA has said there is no medical reasons for circs the actual doctors that do them don't seem too willing to want to stay neutral when giving advice on this.

Croydon

04-30-2003, 09:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Croyden if you feel this thread is over nothing then why are you still reading it? These guys are entitled to having a different opinion that you do so you get over it.

"Facts do not lie Gary. Whether or not circumcision is unecesary is up to the PARENTS of the child, not the doctors."

And where do most parents go for information and advice? To the doctors that make money on it. Even though the AMA has said there is no medical reasons for circs the actual doctors that do them don't seem too willing to want to stay neutral when giving advice on this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, most parents have made up their minds whether or not to circumise their sons before the kid is even born so the opinion of doctors are irrelvent. I just spoke to my father and uncle who are doctors and they both agree that circumision among men have no benefit. It makes no difference BUT they doctors often DO NOT influence parents' decicsions. If they want it done, they do it. If not, they don't.

My point is basically that men who are crying wolf b/c they feel "robbed" of pleasusre need to GET OVER IT. What's been done has been done so GET OVER IT. Nothing you can do to restore something that is no longer there so it is time to GET OVER IT and stop wasting time feeling sorry for yourself.

NakedGary

04-30-2003, 11:50 AM

croydon, Your wrong or didn't read the the article you referenced Re: Yahoo link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/hl_nm/circumcision_sensitivity_dc_1

Click on the links you provided and Read: Here is the quote directly copied from the yahoo link:

"Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and is known to help prevent urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and ""penile cancer, a rare condition."" In the minor surgical operation, the foreskin is removed, which can help prevent bacteria from growing under the fold of skin."

Croydon

04-30-2003, 02:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NakedGary:
croydon, Your wrong or didn't read the the article you referenced Re: Yahoo link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/hl_nm/circumcision_se nsitivity_dc_1 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030429/hl_nm/circumcision_sensitivity_dc_1)

Click on the links you provided and Read: Here is the quote directly copied from the yahoo link:

"Male circumcision is common in North America and elsewhere for religious and cultural reasons and is known to help prevent urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and ""penile cancer, a rare condition."" In the minor surgical operation, the foreskin is removed, which can help prevent bacteria from growing under the fold of skin." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes I read that part but the point of the study and the article is NOT about penile cancer or any of those stuff. The point of the article is to show that there aren't any difference b/w being cut or uncut. You are zero in on a small part of the big picture. The above paragprah is an added info to explain the common reason why people seek out circumsicion.

04-30-2003, 10:53 PM

A couple of years ago I heard Dr. Edel mention that 42% of boy babies were now remaining uncircumsized.
According to what I have read or heard regarding the history of us humans the gods made several attempts at creating man (in their image)and establish control over us. Circumsision was imposed on these later versions to separate those they wanted to be god-like from the earlier versions who had rebelled and intermingled with the natives and who wished to be more nurturing of this planet on which we live.

Croydon

05-01-2003, 11:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fordmustang:

I'm attempting to restore, and hopefully the WIFE will become more of a supporter than so far having the same attitude as Crydon... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>obviously your wife is a smart woman who doesn't see the big deal about your penis. She has better things to worry about than your obession with penis (check my previous message in your "shaft length" poll questions). It is obvious from the two penis threads you started that you have some obession with penis and what men do with theirs. Waaaaay too much time on your hands buddy, way too much

fordmustang

05-01-2003, 01:03 PM

Croydon, Apparently you have just as much time on your hands for petty stuff also, as in keeping track of this thread. You've posted your thoughts and points, why not leave it at that.

Get a life of your own, I ordered mine from Sears & Robuck.

I posted the POLL, as a good humor discussion, as this thread has been heating up a bit.

-------------------------------------------------

The only thing my wife thinks about me wanting to restore, is that I might be wanting to show it off to other women, which is not even close to the issue at hand.....

NakedGary

05-01-2003, 01:29 PM

Administrators,

Thanks for removing the non nudist, non related, self interest ridiculous post by "Jon-Mark"
Re: Foreskin-vs-Circumcized [even spelled wrong!]shaft hair question, and poll.

As I was agreeing with the two previous posts, and posting a reply, I got a error in posting as it was being taken down at the same time.

Here was my comment anyway:

I agree also. The question and poll should be taken off the board by the administrators.

The question of, intactness, and size, and hair status has nothing to do of interest to anyone but you. Size or length when? flacid, arroused, erect or as you get out of 55 degree water just doesn't matter or interest other nudists.

A non nudist question, poll, and subject!

Remind me to lay on my stomach when people like this are around !

Suntied

05-01-2003, 02:27 PM

Thank you Gary!

fordmustang

05-01-2003, 03:29 PM

OOps! Sorry about that POLL, I was just trying to shed some humor to this thread. Please don't blame anyone other than myself for I posted the stupid POLL.

I'll not ever try and be humorous again, and sorry also to those spelling neat nicks out there, my dictionary seems to be misplaced at the moment.... LOL

Croydon

05-01-2003, 03:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NakedGary:
Administrators,

Thanks for removing the non nudist, non related, self interest ridiculous post by "Jon-Mark"
Re: Foreskin-vs-Circumcized [even spelled wrong!]shaft hair question, and poll.

As I was agreeing with the two previous posts, and posting a reply, I got a error in posting as it was being taken down at the same time.

Here was my comment anyway:

I agree also. The question and poll should be taken off the board by the administrators.

The question of, intactness, and size, and hair status has nothing to do of interest to anyone but you. Size or length when? flacid, arroused, erect or as you get out of 55 degree water just doesn't matter or interest other nudists.

A non nudist question, poll, and subject!

Remind me to lay on my stomach when people like this are around ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The poll thread, wasn't written by Jon Mark. Is that what were saying? Not sure

05-01-2003, 04:37 PM

NakedGary,

Is there someone in here with a name similar to mine? You said "Jon-Mark", and my name is Jon-Marc". I know I didn't post that tacky, tasteless subject, so you certainly didn't mean me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Stevedaoust

05-01-2003, 05:22 PM

Ok, ok time for a bit of education. Reconstruction isn't, but can be, new skin sewn on. Many doctors find sewing a new skin, to act as a foreskin, on EXCEEDINGLY difficult because of the BODY HAIR problem. Think about it, what part of your body DOES NOT have hair in one degree or another. Who wants a whisker where there shouldn't be. But in fact, what it involves is, over a period time of let's say several years, one can STRETCH the existing skin by means of stretching and taping the skin, over a small ball or attached to a clip of sorts, to achieve a final result of a newly grown-replaced skin that extends over the head of the penis to mimic a foreskin. This method resembles when an over-weight person-then-weight lost or a pregnant woman experiences extra skin. Skin does adapt and this method is carried over to this process. It DOES work, I've seen results myself. AS for sexual acts, it is said that uncut men's partners say that sex is easier when a man is uncut. I guess because of the extra skin.
Most modern men have been cut because of that was THE THING to do in X-decades but now many people are finding that it's unnecessary and expensive. Most hospitals rate it as COSMETIC surgery and insurances aren't covering it anymore.
My roomate, matter of fact was HALF-cut as a baby because his parents were concerned about his going into the army and THEY would do it anyways (mind you, this was older times). So his parents elected to beat the army to the punch-line and had his half done. But this was true with his brother. When he had his done, the Doctor slipped and his brother STILL has to scar to deal with. Would "I" subject a son of mine to THIS possibility???
If "I" had to do over again, I would have refused to be cut, period.

mel

05-02-2003, 10:07 AM

I was circumcised, as is all my friends that I know. Thats how I am and I wouldn't want it any other way.

PaulC

05-02-2003, 02:13 PM

Our parents decided for us and it is our job to decide for our sons. I'm happy to be uncut, even though my high school was 98% Jewish and we had nude swimming classes.

To try to answer Nudehikers question
"I do have a question for any uncircumcised males who enjoy hiking nude. Is there any danger of snagging the foreskin on branches as you walk along? I think this would primarily be a problem for pre-adolescents with less than fully developed penises, but is it also an issue for adult men? Is that why loincloths are sometimes worn by men in the tropical rainforest, for foreskin protection?"

I spend alot of time nude hiking and working outdoors nude. Never had any problems. I guess if you got your hands and feet snagged you might get your foreskin snagged. Just watch whewre you are going.

NakedGary

05-02-2003, 02:50 PM

Jon-Marc

Sorry about the confusion on replys, posts etc.
FordMustang says [a couple of posts prior to yours] that he posted that poll as humuor. Is gone now so unable to go back to it. There is other "nicks" with mark but none with marc that I know. Sometimes the last reply is thought to be the subject or author of a topic, and sometimes its confusing who is answering when quoting the original post or reply when people duplicate the original message in a reply post.

Anyone who has read or even posted on this board knows that that you [Jon-Marc #2292] are one of the most respected, loyal, and looked up to source of intresting, and to the fact true nudist and naturist information on the bulletin board and on INA/Clothes free site. With +945 Posts, and moving to be a full time resident nudist at a park, You Must Be! I [and most of the bulletin board members] always look for & enjoy your quality, intresting, & accurate information.

Thanks for your quality effort, time and work in making the INA ClothesFree Web and Network the Best in the World...There is nothing that comes close anywhere.

"NakedGary"

05-02-2003, 06:26 PM

Thank You, NakedGary, for the kind words. However, the buyer of my home changed his mind and won't be buying it--unless he changes his mind again.

I guess I wasted my money joining a resort I can't even enjoy because of the distance. I can't afford to maintain two homes, and I'm still making mortgage payments on this one. My plans are on hold for now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Sassy

05-14-2003, 06:32 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Mostly genlemen, my young nephews were not circumsized due to the fact that my progressive thinking sister in law considerd the pain for her young sons when this issue came up. She resists hurting all people and these two little boys especially.
I believe that this practice is becoming less and less common and unnecessary as it seen as doing nothing special to the boy/man.
So, accept what your parents did to you for the reasons they did. Enjoy your penis and when you have a son, consider if you would do this or not.
Oh yes, women will love you, cut or not.

Kim

05-23-2003, 03:55 PM

I would not know about circumsizing and the differences because I don't have a penis but why does it matter? Does it affect your sex life? I think you should leave your penises alone and just leave them how your parents wanted them to be.

05-23-2003, 06:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Kim:
I would not know about circumsizing and the differences because I don't have a penis but why does it matter? Does it affect your sex life? I think you should leave your penises alone and just leave them how your parents wanted them to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why does it matter? Read the thread my dear so we don't have to repeat ourselves.

Does it affect your sex life? Yes, it does for both the man and the woman. Again, your questions would have found answers if you had only read the posts.

cdg-fr

05-24-2003, 12:15 PM

As a male born in 1959 in North America, my parents did what most parents did and had me circumcized - so I too would be like Dad - born in 1931.

Now in my case, in 1990 when my son was born, we were in Europe where the prevalence of circumcizion is much less. So my wife and I decided to leave our sons intact for a whole number of medical reasons.

Interestignly enough, our French medical doctor who had trained in North America suggested that when a 2 year old or 3 year old asked about why his penis was different than mine, the fast answer for that age is mine is a Daddy penis and yours is a Kid penis. You know what - my boys have never asked and don't seem to care why their penis is different than theirs. Also, my guess is about 1/2 of the kids of their generation are intact now. And when I discuss with other parents why they might circumsize their sons, it seems to have more to do with custom (religious, or to be the same) than medical reasons. When we discuss the impact on sensitivity and sex life - some change their minds and not cut their sons.

With each generation, new information becomes available and we should use it responsibly.

Nude&Happy

06-08-2003, 05:37 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sassy:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Mostly genlemen, my young nephews were not circumsized due to the fact that my progressive thinking sister in law considerd the pain for her young sons when this issue came up. She resists hurting all people and these two little boys especially.
I believe that this practice is becoming less and less common and unnecessary as it seen as doing nothing special to the boy/man.
So, accept what your parents did to you for the reasons they did. Enjoy your penis and when you have a son, consider if you would do this or not.
Oh yes, women will love you, cut or not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nude&Happy

06-08-2003, 05:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Kim:
I would not know about circumsizing and the differences because I don't have a penis but why does it matter? Does it affect your sex life? I think you should leave your penises alone and just leave them how your parents wanted them to be. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was circumsized at age 13. It seems to me that the penis is easier to keep clean now, and does not catch the lint from cotton underwear. I would recommend it.

rdgall

06-09-2003, 01:10 PM

I am a new member so this is my first post. I was born in 1925. I nor any of my older brothers were circumsized. The brother next older than me was in the army during world war 2. They circumsized him because in combat you can go days without being able to shower. You do have to keep it clean under that forskin.

David77

06-09-2003, 02:26 PM

I'm surprised! I never heard of that. I will now have to ask my long time friend whether he is circumcised and whether the army got a hold of any persons he knows of, and use their knife on their forskin. He was in the infantry during WW2.
I was in the navy then, but I was not circumcised then (but I am now - don't ask as I won't tell why I, in later years, foolishly took a doctor's advice for circumcision).

06-09-2003, 07:58 PM

Other than for some religion's belief that it's necessary, I see no reason to circumcize. I've gone 57 years without it. As for cleaning, all one has to do is pull the skin back and clean under it. I was in the Air Force, and they didn't force me to be circumcized. Maybe it's only the Army.

mo.

06-11-2003, 07:00 PM

my father, (now deceased) and my son both were uncircumsized, father at age 53, and son at age 13, both got infections, and had to be circumsized, therefore i think its better to be done at birth(cause i dont remember it or if it hurt) than to wait til later. its been said that it is more hygenic.

David77

06-11-2003, 09:07 PM

Usually when a person gets an infection (anywhere) they take an antibiotic, and no need to cut the body part off!
I have never heard of anyone who got an infected penis, but I'm not saying that it is impossible. My moto;

<center> CLEAN IT - DON'T CUT IT</CENTER>

GO AWAY

07-26-2003, 06:25 PM

I am currently restoring my foreskin...and It's awesome....you guys should try it...

cderekg

07-28-2003, 07:45 AM

I have been facinated by this thread, simply because of the diversity (and forcefulness) of some of the opinions! Somewhere earlier on, someone wrote that circumcision was a private choice, to which Cindyann rightly pointed out that since almost all males are circumcised at birth, they do not have a say in whether or not they want the procedure done.
What is a matter of choice, however, is whether or not someone wants to restore their foreskin or not. I am not sure there is a determinable difference in sexual pleasure between cut and uncut men (in fact, how could we ever know? We cannot have both sensations). I also suspect that from a woman's point of view, you could have fantastic sex with one guy who is uncut, and then horrible sex with another who is also uncut. I personally do not believe that there is a discernable difference; I have had very satisfying, healthy sexual relationships with all of my girlfriends over the years, and I am circumcised, and have never wanted to be any other way.
I do agree that there isn't necessarily a reason to have boys circumcised anymore, except religious reasons, and I do not have the moral authority to tell anyone that their religion is misguided in this respect, especially since I myself have never experienced any difficulties from being circumcised.
My point is that there seems to be a great deal of passion generated by an issue that I think is a very personal one, and what is "right" to do is a decision that can only be reached by men and families by their own beliefs, feelings, and experiences. This is a very individual, personal subject, as I think that the contentiousness of some of the posts show. It is almost like arguing over religion; everyone's experience seems true and valid to themselves, and there always seems to be someone else who has an opposite (and equally valid) point of view.
Good luck to all of you in whatever you decide to do!

Jochanaan

07-30-2003, 02:39 PM

I too was circumcised soon after birth, and I've never felt sexually handicapped. (In my current single state, it doesn't matter since I am committed to Biblical chastity, but that's beside the point.)

Remember, the mind is the most important sexual organ! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

theoldman

07-31-2003, 02:53 AM

I've never paid much attention to this topic (here or anyplace else). My thoughts have always been, you are or you aren't, but a friend has been diagnosed with cancer of the penis & depending on how advanced it is faces amputation. I looked up several sites on the subject (either as stated or penil cancer) and several mention it is more prevalent in uncircumsized men over 60. Reason has to do with hygene; of not retracting the foreskin & cleaning properly. I suppose this cancer, like skin cancer, has its beginnings in times long past (skin cancers today are a result of overexposure to the sun 20-25 years ago) so bad health habits when young result in bad things when you get older. Another example of that would be smoking).

I'm not writing this to advocate circumsision, what I want to do is alert uncircumcised men & boys to what I read & warn them to practice good health habits in keeping themselves clean.

andy_ma

08-10-2003, 02:29 PM

I am not circumcised either and have none of the "issues" others have mentioned. I would not want to be circumcised nor would I have any of my sons done if I had them. I just prefer being uncircumcised.

My 2 cents worth . . .

Griffin

08-13-2003, 09:30 PM

Foreskin restoration is a worthy, valuable and advised means of getting a modicum of what an intact male would have. I began restoring in 1995 and had full coverage by 1997 to 1998. It is enormously affirming and gratifying to be, at least, visually appearing to be intact as nature intended. The additional nerve endings, sensitivity and mechanics are awesome. By using T-tape and elastic bands pinned to my socks, I was able to stretch remaining skin over time and get lots of new skin that stays there. The glans was meant to be an internal organ, covered when not in use, and it is wonderful to look like I should. We left our son intact when he was born in 1975, and we believe circumcision is ridiculous and a form of sexual assault that most parents are too out of touch to understand.

08-13-2003, 10:44 PM

Anybody had any problem with hemorroids while restoring foreskin? /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

nakedtime

08-13-2003, 11:00 PM

I am circumsised!!!!!! No complaints here.

Griffin

08-14-2003, 08:40 PM

It is typical and common for circumcised males to say they are pleased and accepting of their missing foreskin. But how would they know? Does a blind man from birth know what he is missing? Few intact men opt to have their foreskins clipped unless they get caught up in some subculture of males who shame, goad or push them into having it done. More is better. Nerve endings, blood vessels, moveable skin, specialized micro-muscular tissue, and special structures are in the foreskin. Not too mention the greater sensitivity and sheen of the glans itself. One amazing thing I quickly found after my glans was first covered by new skin was the marvelous new sensitivity of my glans. If my new foreskin rolled back and my underwear touched my glans, it was quite a sensation proving that the keratinzed skin of the exposed glan was gone forever. Beyond the greater feeling, it is wonderful to have the affirmation of having undone the uninvited assault by the circumcisers when I was a newborn.

Stevedaoust

08-15-2003, 06:58 AM

One of my friends told me about a system of using RINGS to hold the skin in place when you're un-circumsing. Does anyone have or can send me this info??? I've used the T-tape method in the past and it works but the problem with it is that when you sweat, you have a bugger of a time with it. Feel free to send me any info you may have to JEJSLD@webtv.net

Steve

Polarbear1

08-22-2003, 07:18 AM

Try a search for "o'ring" + "foreskin" + "restoration", and/or ".PDF".
A series of hardware store type rubber o'rings are used to keep the skin in front of the head of the penis to put tension on both the inner and outer skin. There is several versions of a single .PDF file out there that details the concept. The cost is less than $1 each (0.20 to 1.00) and you may need 3-15 rings of different sizes.

GO AWAY

08-22-2003, 07:36 AM

www.newforeskin.biz (http://www.newforeskin.biz)

Fresh Air

08-24-2003, 12:23 PM

Be careful with the "ring" thing. Because of the structure of the vascular system of the penis, a ring may cause problems. (lack of flow leads to swelling, leads to lack of flow, leads to more swelling, etc.) We studied a few unfortunate cases in some of our urology lectures. Amputation of that member is nothing any man wants...so becareful.

As for the circumsized/uncircumsized topic. Everyone should seek contentment when it comes to their penises. I am circumsized and content with that. Perhaps I am "missing" something, but like someone reffered too, "ignorance is bliss". I don't feel like I am missing anything and everything works well enough for me.

I don't think it is kind to try to make those who are circumsized feel as if they are missing anything or are less than perfect. Circumsizion makes us no less of men and no less of fathers.

Functionally, it is clear that some stuff is missing. However, nerologically speaking, it is very difficult to verify if sensation is missing, when taking into account the process of postpartum invervation and cerebral maps. All we have is subjective views at best.

I agree that it is not something that we should routinely do to newborns. I also believe in the freedom of religious view, though, and a parents right to raise their child as they see fit.

Fresh Air

Griffin

08-24-2003, 01:43 PM

It goes without saying that no one should be made to feel his penis is lacking because he was circumcised. A baby boy is helpless to have been able to change that, but as enlightened parents we can choose to not have that happen to our sons. My wife and I certainly chose wholeness for our son when he was born 28 years because we saw circumcision as an outrage and mutilation. There was plenty of evidence in 1975 that it was not necessary and that the amount of body structure removed absolutely cannot be justified. Sadly too many of us circumcised males have taken the position, "Well, I was cut, so what's the use of wondering about it? What's the use of complaining? I can't miss what I never had?" But as human beings, we are totally capable of stopping doing things that we now realize was a mistake. We can keep our future sons whole and intact. Oddly, once males look into what the foreskin is and does, contains and how it functions, they stop trivializing this "little piece of skin." There is a real flaw in the thinking that parents should be free to raise their children as they see fit. There are clearly numerous limits, and child protection agency can give you a list. It is illegal in America to have a daughter be genitally mutilated. It should be the same for males. Why the double-standard? It will take time, but this nation will come around to recognize male circumcision for what it is: a painful, medically unnecesary and unethical act on a helpless, non-consenting person. We can't cut off ear lobes or toes of infants because of some parental fetish. Bottom line is that nature put the foreskin on human males and all the other male mammals for protection, lubrication, sensitivity, the mechanics of sex, and other purposes. And having restored my foreskin for full coverage years ago, through stretching, I can tell you that the foreskin belongs there. I truly know what I had been missing.

Jochanaan

08-24-2003, 04:18 PM

One more comment: Many have expressed concern about decreased sensitivity in a circumcised penis. I suppose that's a legitimate concern if you're trying to decide for your son, but I am not concerned about it for a very simple reason: I was, and will be if it comes to that, much more concerned about my lover's satisfaction than my own.

And from what I've read in other posts, I suspect that "cut or uncut" isn't really a determining factor in women's choices of partners.

(OK, that was two more! Oh well...At least I've tried not to be too "cutting".)

Griffin

08-24-2003, 05:36 PM

You speak about the "satisfaction of your partner" in the context that your being circumcised is an advantage to her. I don't know the source of your information, but there is also plenty to be found in the literature and female testimonies that intercourse with an intact male is more pleasurable, with less chafing and unpleasant rubbing. For example, in her 414-page book,"Sex As Nature Intended," Kristen O'Hara shares again and again about women who have had sex with intact and cut males and they say it was more gentler and pleasurable when there was a folding and rolling foreskin gliding and lubricating. I certainly can say that was true for my wife before I restored myself.
It is important to note that the glans was never intended to be an external structure "left out to dry." Like the eye with an eyelid or the tongue inside the mouth, the glans penis is an internal organ exposed temporarily to the air and world to do its functions, but otherwise kept inside its warm, moist, lubricating, protective cover, in this case, the foreskin.It is quite amazing how much more glassy, sleek and deeper colored the glans become (or is originally) once it has been re-covered by a foreskin -- quite different from the dry, keratinized (calloused), even pitted glans that must rub constantly against underwear, bedclothes, pajammas or whatever. There simply is not that mucous membrane of the foreskin to nurture and protect it and ensure that nerve endings are closer to the surface for sensitivity.

Griffin

09-08-2003, 06:51 PM

I restored my foreskin, but recently my company dropped the HMO from our insurance and instructed us to find privated doctors covered by Blue Cross. I intentionally went in search of a new physician who does not advocate circumcision. I did not want my health care dollars supporting a circ-friendly doc. Well, I had to go to my old doctor's office at Cigna Healthcare to get a records transfer. They gave me a printout of my physical exam notes from September 2002.
What a nice thing to read this in the text:
Genitalia: Normal uncircumcised penis.

Yes, my foreskin restoration caused the doctor to make that erroneous observation. Although I was cut at birth, I restored to a point where an older physician apparently thought my restored foreskin was the real thing.
Nice feeling indeed

bravebare

10-01-2003, 01:32 PM

I know what you are missing. I myself have not been cut. I have considered it but never saw a real need to do so.I don,t think it will make much
difference as long as the penis works properly.

florida-david

10-01-2003, 04:05 PM

GRIFFIN- congrats on the restoration. it makes a big difference from all the literature i have read. i did not circumsize my boys and am currenty undergoing restoration. i hope all people (especially in the U.S.) wake up and stop mutilating their boys

aunaturelone

10-01-2003, 06:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I suspect that "cut or uncut" isn't really a determining factor in women's choices of partners. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course circumcision has no effect on a man's ability to please his lover. That is entirely a matter of good technique and sensitivity to her needs. Once you're inside she can't tell the difference. For that matter, somewhere in the foreplay mine always gets retracted and there it stays until we're done.

I personally don't see all the fuss over it. If I were circumcised I'd probably been teased less in the locker room. Other than that, I don't see any point in worrying about it one way or another.

There is a bit of aesthetic discrimination against foreskins in this country. I've heard plenty of (US) women who sounded put off or even disgusted by an unedited penis. The ones I've encountered quickly abandoned their bias once we got to know each other but the bias does exist.

It's important to wash and rinse regularly and get right on top of yeast if it should show up. It is interesting to note that many HMOs no longer automatically circumcise. It's still free on a newborn but you have to request it.

Fresh Air

10-01-2003, 10:26 PM

bravebare,

It is actually more likely to make a difference if done as an adult compared to being circumsized as an infant. Just because of the way neural pathways and programing works.

Either way it works. It's not really one of those things that matters in the end.

Fresh Air

Stevedaoust

10-02-2003, 06:35 AM

I know a few guys that weren't cut as kids and they got teased but out of not being educated. Uncut kids get it the most in the U.S. because it's very common for kids/guys to be cut at a young age, so thus they don't know that an uncut man IS the NORM and they're the odd man out.
QUESTION: Did anyone see the NIP AND TUCK episode when the Doctors son (being uncut) tried to circumsize himself becuase his g/f got turned off because his g/f seen his foreskin while they were trying to have sex and got turned off and passed out after he made the initial cut, from seeing all the blood? The things we go thru to make other people happy....

Steve

10-02-2003, 04:11 PM

When I was in my late 20's, and 8-year-old nephew told his mother (my sister) that my penis looked "funny". He's circuncised and I'm not. He said it looked as though mine had been cut off on the end. My sister told him that his had been cut, but no one explained circumcision to him, and I didn't feel it was my job to do it.

I had a 16-year-old boy ask one time many years ago, "What's circumcision?" I was too uncomfortable with the subject to tell him. Besides, he was no relation to me, and I told him to ask his dad. I'm not answering such questions for other people's children just to have the parents get upset with me.

Trailscout

10-02-2003, 05:01 PM

I am concerned that it is impossible to truly restore a foreskin. The excised tissue produces smegma lubricant. The grafted or stretched skin would obviously lack this lubricating material and cause chafing between the fake foreskin and the glans. Unless you can show otherwise, I would be reluctant to attempt such a procedure.

thunderchicken

10-05-2003, 12:55 AM

To answer the original question, NO. I don't ever wish I wasn't circumcised. Frankly I'm glad to have it gone. I think trying to restore a foreskin is just asking for trouble as you can't really restore anything close to the original anyway and what you may wind up with may in fact cause more problems with smegma and infections. I would count my blessings by not having to deal with such things anymore rather than trying to restore a breeding ground for it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Rik

10-05-2003, 10:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by thunderchicken:
To answer the original question, NO. I don't ever wish I wasn't circumcised. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But don't you think you should have been given the choice?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I would count my blessings by not having to deal with such things anymore rather than trying to restore a breeding ground for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mutilation should not be a substitute for (very) simple hygiene.

Rik

aunaturelone

10-05-2003, 12:29 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>They circumsized him because in combat you can go days without being able to shower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That sound's very unlikely. Infections in uncut penises are rare, even if you do nothing at all for weeks to keep them clean. They are designed to be very low maintainence items. If an infection does set in, it is usually a yeast infection; mildly irritating and goes away by itself eventually.

If you want to wash it at every opportunity, all it takes is a cup of water, maybe a dab of soap if you want and a dry cloth. I've NEVER seen anyone clean their uncut penis in a group shower and I was in the military for 6 years and have been visiting nudist resorts for 25.

The US army was the only one in Europe that wasn't almost entirely uncircumcised. That didn't hurt the combat readiness of the Russian, the Germans or British a bit.

Adult circumcision is not to be taken lightly. It typically involves days of forced inactivity and weeks of pain. You wouldn't be fit for the rigors of combat for a month.

One reason why US women prefer cut males is the perception (whether true or not) of greater hygene. They have no idea whether you stay clean or not and experienced women will tell you they are more likely to get yeast infections after having vaginal intercourse with uncut males. (That problem is easy to solve by making inspection and cleaning a part of foreplay. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

Another factor is that some women have an aesthetic issue. If most all you ever see are circ'ed penises, pretty soon you MAY start to think of the rare uncirc'ed penis as odd, then unnatural, then unattractive. The simple answer to this is to retract your foreskin (better yet, have your partner do it /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) at the beginning of foreplay. Now she sees what she is expecting and will forget about it. Very quickly it stops being a issue and uncirc'ed no longer looks odd.

In terms of the pleasure she feels there is no difference. Uncirc'ed penises probably have a slight advantage if her natural lubrication is low while circumcised ones have the advantage in high lube scenarios. Lubrication is so easily adjusted I can't imagine it mattering. Everything else is purely psychological and subjective.

I really did try to circumcise myself at 13 because of all the teasing in the locker room. Managed to scratch the surface but it hurt so much I figured it wasn't worth the effort. (I suppose if I'd had local anethetic I might have succeeded.) I ended up just wearing it retracted for showers. The teasing went away but then I had to worry about getting erect from the stimulation. Fortumately THAT was something I could control, else it would have meant even more teasing! .

Nobody ever teased me about it when I went skinnydipping or played strip poker or streaked. I think those activities were shared with a more tolerant class of people.

By the time I hit 11th grade the teasing was no longer an issue and I stopped worrying about it. I posed for art classes, went to nude recreational venues, threw mixed nude/clothed parties and even did strip-o-grams through my early 20s and nobody ever mentioned it.

desertdude

10-05-2003, 04:37 PM

Parents often made decisions for their children's best interest, of both a medical and not medical basis. To say you didn't have a choice in the matter is just rediculous, like crying over spilt milk or what if's. Although I wasn't circumcised until I was 12 years old, I'm glad it was done and it would of prevented a lot of problems had it been for me when I was a baby. My wife and I agreed to have our son circumcised when he was a baby for his own benefit and we are glad we did and would gladly do it again. It's hopeful that the majority of parents in this country feel the same way and do the right thing for their kids. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Griffin

10-05-2003, 06:03 PM

I find it inconceivable that anyone who was circumcised very young, including at birth, can truly say they were glad they were cut. How do you know you don't miss it? Sounds like what a person blind since birth might say. We could accept that, but we could hardly say that person is "better off" for the lack of eyesight. Does being born or not having some body structure-- lacking the full wholeness of a fully healthy person -- mean that person doesn't miss something?
Parents can and should do all they can to allow their offspring to have everything that nature gave them, i.e. males with foreskin, females with labia, clitoris and other body structures that are sometime excised. It should not be the choice of others (parents) to amputate a healthy body structure to satisfy their wishes, culture, prejudices. Because such a small percentage of males choose circumcision for themselves, it stands to reason that it is not a well-chosen or popular option.
For the writer who said foreskin restoration would only re-establish the "smegma issue," it just isn't so. The only real moisture that is produced under a new foreskin -- and I have full coverage from restoration -- is just plain sweat from sweat glands. If sweat under your foreskin is an issue, then so should it be on the rest of your body -- and I doubt you want to start cutting off more body parts.

10-05-2003, 06:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by desertdude:
Although I wasn't circumcised until I was 12 years old, I'm glad it was done and it would of prevented a lot of problems had it been for me when I was a baby. My wife and I agreed to have our son circumcised when he was a baby for his own benefit and we are glad we did and would gladly do it again. It's hopeful that the majority of parents in this country feel the same way and do the right thing for their kids. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The right thing? You've given no reasons why you think it is right. Got any? Did you know there aren't any? You sliced up your child for nothing. He could have ended up without a penis just to make you feel better.

The rate of circumcision is falling as time goes on and that is how it should be. It would fall faster if the docs weren't feeding parents a lot of lies.

florida-david

10-05-2003, 08:32 PM

cyndiann - the doctors are making a lot of money in the circumcision, and this useless cosmetic mutilation of the penis is paid for by all the insured, including you and me. so us people who realize a foreskin serves a useful purpose are paying for those who do not want to look into the foreskin facts, yet are willing to make the doctors rich. now this is really annoying.....

Griffin

10-05-2003, 09:55 PM

Some of these posts reflect an attitude that, no matter what, the parent gets the last word and can do what he/she/they darn well please regarding the welfare and body of their children. Sadly, bizarrely and perversely, circumcision alone has been the only surgery where the medical world has let parents dictate it being done. In all other surgeries, parents cannot just go say, "We want this procedure done, so do it!" Medical ethics and judgment prevent it. Circumcision really is a painful and radical form of cosmetic surgery. It's elective surgery, though typically not elective for the victim.
Once parents recognize what genital integrity truly is, why sovereignty over one's own body is fundamental to human rights and most of all that circumcision is invasive, primitive and mindlessly cruel, they will respect the beautiful whole creation that is the male body with ALL its parts. You who are defiantly ignoring this and saying you are going to cut your sons or are glad you already have face the fact that the rate of cicumcision is thankfully falling so that your sons will be minorities in foreskin status, and they may, like I and others, resent that their parents were short-sighted and had it done to us. Our son, 28, thanks us for having the instincts to say no to the circumcisers. At a minimum, parents should let the foreskin owner ultimately make the choice if it stays or goes, as he would getting a tattoo, splitting his tongue or shaving his head on a regular basis. It's all about social justice, respect and being enlightened. It's all about ending the trivializing of the foreskin and recognizing it is part of the wonderful beauty of creation. And if you are a true naturist, it is all about what nature intended, and we should respect nature's great gifts. And we can be more civilized. Civilization, after all, is just a slow process of learning to be kind.

TXK NUDE

10-06-2003, 04:24 AM

Horse Poop! Do you realize that I, as a parent, am held LEGALLY responsible for the health and welfare of my children? Of course I have the final say as to what is good or bad for my child! He is too young to make that decision for himself! I cannot, legally or ethically, leave decisions of health and well being up to my two year old, or my two month old! How STUPID do you think I am? And since I AM the one ultimately responsible, I chose to have them both cut, both for health, social, and aesthetic reasons. My choice...not yours.

As for your crack about being uncircumsized is what naturism is all about, I disagree. That is your opinion! My opinion and understanding is that naturism is about BODY ACCEPTANCE...learning to accept your body for what it is, and accepting others for what their body shape and size is! Trying to restore something you never knew you had is NOT body acceptance! You preach long and hard (no pun intended) about the benefits of a foreskin, but how do you know? If you are cut, then you have never experienced what having a foreskin is like...and if you are uncut, how do you know it's better than being cut? Your circular logic is truly dizzying, and ridiculous! I happen to know many older men who were not circumsized as children that now have prostate and/or testicular cancer...diseases that they firmly believe they have because of their foreskin. They have searing pain when they urinate, and erectile dysfunction that even Viagra won't cure. While I know that these diseases and problems can occur in men with circumsision, it is medically proven that there is a higher occurance of these problems in "uncut" men. How do I know? I worked in the medical profession for years, and have spoken with both the men, and their doctors!

Now, I am not going to try to convince you that circumsision is best, I agree that there is some risk involved in this or any medical proceedure, including foreskin restoration. However, I am going to tell you to NOT judge me for being the best parent I can be, or ridicule me because I am cut, and choose to remain that way! In return, i won't mock or ridicule you for being uncut, or belittle your choice to leave your children uncut. It's your choice, and it is my choice. Leave it at that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Rik

10-06-2003, 04:37 AM

10-06-2003, 04:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Horse Poop! Do you realize that I, as a parent, am held LEGALLY responsible for the health and welfare of my children? Of course I have the final say as to what is good or bad for my child! He is too young to make that decision for himself! I cannot, legally or ethically, leave decisions of health and well being up to my two year old, or my two month old! How STUPID do you think I am? And since I AM the one ultimately responsible, I chose to have them both cut, both for health, social, and aesthetic reasons. My choice...not yours. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But there are no health reasons for having it done if you chose to have it done. If there were a pre-existing health problem the doctor would have suggested it but that rarely happens right after birth but years later and only by a very small amount of people and I really doubt that both your sons had the same problem at birth. That would have made as much sense as having your son's tonsils taken out at birth just in case they cause problems later, and tonsils created problems many more times than a foreskin does. Or why not take out the appendix at birth? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

As for your crack about being uncircumsized is what naturism is all about, I disagree. That is your opinion! My opinion and understanding is that naturism is about BODY ACCEPTANCE...learning to accept your body for what it is, and accepting others for what their body shape and size is! Trying to restore something you never knew you had is NOT body acceptance! You preach long and hard (no pun intended) about the benefits of a foreskin, but how do you know? If you are cut, then you have never experienced what having a foreskin is like...and if you are uncut, how do you know it's better than being cut?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Probably because all the scientific evidence says so??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Your circular logic is truly dizzying, and ridiculous! I happen to know many older men who were not circumsized as children that now have prostate and/or testicular cancer...diseases that they firmly believe they have because of their foreskin. They have searing pain when they urinate, and erectile dysfunction that even Viagra won't cure. While I know that these diseases and problems can occur in men with circumsision, it is medically proven that there is a higher occurance of these problems in "uncut" men. How do I know? I worked in the medical profession for years, and have spoken with both the men, and their doctors! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please provide references for the above statements. Personally I think it is ummm... horse poop. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

Now, I am not going to try to convince you that circumsision is best, I agree that there is some risk involved in this or any medical proceedure, including foreskin restoration. However, I am going to tell you to NOT judge me for being the best parent I can be, or ridicule me because I am cut, and choose to remain that way! In return, i won't mock or ridicule you for being uncut, or belittle your choice to leave your children uncut. It's your choice, and it is my choice. Leave it at that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One problem with that. Whatever information you used to make that decision is no longer valid. Do yourself a huge favor and do a little research online about this and find out the real story, especially before cutting up your own flash and blood again.

10-06-2003, 04:45 AM

Side note....

I understand it is illegal to dock the tails and clip the ears of dogs in Great Britain. They say that cutting animals for cosmetic reasons is cruel. I wish they would do that in this country but now I am transgressing.

The point I want to make is how ironic that you can't cut up an animal for esthetic reasons but you can a human baby.

Something to think about....

Croydon

10-06-2003, 06:19 AM

On normal circumstances, I wouldn't agree with TXK Nude. I rarely agree with him but i have to agree with him onn his above statement.

TXK is a father and as a father he has a choice of whether he wants his son circumcised or not and that choice should be RESPECTED, whether we agree or not. TXK, I respect your decision to circumcise your son.

I disagree with the reasons. Other than sanitary reasons, there are no concrete proof that being uncircumcise or circumcise have benefits. Yes, many believe that being uncircumcise brings more sexual pleasure. That may be true but it hasn't been proven. Studies haven't proven that...studies have shown a correlation between being uncut and having better sexual experiences. Correlation isn't causation. As far as the medical community knows, this is all a theoryy.
On the flip side, there are no proof stating that being cut prevents certain diseases. Researchers say that being cut MAY and I repeat MAY prevent certin infections/diseases, but they do not have proof. That being said, it doesn't matter if you are cut or uncut. The only precaution is that if a parent decides to leave his/her son uncut, the parent must teach him how to clean his penis thoroughly.

If you are cut, how can you speak of the benefits of being uncut. Excuse me, if you for got, YOU ARE CUT. How can you know of benefits. What you read online doesn't constitute as knowledge. Those who are uncut, how can you state being uncut is better? Have you cut the skin yet to figure it out? All in all, what you believe is all from what you read. Many inn medical community are divided about circumcision but one thing many doctors will say is that what they believe is a THEORY, there have been no real and EVIDENTIAL proof to believe what they believe. That being said, their opinion is based on personal feelings

I think we all should respect TXK's decision. You did what you had to do. If I were a father, I too, would have him circumcise.

Rik

10-06-2003, 06:53 AM

Croydon,

Unless I've misinterpreted it, nothing in your post suggests any reason why it is ok to mutilate babies and therfore why anyone should respect a parent's decision to have their infant son circumcised.

The human body is designed pretty much to take care of itself but we all know that sometimes things go wrong. When things go wrong we are sometimes fortunate enough to be able to elect to have surgery to put it right but I can't think of anything that is so likely to go wrong for the whole of the male population that we have to forestall it by such drastic means as circumcision.

Furthermore TXK said "I chose to have them both cut, both for health, social, and aesthetic reasons." Social and aesthetic reasons? Surely he is imposing, in the most permanent and unreversable way, his views of what does and doesn't look good on someone who can't speak for themseves? Sure that's OK if you're talking about dressing the baby in a certain way, or cutting their hair in a certain way but to circumcise for aesthetic reasons is surely tantamount to physical abuse.

Supposing TXK thought it would look good for his son to be tattoed across his forehead at birth - lots of people get tattoed for aesthetic reasons - would you still respect his right to be 'legally responsible for the welfare of his children'?

The bottom line is that it's not about whether you get better sex, or whether it looks good or whether there's some unproven theory that your chances of getting cancer reduce from 1 in 100 to 1 in 50 but about giving people the right to choose what happens to their own bodies. Obviously as parents we sometimes have no choice but to take medical decisions on behalf of children but routine circumcision of babies is not, in itself, a medical decision that needs to be taken.

Rik

10-06-2003, 01:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
On normal circumstances, I wouldn't agree with TXK Nude. I rarely agree with him but i have to agree with him onn his above statement.

TXK is a father and as a father he has a choice of whether he wants his son circumcised or not and that choice should be RESPECTED, whether we agree or not. TXK, I respect your decision to circumcise your son.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, he has the right to make that decision under most conditions but should he have made it without doing the research on the necessity of it? Should he permanently alter his sons' bodies without knowing why it should and should not be done?

Croydon

10-06-2003, 03:55 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
On normal circumstances, I wouldn't agree with TXK Nude. I rarely agree with him but i have to agree with him onn his above statement.

TXK is a father and as a father he has a choice of whether he wants his son circumcised or not and that choice should be RESPECTED, whether we agree or not. TXK, I respect your decision to circumcise your son.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, he has the right to make that decision under most conditions but should he have made it without doing the research on the necessity of it? Should he permanently alter his sons' bodies without knowing why it should and should not be done? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We don't know the age of TXK's son. Perhaps he is a grown man. Assuming he is a grown man, we can not criticize TXK for hhis decision b/c back then it was widely accepted that circumcision had health benefits.

Griffin

10-07-2003, 06:32 PM

TXK probably is sincere about being the best parent he can be, but I sense a lot of denial, which is very common among circumcised fathers who can't or won't second-guess what was done to them nor what they have done to their sons. It is so common, too, for them to struggle to understand what a foreskin must be like and to just say they don't miss what they never were aware that they had. They sound like my 70-year-old mother-in-law who never had a computer and cannot fathom why she would ever want one or need one. Her attitude doesn't lessen the value of a computer. Just because he can experience everything he would expect from sex without a foreskin, he cannot imagine it could be a greater experience with one. More is better. Former U.S.Surgeon General C. Everett Koop noted, "All the Western world raises its children uncircumcised and it seems logical that, with the extent of health knowledge in those countries, such a practice (intactness) must be safe."
Talk all you want about having the last say over what you health decisions you make for your children, but circumcision is still unwarranted, ill-advised, painful and dangerous.

Croydon

10-07-2003, 09:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Griffin:
TXK probably is sincere about being the best parent he can be, but I sense a lot of denial, which is very common among circumcised fathers who can't or won't second-guess what was done to them nor what they have done to their sons. It is so common, too, for them to struggle to understand what a foreskin must be like and to just say they don't miss what they never were aware that they had. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And you have figured this out how? Seriously, I don't think the AVERAGE circumcised male thinks for days why he was circumcised. The average cut male couldn't care less. The men here who feel cheated and want to restore what was "taken away" from them need a shrink. If you are that concerned with your penis then you have a problem.

Croydon

10-09-2003, 08:30 PM

new study out

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=571&ncid=751&e=2&u=/nm/20031009/hl_nm/health_circumcision_hiv_dc

Dolby

10-10-2003, 07:42 PM

TXK Nude,

You keep posting that there is a connection between not being circumcised and getting cancer of the testicles or prostate. Please check your facts. I have not been able to find anything supporting this connection.

Trailscout

10-10-2003, 08:32 PM

People who are uncircumcised are at greater risk of cancer of the penis and urinary infections according to the American Urological Association.

For more information, click on the following link:
Penile Cancer (http://www.urologyhealth.org/adult/index.cfm?cat=04&topic=138)

Also try a keyword search in: Pediatrics (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/)

TXK NUDE

10-11-2003, 05:22 AM

Trailscout, Thank you for finding that website, and sharing it here. It's amazing that even though I repeatedly said that I worked in the medical field for years, and that I spoke personally with the patients and their doctors, no one would believe me when I conveyed the FACT that uncircumsision was a HEALTH RISK. Now I feel justified.

NW Nude

10-11-2003, 09:13 AM

I'm cut and glad to be. My son is as well and said he is glad we decided for him. My brothers son thanked him because the one kid on the football team who is not has an anteater looking thing. I knew a guy in the service who had infections and problems and had to have it done at 14 yrs old.

luvnaturism

10-11-2003, 03:15 PM

I'm a "natural" man who got a lot of chuckles and grins about reading this thread. Mutilation?Horse poop? Pulling all of a child's teeth...and more? Giant health risk? Come on everyone: play nice. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The argument that someone who IS can't possibly understand the benefits that come to someone who ISN'T invites the question, "How can someone who ISN'T know the benfits that come to the man who IS?"

Undoubtedly there are school locker rooms still around the country where just about all the boys are circumcised, but there are many communities with high immigration where that would not be the case. I know it can become a major issue for some boys, but certainly not for all. I was the only uncircumcised boy in my gym classes, and it was never troublesome. A little constructive parenting should head off any problems.

Health benefits. In addition to the slightly reduced chance of male cancer cited above, I've read of some studies that show that women married to uncircumcised men are at slightly higher risk for cancer of the cervix.

In all of this the operative factor is cleanliness. Parents who don't have their boys circumcised do need to be sure to teach them how to pull the foreskin back and clean underneath every day. When that is done, there just doesn't seem to be any remaining elevation of cancer risk. That wasn't done for me, and I was in college before I even realized that it could be done.

10-11-2003, 04:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Trailscout, Thank you for finding that website, and sharing it here. It's amazing that even though I repeatedly said that I worked in the medical field for years, and that I spoke personally with the patients and their doctors, no one would believe me when I conveyed the FACT that uncircumsision was a HEALTH RISK. Now I feel justified. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can be a slight health risk if you don't keep yourself clean. I think teaching people to bathe a bit better is much preferable to cutting off a body part don't you?

Would you recommend cutting off one's ears for not keeping them clean?

The American Medical Association's view on this is as quoted:

The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision.

Croydon

10-11-2003, 06:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by TXK NUDE:
Trailscout, Thank you for finding that website, and sharing it here. It's amazing that even though I repeatedly said that I worked in the medical field for years, and that I spoke personally with the patients and their doctors, no one would believe me when I conveyed the FACT that uncircumsision was a HEALTH RISK. Now I feel justified. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can be a slight health risk if you don't keep yourself clean. I think teaching people to bathe a bit better is much preferable to cutting off a body part don't you?

Would you recommend cutting off one's ears for not keeping them clean?

The American Medical Association's view on this is as quoted:

The most recent statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics reads as follows: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the point is: although, there are no significant proofs FOR or AGAINT circucision, THE CHOICE IS LEFT TO THE PARENTS as to what to do w/ their son

NW Nude

10-12-2003, 09:13 AM

If parents could get true unbiased info, that would be great. I've had seveeral freinds who had a nurse that felt is was mutilation and convinced the mother it was wrong, when the father had already decided what was best for his son. If there is a trend to have more uncut boys, I certainly hope the hygeine lesson is taught. Sometimes it is a chore to get kids to brush there teeth. Imagine the "Did you wash under your foreskin today?" question at bedtime.

Dolby

10-12-2003, 05:41 PM

TXK Nude,

Your statement that there may be some health risks in uncircumcised males has been supported by links provided by other posters. There is still nothing posted to support your original comment that uncircumcised males are likely to develop cancer of the prostate or testis.

LEAVE ME ALONE

10-12-2003, 05:48 PM

If someone wants to put their foreskin back, then let him have it. It is his right to make that decision, as most of us didn't get a choice at birth...

I think it is better to give the person a choice rather than just hacking it off for reasons that can be prevented if the proper care is taken...

I CAN'T WAIT INTIL MINE IS FULLY BACK...WOOOHOOOO

Polarbear1

10-17-2003, 12:06 PM

Everyone, please stop using penile cancer as a justification for circumcision. The incidences are so low that they are virtually nonexistent. The current (2003) rate of penile cancer in the US is 1 in 100000. Even if you had twice the chance to get it, that would still amount to 1 in 50000?not a particularly worrisome statistic. There are other, more applicable statistics that might be used to prove/disprove the circumcision issue. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

I understand that both sides of the issue want to feel that they are ?right? in their assessment, but making statements that have no value makes the person sound uneducated. Did you know that you have a 1 in 55,061,000 chance of being killed by fireworks? Nice to know, useless in application.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_penile_ cancer_35.asp?sitearea=
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_Can_penile_cancer_be_prevented_35.asp?s itearea=&level=

10-17-2003, 12:21 PM

There is no "right" or "wrong" in this matter. I'm glad I wasn't cut. I've had no medical problems because of it, and I wasn't taught to clean under the foreskin as a child. All I was taught as a child was to feel inferior and to be critical of others--much like my dad.

Griffin

10-17-2003, 05:37 PM

Jon-Marc,
I appreciate your insights and comments on the overally issue. With all due respect, I do not and cannot accept your comment: "There is no "right" or "wrong" in this matter." Am I to infer that you are saying circumcision is neither right nor wrong?
Are you saying it is neither right nor wrong to authorize doctors to cut away healthy, useful, purposeful tissue from the body of someone else? Is there not something called sovereignty over one's body, a right to say what others can do to our bodies that can permanently alter them? Isn't body integrity a fundamental human right? To say that circumcision is neither right nor wrong is to totally trivialize the foreskin. And it suggests the utterer of such words has not looked into the extensive research about how specialized the foreskin structure is, what it does and how much it plays a part in the overally mechanics of the penis. The shrug-you-shoulders, the no-big-deal attitude is specifically why it is so difficult to make progress in this social justice issues. Having once not had a foreskin and having restored, I can personally say there is a significant difference in sex, protection and the appearance of wholeness. -Griffin

Croydon

10-17-2003, 05:46 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Griffin:
Jon-Marc,
I appreciate your insights and comments on the overally issue. With all due respect, I do not and cannot accept your comment: "There is no "right" or "wrong" in this matter." Am I to infer that you are saying circumcision is neither right nor wrong?
Are you saying it is neither right nor wrong to authorize doctors to cut away healthy, useful, purposeful tissue from the body of someone else? Is there not something called sovereignty over one's body, a right to say what others can do to our bodies that can permanently alter them? Isn't body integrity a fundamental human right? To say that circumcision is neither right nor wrong is to totally trivialize the foreskin. And it suggests the utterer of such words has not looked into the extensive research about how specialized the foreskin structure is, what it does and how much it plays a part in the overally mechanics of the penis. The shrug-you-shoulders, the no-big-deal attitude is specifically why it is so difficult to make progress in this social justice issues. Having once not had a foreskin and having restored, I can personally say there is a significant difference in sex, protection and the appearance of wholeness. -Griffin <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whether it is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Circumcision is a personal choice that is to be made by the parents. If they want their son cut, they should be allowed to do so. If not, that is fine as well. I am cut, I don't care. If I were uncut, I wouldn't care either.

So what do you expect? You want the Jews too stop circumcising their sons too?

I think that when you have your own son (if you don't already), you can make your decision to keep him uncut.

aunaturelone

10-17-2003, 07:00 PM

I am uncircumcised. If I had the choice to do it over again, at 15 or 12 or 10, I would have chosen to be circumcised at birth. It would have saved me a great deal of pain and abuse as a child from the other boys in the locker room.

As an adult it doesn't matter much, although US women seem to prefer the aesthetics of the cut male a bit more. Once they get to like you, it doesn't matter what you've got. As an experiment I've worn it fully retracted for extended periods of time and noted no loss of sexual performance or pleasure. I did notice that after a long time a bit of swelling at the very end of the foreskin sets in, but it goes away when I "unretract" it.

The operation on an adult is extremely painful, requiring an extended stay in the hospital and dosages of painkiller. But as an adult there is no real advantage either way, so why bother?

I've seen babies circumcised by a skilled moil who stopped crying in minutes. A baby heals so rapidly that 3 days later it's essentially done. IF you do it, immediately after birth is the only "good" time. Of course there is always that very tiny risk of a slip-up. It's the parents job to make these sorts of decisions for the baby. A baby's "rights" are held in trust by the parents, to be excercised for what they see as the baby's best interests.

The hogwash over the sexual merits of circed v. uncirced is just that. Occaisionaly a man will be circumcised as he coverts to Judaism as an adult. Never heard of any of them saying it ruined their sex life once it had healed. Classic case of psychology imagining a problem where physiologically none exists.

Don't think for a minute the uncircumcised male may not have as many regrets over his state as a circumcised one does.

Griffin

10-17-2003, 07:18 PM

Jon-Marc,
Obviously, my point went past you. I almost feel compelled to ask you questions about other issues that bear on personal, individual rights. I guess you subscribe to the notion that a parent has total freedom of what he/she does to a child. I don't. I believe there are boundaries. Yes, we decided 28 years ago that we had no right to alter our son's genital integrity and believed to the heart of our souls that circumcision was barbaric, unjustifiable and wrong. We left him intact and regard it as an act of respect.
As for Jews, we are encouraged by the many Jewish parents who have abandoned such a rite--- just as Jews have given up a lot of the harsh "requirements" spelled out in the Hebrew Bible. It's called enlightened, civilizing, humanizing. The circumcision education and prevention movement is full of Jews who ardently work for a move to ritual bris without loss of body structure. And Jews have written a major part of the literature and books against circumcison. Names like Ron Goldman, Norm Cohen, Rosemary Romberg, Edward Wallenstein, Dr. Paul Fleiss, and on and on. All of us in the movement would be hypocrites to give Jews a pass and say circumcision (bris) is OK for them to do to their sons as signs of the covenants. The Jews we hear say, "Don't abandon us in the cause for ultimately seeing an end to this." There is nothing anti-Semitic in calling for an end to all circumcisions. It's not anti-African culture, either, to say female genital mutilation must end. Traditions have always been questioned, and when they don't stand up to human justice, they deserve to be challenged and changed. Thankfully, in this case, some great Jews are leading the way to bring about that change.

florida-david

10-17-2003, 07:23 PM

for the record, the jewish version of penis mutilation, i mean circumcision, has changed over time. originally, a jewish circumcision was a minor act of cutting. what it has turned into is truly wrong and not in keeping with the original intent of jewish cicumcision. so, i do not feel that the current state of religious jewish cicumcision is correct either.

why do we feel it ok to sexually mutilate boys and not girls. i believe some contries make sex unpleasurable for the woman as well with ritual mutilation of the women. it is done in societies that believe that women are only around for the pleasure of men. and i believe these men are uncut. this should make you go hmmmmmmmm...

either way, it is not a trivial act to circumsize children. we all should get the facts before we do it. personally, i think the pinky toe is as useless as a tonsel, maybe we should start cutting those off at birth as well??

10-18-2003, 12:25 AM

Gee, I can't say anything right here can I? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I should have known that trying to agree with everyone doesn't work. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

OK. How can I as a Christian say that something God told the Jewish people to do is wrong? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif On the other hand, I see no useful purpose for circumcision. It IS mutilation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif OK. All those who disagree with anything I wrote can say so now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Griffin

10-18-2003, 05:45 AM

I sometimes ask myself why, of all the noble and compelling causes for social justice and human rights, I have worked especially for more than 25 years for an end to circumcision. I keep coming back to the newborn baby boy. Helpless, defenseless, born into a family not of his choosing, born with an expectation that he will have optimum care, protection and love. And I come back to the fundamental belief that his body, engineered through millions of years and a creator, was intended that every part had reason to be there. We know full well that superstition and folkways would cause societies to develop their own peculiar practices to alter the body from tattoos to piercing, hair removal, scarring, etc. Yet when we break it all down, we keep coming back to the fundamental belief that the human should have ultimate sovereignty over his/her body. Oh, sure, parents temporarily have responsibility for decisions as surrogates. But implicit in that is that parents cannot and should not change that body in irreversible ways to satisfy their choices and cultures. No male, no female should grow up to regret, resent, lament what a parent chose to have done to his/he body--scarring, bound feet, tattoos, genital mutilation. Such body change decisions inherently belong to the owner of the body. Culture, religion and parental whims don't supercede the fundamental right or sovereignty a person has for one's body.
Religions can scream "belief" and "sacred practice" all they want, but once they start discarding "laws" and picking and choosing what to retain, all bets are off -- and the rest of the world is rightfully free to question the justice and fairness of what they practice. Judaism has changed through the millenia and most practices, including the bris, have been hotly debated and abandoned by many. Judaism's resiliency stems, in part, from its openness to change and adaptation. --Griffin

Rik

10-18-2003, 06:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
Whether it is right or wrong, it doesn't matter. Circumcision is a personal choice that is to be made by the parents. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If it's made by the parents then it's not personal choice - it's someone else's choice.

If you accept that circumcision is mutilation (Dictionarty definition: To disfigure by damaging irreparably or To make imperfect by excising or altering parts)then what you're saying is that parents have the right to mutilate their children. So if I made the 'personal choice' to cut off my children's toes, that would be OK by you would it?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>So what do you expect? You want the Jews too stop circumcising their sons too? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.

Rik

Griffin

10-28-2003, 07:30 PM

MSNBC has recently produced a lenghthy piece on foreskin restoration that you can access at www.msnbc.com/news/964825.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/news/964825.asp)

The article does a fair job of outlining the sincerity of those who carry it out and what they feel is gained.

Hooked

10-28-2003, 08:08 PM

A circumcised penis does not take 3 days to heal, where the heck did you dig that up? It takes at least AT LEAST 2 weeks and it bleeds most of that time (being reopened during diaper changes since the scab sticks to diaper) and causes the boy to be in pain and/or discomfort the whole time, I know because I've seen it happen and also it's common sense that a mutilation like that would not heal in 3 days...scabbed over MAYBE but not healed, get real...if you want to get technical, a circumcised penis NEVER heals.

As far as kids making fun of you in the locker room, that's odd, I can't even imagine that but it may have been the era you group up in or the area of the country because now the numbers are about %50 both ways so most youngsters in gym situations have seen both cut and in tact and it's no big deal. Kids are cruel and will rip each other no matter what their penises look like, again get real...

TXK NUDE

10-29-2003, 03:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hooked:
if you want to get technical, a circumcised penis NEVER heals... again get real... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? A circumsised penis NEVER heals? OMG!!!!!!! That means that for 34 years I've had a festering, unhealed wound between my legs? /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I seriously doubt that! As to your other statements, I would disagree with them as well. I've had both my sons circumcised and both boys penises healed in a matter of a few days to a week, there was no scabbing or bleeding at diaper changes. And other than the discomfort caused when the tender area was touched by a wet wipe or held closely so antibiotic cream could be applied, neither of my boys suffered beyond the initial circucision. In both cases the protective circumcision ring fell off after about a week, and the penis looked normal, functioned normal, and was totally HEALED. to quote you again...lets get real.

Griffin

10-29-2003, 04:47 PM

Circumcision gets a negative slap when Fox TV introduces a new dark comedy on Sunday night called "Arrested Development." Ron "Opie" Howard is one of the producers of the show about a dysfunctional family that moves to Arizona. One woman is called Lindsay Funke (Portia de Rossa)who embraces unpopular charities and causes. One of them is called HOOP or "Hands Off Our Penises," an anti-circumcision group. All that according to the advance materials on the half-hour show that debuts in mid-evening. Check your local listings. It'll be interesting to see how mileage they'll get out of trivializing the foreskin and bashing those opposing it.

brett1993

10-29-2003, 06:53 PM

I know I shouldn't get involved in this, but something Griffin said prompted me to respond. Why have so many chosen this cause? Children are suffering all over the world and it has nothing to do with being circumcised. Wouldn't your passion, time, and effort be better directed towards preventing "real" child abuse and mutilation? How many children, both circumcised and uncircumcised, are beaten nearly every day of their lives? How many children, both circumcised and uncircumcised, don't eat for days at a time? How many children, both circumcised and uncircumcised, are sexually abused every day? There are so many horrific things happening to children all the time (and the evidence for the negative effects of this treatment is well established). Is the whole circumcision debate really worth it? All the pro and anti circumcision activists are obviously committed to helping children, but I think they are trying to help in the wrong area.

florida-david

10-29-2003, 07:57 PM

hi brett - its important to take a stand on a subject; some of us pick subjects that might seem un-important to others. i agree we should all spend some time on the issues you mentioned, but truthfully those issues have not hit as close to home as someone mutilating our body when we were young and helpless. so when some men look down when peeing and see the useless mutilation caused by a greedy medical society, it makes us upset and we want to prevent this mutilation to others. i personally think we should all stop mutilating baby boys and i also have other causes i try to speak about and give financial assistance (this site and nudism being one of those causes). but since this topic is about un-circumcision, i am in support of stopping useless mutilation.

Griffin

10-29-2003, 08:00 PM

You say, "Wouldn't your passion, time, and effort be better directed towards preventing "real" child abuse and mutilation? How many children, both circumcised and uncircumcised, are beaten nearly every day of their lives? How many children, both circumcised and uncircumcised, don't eat for days at a time?"
That comment presumes that I and others are not already also engaged in many other worthy, noble, compelling causes.Having won a city's humanitarian award nearly 10 years ago for embracing all kinds of causes and more than 50 awards for my work and community service, that comment truly is unfounded. It's a comment commonly used to discredit, downplay and trivialize "causes" someone otherwise finds unimportant or they flat out objects to. There are lots of responses to those questions. My favorite is that some social problems are already well surrounded by people, resources, dollars and media consciously raising. Hunger, child abuse, mistreatment of women, gay rights, gang violence, etc., are typically being addressed by hundreds of organizations local, state, national and internationally. A few individuals working to bring change in "new" areas, unpopular causes and self-evident arenas can be effective and can serve to bring it to the forefront so more want to join in. Any of us who have followed the circumcision education and prevention movement have seem an enormous increase of supporters come aboard.
Why do people "waste" time in flower gardens, reading novels, pursuing inane hobbies or golfing when there are people starving, etc.? Obviously, all derive meaning, purpose, affirmation, self-realization and more from such pursuits. Find a need and fill it. See an outrage and rage against it. Find a ministry and minister. See helpless, defenseless baby boys having healthy parts of their bodies amputated against their wills and for no medically justified reason, and it compels some of us to say that's wrong. The sharp drop in the circumcision rates over the decades is due in great part because of such advocacy, education and our enlightening parents. But we know most people of conscience and justice fight fiercely for many worthy causes. If you want peace, fight for justice.

RIVERRAT

10-29-2003, 10:09 PM

I was cut at a very young age, I say thank you the little guy is ugly enough why make him even uglier with this for skin that serves no purpose but to create bacteria in a place hard to clean. the same people who think it's babarack to be curcomcised (FORGIVE THE SPELLING) would tatoo there bodies and pierce themselves, what is worse injectining paint into your body you can't remove, how stupid is that?

N00dguy

10-30-2003, 03:42 AM

For what it's worth, here's my rant.

I can't believe all the debate that rages over a tiny bit of skin. Particularly from the female quarter, they're not endowed with the same appendages men are, this mere fact disqualifies them from any meaningful comment. It all sounds like another case of the PC brigade looking for another drum to beat.

I was circumcised when I was very young, I don't even remember it happening I was that young. Guess what? I've never lost a single nights sleep over it, even my mother can't remember.

My two younger brothers were also circumcised. I never noticed any higher level of trauma in either one of them.

When our son was born, I suggested to my wife that we should have him circumcised. Horrors upon horrors, what was I thinking!!

Now my wife must be one of the most anal people I know when it comes to neatness and cleanliness. It was when our son was was about 18-20 months old, the tip of his penis blew up like a little cherry shaped balloon.

After the horrors of that event had died down, with the aid of anti-biotics, I raised the subject of circumcision again. To my surprise she agreed.

As the state funded hospital did not offer the service for out-patients, I spoke to my female Jewish colleagues. The appointment was made with a very nice Jewish doctor, in a Jewish clinic.

A local anaesthetic and three hours later, we were home. I reckon I've spilt more blood in a single razor nick while shaving. Our son showed more discomfort teething. The only time he cried was with the initial needle.

He's 18 now, stands at a very proud 6'1". Loves to show off his body, and his slightly older drop dead gorgeous girlfriend (NN, he tells us).

It was about 2 years ago he came and thanked us for the foresight to trim his foreskin. He had seen for himself the difficulty some guys suffer who are uncut. A close friend of his was hospitalized with an infection in the penis, attributed to his uncut state.

As for being deprived of something special.... I wouldn't know, I'd need to have knowingly had it to begin with. As for performance hindrance, bunkum, (our record is ?20 times in about 12 hours) or "de-sensitization", bunkum, premature ejaculation was a major problem for me until I learnt how to control it. We've been married for almost 24 years and have two adult children.

Taking the religious and cultural issues out of the equation, it is the RIGHT of every PARENT to decide what the best option is. Until the CHILD reaches legal adulthood, their rights and choices are limited to the decisions of their parents. Legislate against that in any corner of the world, you're only serving to further diminish the strength of the family unit.

Those of you who present the argument that the medical fraternity is in favour of the procedure for monetary gain, your argument is potentially flawed. Surely the medical fraternity stands to make more money out of ill people than a person who doesn't require medical assistance? i.e. they make more money from cure than from prevention.

That's my rant done, 'tis bedtime.....

Paul
Cut but rough

Hooked

10-30-2003, 01:53 PM

TXK NUDE--- First of all, your sarcasm is not appreciated, that is rude and disrespectful and I didn't do that to you so why are you going to get ugly with me like that? I personally feel very strongly about this issue and don't feel sarcasm has any place in this discussion.

You know very well that when I said technically circumcisions never heal it meant the foreskin does not grow back, my opinion is that it is a mutilation therefore it never heals. Let's not argue semantics, ok?

You don't believe my 'other statements' huh? Well, I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree on that one because I don't believe your retorts for one minute either. I have activly helped care for both my little brother and more recently my new nephew, both of whom were circumcised so I have plenty of experience with the aftercare, etc involved. I changed diapers etc, and was aware of what was happening. First you said it was a few days and now you say it heals in a few days to a week...More like a week or more..this is going to vary of course from person to person but do not tell me a circumcision heals in 2 to 3 days because that's simply not true and I guess anyone who really wants to know without lying to themselves can go on line and find the research for themselves.

As far as the amount of suffering your kids endured, you cannot speak for them and at that age they couldn't speak for themselves so what YOU say about their suffering is falling on deaf ears here.

What is a protective circumcision ring? Please enlighten me.

Well, that about addresses everything you quipped at me. Just one more thing, do me a favor and don't quote me out of context. That's both rude and childish. Think of your own words to say, especially if you are going to get ugly with me. We are all adults here so let's start acting like it. I'm tired of the rudeness I recieve when I share my opinion on this board. We should be able to share our opinions without being disrespected and this also applies to correcting others when they post incorrect information. I apologize if my comment "get real" was considered rude to you, I didn't mean it to be, I just meant to suggest that your information was unrealistic and a little rediculous.

Have a nice day anyway...

sunaddicted

10-30-2003, 02:51 PM

As a Jew who is also into my faith I question those who bring up the Jews in the movement to stop circumcision. No religious Jew would agree to this! As a frequent visitor to Haulover Beach I am aware of one family who I know to be Jewish whose son is not circumsized. I feel very sorry for the boy who will be very sorry as an adult if he finds a nice Jewish girl to marry him. Also if he joins in any Jewish activities like summer camp, or trips to Israel, etc., where he will find out that he is not circumsized. The dictate to be circumsized is very clear in the Torah and is not open to debate. Florida-David, who I thought was Jewish, says that circumcision today is different than in the biblical days. HUH?

Aside from the dictate that it is the obligation of the father to circumsize his son, with most people deferring to a mohel, what is different about it? The Brit-milah ceremony is very moving, and it is a joyous occasion. I have not read anyone referring to Moslems in this discussion. Do they get a pass because they are Moslems?

NakedGary

10-30-2003, 03:12 PM

This might enlighten your thoughts that all jew must be circumcised. I know a jewish fellow who enjoys his intactness and his religion.

Re: http://www.circumcision.org/spectator.htm

brett1993

10-30-2003, 04:10 PM

Griffin and Florida-Dave both good, well thought out responses to my post. However, try as I may I cannot understand your outrage over this issue. I look down when peeing and I see my penis?that?s all, no mutilated piece of flesh, no deep physical or psychological trauma?just my penis. If I try to imagine my life if I had not been circumcised I can?t see much difference. Maybe my 30-second baths when I was a little guy would have needed to be longer to clean under my foreskin. Maybe I wouldn?t have used as much of my mom?s hand lotion in my early adolescent years /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif , but I don?t think anything would have been drastically different.

I feel this issue is closely related to the issue of raising nudist children, which is being debated in other threads. Both approaches in each of these debates could have long lasting, possibly permanent effects on children?s lives. These effects could be positive or negative. Being the reluctant research geek that I am, I did a lit search on nudism and one on circumcision. There is very little methodologically valid research to support either side in either of these debates. [I was able to find one research article that showed nudism being positively related to body self-concept (Story, 1984; Journal of Psychology). They included a large sample size and a control group matched on age and sex, but it is all based on a brief survey] In the absence of valid data supporting either side I feel like you have to default to the judgment of the child?s parents.

Parents are required to make many potentially life changing decisions for their child every day. Decisions that seem relatively minor, such as what pre-school or day care to send their child to, whether to breast feed or bottle feed and with which type of formula, etc. could permanently alter their children in ways that we currently do not understand. It is the responsibility of the parents to weigh the available evidence if any exists and apply it to THEIR SITUATION before making a decision. We cannot start taking these decisions away from parents based on the fact that some people, however well meaning, disagree with one of the decisions. Show me a series of methodologically valid replicated studies showing severe negative effects of circumcision and I may change my mind, but until that day I will not give up my right to do what I feel is best (physically, emotionally, aesthetically, or socially) for my children.

Sorry for the essay, but I think I?m through.

By the way the decrease in circumcision rates probably has less to do with the crusaders as with the insurance companies refusing to pay for it.

RIVERRAT

10-30-2003, 04:58 PM

Many parents who have boys have to make the choice for the future of there boys. I have never regreted being circumcised, I'm actually very greatful and I can't speack for my boys but I think they are greatly appreciative of being circumsized, it was my wife(ex), who brought up the subject, she thinks that men look better circumsized, so the boys are better off now because of our choice.There was no pain, they healed and I don't recall any discommfort. A little vasaene and all was ok.This subject has been brought up mostly by some women who have know idea what they are talking about.

10-30-2003, 09:32 PM

Some pictures. (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Circ.html)

Some reasons not to do it. (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html) And some more reasons. (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html) And these are just not attractive either. (http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html)

A list of complications and how often they happen. (http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html)

A story about circumcision.

Bruce was born one of normal identical twin boys in Winnipeg in 1965. Seven months later, his mother noticed that "their foreskins were closing, making it hard for them to urinate," a doctor told her that they had phimosis, and both boys were scheduled for circumcision at St. Boniface Hospital. .

(In fact foreskins do not normally close, and true phimosis is not diagnosable in boys as young as seven months, since the foreskin has usually not yet separated from the glans. The facts as given do not stack up. One probability is that the mother had been wrongly instructed to retract their foreskins, and that this caused tearing and scarring, leading to the closure. This is a common excuse for circumcision.)

A power surge in the electocautery needle (used to seal blood vessels by heat) burnt off Bruce's penis, and it was decided to reassign his genitals surgically and raise him as a girl, Brenda. There is a strong suspicion that his being an identical twin was a factor in the decision, and the case was widely used by Dr John Money for the next 15 years to demonstrate that gender is completely malleable, under purely social control.

Brenda was subjected to castration at the age of 22 months, but she was a troubled tomboy throughout her childhood. From the age of eight onward, she steadfastly refused further surgery, and at puberty she resisted taking hormones. Her sexual desires, closely monitored by Dr Money, were towards females, and her parents were made to face the possibility that their daughter was a lesbian.

At 14 she refused to live as a girl any longer and was told the truth about his gender.
At 16 he had a penis reconstructed, but the outcome was unsatisfactory and teasing by his peers led to two suicide attempts. At 21 he had another reconstruction with a better outcome. He met a woman with three children, abandoned by their three biological fathers, who was somewhat disillusioned with men's pride in their penile prowess. He is now a happily married adoptive father, but he says:

"It was like brainwashing. I'd give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it's torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind - with the the psychological warfare in your head."

"It only added to the young couple's misery that [brother] Brian's phimosis had long since cleared up by itself, his healthy penis a constant reminder that the disastrous circumcision on Bruce had been utterly unnecessary in the first place."

>>>>>>>>>>>

A partial ablation is reported from New York in 1995. A three-year old Jewish Russian immigrant child was circumcised by a mohel in a urologist's outpatient clinic. Consent had been given for the urologist to perform the circumcision. Instead, the mohel negligently amputated the head of the boy's penis. The urologist attempted to reattach the head and transferred the boy to Bellvue hospital by ambulance. Four-fifths of the head of the penis necrosed (died) and came off. After a one-month long trial, the family was awarded a total of $1,000,000. The mohel declared bankruptcy.
Bronx County N.Y.
Plaintif Nozik #20875/90
November 22 1995

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ouch! Boys Lose Too Much in Circumcision Slip

Updated 3:22 PM ET June 9, 2000 ANKARA (Reuters)

Health workers carrying out a mass circumcision on more than 200 children in western Turkey cut off more than they should have when they got to the last two on Friday.

"Whether it was because of their anatomy or through carelessness, too much was cut off," Anatolian news agency quoted Manisa health service chief Ismet Nardal as saying.

Doctors in the hospital where the two-day circumcision marathon was carried out immediately operated on the pair to try to rectify the error.

"The children's stitched organs have held, the operation was successful," Nardal said. "They appear to be alright, but it will only become apparent later if they have lost their sexual function."

Young boys are circumcised in overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey before they reach puberty, according to Islamic tradition.

(This item - about a lifetime catastrophe for the two boys involved - was widely reported in the "joke" sections of papers, as the headline suggests. That in itself is part of the psychopathology of circumcision, helping as it does to prevent questioning of the operation itself.)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>]

Jerusalem Post
Monday, August 14 2000 12:48 13 Av 5760

Baby recovers from 'brit mila' amputation
By Judy Siegel

AFULA (August 14) - A baby whose penis was accidentally amputated below the corona by the mohel (ritual circumciser) and reattached by microsurgery a month ago was declared fully recovered yesterday at Ha'emek Hospital in Afula.

Hospital spokesman Danny Brenner said the baby is now able to urinate normally, and the penile blood vessels and nerves are fully functioning. The hospital reported the highly unusual incident to the Health Ministry, but Ha'emek still doesn't know the identify of the mohel, as the family refused to give his name and have not yet filed a complaint.

The parents rushed the baby to the hospital four weeks ago carrying a plastic bag with the glans penis kept in ice. Dr. Ya'acov Rosenman, deputy head of the urology department, and Dr. Boris Lachman performed the painstaking operation, which took more than eight hours.

Rabbi Yosef Weisberg, the ministry's national supervisor of ritual circumcisers, had not yet been informed of the case. "If asked, our committee will investigate.
Such a thing is extremely rare, but I have heard of one or two other cases here over the year. Any mohel who does such a thing must be blind, have taken a drink, or been pushed while performing the brit mila," he said.

The fact that there is no circumcision law, "due to pressure from American Conservative, Reform, and female circumcisers who are afraid they'll be left out," means there are unlicensed mohelim, Weisberg said, but he could not estimate how many there were out of the total of several hundred practicing mohelim in the country.

Brenner said that it was possible the family would complain to the police or sue the mohel for damages now that the child had recovered, "or maybe they received payment from the circumciser to keep quiet about the incident."

Although amputation of the penis is rare in children, said Brenner, the world's top medical experts in reconnecting adult penises are in Thailand, as nearly every day, disgruntled wives cut off their husband's organs in a fit of anger or jealousy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Dustin Evans Jr was born in Cleveland, Ohio in October 1998. He was circumcised by a Dr Russell soon after, who took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a wideband stricture (a tight "collar") around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was given sevoflourane, an anaesthetic, in order to "revise" his circumcision, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

His father said, "You think, 'What could go wrong with a circumcision?' The next thing I know, he's dead."

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wednesday, 26 June, 2002, 15:06 GMT 16:06 UK

South African youths die during rituals
Rituals mark the transition to manhood
Five teenage boys have died and 51 others have been injured during initiation rituals in South Africa.

Police found the youths when a boy died on his way to hospital on Monday, after rituals involving circumcision and beatings.

Four instructors have been arrested and are being questioned by police.

The BBC's Barnaby Phillips in Johannesburg says that although the South African authorities have tried to regulate initiation schools to avoid such incidents, some provinces keep practising the rituals.

...

Police say the initiates, of the Sotho and Xhosa ethnic groups, were exposed naked to sub-freezing temperatures, and that many had circumcision-related infections and bruised backs.

The survivors are now being treated in hospital. Eighteen of them are in a critical condition.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And the point to all this? Not a single one was in any way necessary. Why take the chance when there are no benefits?

10-30-2003, 09:35 PM

38 Good Reasons Not to Circumcise:

"I always see more problems from a circumcision than from a foreskin."

- a paediatrician, quoted on America On Line.

Most of these are (small) risks.
Those marked * are (inevitable) detriments.

1
Infection and sometimes death

2
Haemorrhage and sometimes death

3
*Pain / shock, and sometimes death

4
Meth[a]emoglobin[a]emia, brain damage and possibly death, if EMLA cream is used to anaesthetise a newborn

5
Necrotising fasciitis ("galloping gangrene")

6
*Damage (scarring, pitting) to the glans or *shaft. In the case of Dustin Evans Jr, the scarring caused a urethral stricture (narrowing of the urinary tube), and it was during an operation to relieve this that he died.

7
Urethral fissure/fistula

8
Scaphoid megalourethra

9
"Trapped/buried penis"

10
*Occlusion of penile venous system

11
Urinary Tract Infection

12
Meatitis

13
Meatal ulcer

14
Meatal stenosis

15
Multiple pyogenic [caused by pus] granuloma - a series of papillomatous [brushlike] growths around the circumcision wound

16
Eczema of the glans and meatus

17
Oedema of local tissue

18
Loss of *sensitivity / impotence

19
*Reduced volume of penis

20
May shorten the penis:

"Circumcised men had shorter erect penises than uncircumcised men (p0.05)." - Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8(2): 77-81.
21
Painful erections

22
Wound re-opening (in adulthood)

23
Chafing from underwear

"Other circumcised men complain of life-long irritation of the exposed glans as it comes in contact with clothing during normal activity." - "Sensitivity is the Rising Issue on Circumcision" by Dr. Sandra Pertot, "Australian Doctor" 25 November 1994
24
Production of ugly scar tissue, skin-bridges, skin-tags, malapposition (rejoining on the twist) and/or suture holes

25
*Breach of bodily integrity

26
*Breach of human rights

27
*Breach of property rights

28
Psychological trauma, resulting in eg. elective muteness

29
Because he had had enough of a struggle just to be born, and deserved no more pain

30
*Loss of an organ for stimulating the partner and retaining semen in the vagina after ejaculation

31
*Greater need to use lubricant for masturbation or intercourse

32
Loss of an organ for *play, docking, etc.

33
Loss of skin for plastic surgery of hypospadias

34
Loss of skin for plastic surgery to eyelids

35
Loss of protection against frostbite.

36
Because the foreskin evolved over tens of millions of years and every male mammal has one. / Because God knew what S/He was doing when S/He put it there. / Because Nature knows best.

37
Because he will almost always be glad you didn't

38
*Cost (That's why Elvis was intact.)

Eight Debatable Reasons Not to Circumcise:

1
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - cot death)

2
Because circumcision hinders the establishment of breast-feeding

3
Increased risk of HIV

4
Prostate cancer, due to reduced innervation impairing prostate function on ejaculation

5
Impotence

6
Because balanitis may indicate diabetes

7
Because condoms slip off circumcised penes more easily.

8
Because he might be switched with another baby being circumcised at the same time (Memphis, TN, 16/4/98 (AP))

9
So that he can perform the full repertoire of "Puppetry of the Penis"

Griffin

10-31-2003, 03:56 AM

With all due respect to Riverrat and others with an I'm-OK-You're-OK mindset about their own circumcisions, it bears mentioning that underscoring life itself is a universal human right to be safe and secure in one's own body and to have sovereignty over that body. Genital integrity is fundamental. Parents cannot choose to make their children four-toed, earlobe-less, tatooed or toothless to comply with some deviant desires or cultural folkways. If circumcision were invented today, it would be immediately condemned and outlawed. It only lasts because it is embedded in cultural and religious history and superstition. It doesn't meet the medical test, given how no medical societies endorse it, how more and more insurance companies don't cover it, how a growing number of state Medicaid programs are defunding it, how most of the world debunks and discredits it, and even one Scandinavian country has virtually outlawed it as cruel mutilation. Sadly, many circumcised males seek to put the best spin on what was done to them adn what they, in turn, perpetuate on their own sons. "I'm not missing a thing," they say. But what do they know? Did they have a choice? Having restored, I personally know a foreskin is better to have. Having left our son intact 28 years ago, we know he has more not less and all that nature gave him. The biggest endorsement of the foreskin is that those who have them prefer to keep them. By percentage, few choose circumcision. The number of men who choose cimcision are often those who have been drummed into it by misinformed partners or peer pressure or their being taken in by that subculture that convinces them to get cut. All this aside, you have to come back to the right of the child. He alone should have the say as to what part(s) of his healthy body stays. Genital integrity and the universal right to self-determination of one's body.

10-31-2003, 04:55 AM

Great post Griffin!

May I add some figures from some studies.....

Breastfeeding now is documented to dramatically reduce the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI). (http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding_statement2002.html) In the early 1980s, Thomas E. Wiswell, M.D., a vociferous advocate for routine circumcision, opined that lack of male circumcision might be the cause of UTI, and he set out to prove it with two retrospective studies that were published in 1985 and 1986.12,13 The studies, carried out by searching through old medical records maintained by the United States Army on children of Army personnel, failed to examine an existing clinical population. The study purported to show that the incidence of UTI in circumcised and intact infants were 1.4 and 0.14, respectively. The difference of 1.26 percent is not clinically significant. Wiswell's studies suffered severe methodological flaws, including lack of control for confounding factors,14 such as maternal infection, perinatal anoxia, low or high birthweight,15 breastfeeding, socio-economic status, urogenital deformities, and the nature of infant hygienic care.

Escherichia coli, bacteria present in feces, is the most frequent etiologic agent of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) in infants and children, accounting for 85 to 90% of all pathogens recovered from urine cultures.16

After Wiswell's studies were published, Coppa et al. discovered that human milk contains oligosaccharides that are excreted in infant urine and inhibit the adhesion of E. coli to the tissue of the urinary tract.17 This protective effect was quickly confirmed in a preliminary report in 1990 by another group of Italian scientists, headed by Pisacane,18 and further confirmed by Swedish researchers.19 The Pisacane group then produced a prospective case-control study, published in 1992,20 that found breastfed infants have only 38% as many UTIs as non-breastfed infants.20

A recent study that tried to correct for some of the deficiencies in Wiswell's studies found that 195 circumcisions would be necessary to prevent one hospitalization for UTI.21

Wiswell could not have known about the significant effect of breastfeeding protection against UTI because these studies17-20 had not been published at the time he conducted his studies,12,13 which do not control for breastfeeding. The number of breastfed infants in his studies is unknown. Consequently, his data is inconclusive and inaccurate.

Even if one were to accept Wiswell's data, breastfeeding has an additional advantage that male circumcision could never provide: breastfeeding reduces UTI in both male and female infants.3,22 Females have a four times greater incidence of UTI than males,16 which may be because females lack the protective effect of the preputial sphincter (see box). Breastfeeding actually delivers the protection against UTI infection that has been touted for circumcision. Circumcision is an inappropriate and ineffective way to reduce the risk of UTI in infants.

We now know that newborn babies are born with fully functioning pain pathways. Infants exhibit greater physiologic responses to pain than do adult subjects. Male neonatal circumcision has been documented to be an extremely painful, distressing, traumatic, and exhausting experience for a newborn male infant. Circumcision disrupts the baby's normal sleep patterns. Post-operatively, the circumcised infant is in pain and is in an exhausted, weakened, and debilitated condition.28 Most importantly, the circumcision procedure frequently causes the newborn to withdraw from his environment, thus interfering with his process of bonding and breastfeeding.

La Leche League International (LLLI) first reported problems with breastfeeding by circumcised male infants in 1981. Circumcision has long-lasting postoperative pain that continues for days after the surgical event. Howard et al. found that some male babies are unable to suckle the mother's breast after circumcision, thus confirming the LLLI report.

The Workgroup on Breastfeeding of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that stressful procedures that interfere with breastfeeding be avoided.

Breastfeeding problems among circumcised male infants have been verified by lactation consultants. Parents may avoid creating this problem simply by refusing to consent to the circumcision of their baby boy. In doing so, they would also be adopting the recommendations of the AAP and LLLI to avoid stressful procedures. Mothers who protect their new baby from circumcision are more likely, therefore, to be successful in breastfeeding and less likely to have to resort to providing breast milk substitute.

The Relative Value of Breastfeeding and Circumcision

When it comes time for parents to make decisions about circumcision and breastfeeding, the choice is clear. Medical societies agree that no medical benefit from circumcision exists and "potential [alleged] benefits" cannot be proven. The Canadian Paediatric Society says that male neonatal circumcision should not routinely (i.e., in the absence of medical indication) be performed.33 The American Medical Association calls male neonatal circumcision a non-therapeutic procedure.34 The American Academy of Family Physicians equates male neonatal circumcision to a "cosmetic procedure."35 Male neonatal circumcision now is regarded as a non-therapeutic procedure that is totally unnecessary for a child's health and well-being. Furthermore, male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision has significant risks and complications.36 Circumcision increases infant mortality because some babies die from complications of circumcision.37 Studies show that intact boys have better penile health during the first three years of life.39,40 Other drawbacks and disadvantages include psychological and sexual problems in adult life.40 Non-therapeutic circumcision, therefore, provides no discernible health benefit to the child, while there are numerous documented significant risks, complications, and adverse sexual and psychological sequellae. Chessare found that non-circumcision produced the highest "utility" (or, in other words, the highest state of health).41

Pain in young babies presently is believed to permanently affect development of the immature nervous system.40 The AAP and the Evidence Based Group for Neonatal Pain now emphasize prevention of pain by avoidance of painful procedures in infancy in preference to the use of anesthesia.42,43 Neonatal circumcision is the most common painful procedure to which young children are subjected. Neonatal circumcision, therefore, should be avoided.

Breastfeeding, on the other hand, offers all of the benefits described above without any significant risk, complication, disadvantage, or drawback. Certainly, responsible parents will favor breastfeeding over circumcision for male infants. If parents are adamantly insistent on a circumcision of their male infant, the circumcision should be deferred until after breastfeeding is well established.

Breastfeeding, like non-circumcision or "intactness," is natural and healthy. Bottlefeeding, like circumcision, is unnatural and unhealthy. Male neonatal circumcision should never be allowed to compromise the successful initiation of breastfeeding.

Studies have proven that circumcision impairs the health and well-being of the child. Doctors and parents should protect children from the complications, risks, and unavoidable surgical trauma inherent in circumcision.

At the bottom of that link is an extensive list of references.

N00dguy

10-31-2003, 06:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
.....
Breastfeeding, like non-circumcision or "intactness," is natural and healthy. Bottlefeeding, like circumcision, is unnatural and unhealthy. Male neonatal circumcision should never be allowed to compromise the successful initiation of breastfeeding....... [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm confused. I was neonatally circumcised and was neonatally breastfed...........
look at me now, fit, fat and over 40, completely natural and almost healthy. (recently diagnosed as epileptic, maybe a latent result of earlier neonatal trauma /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif )

10-31-2003, 07:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by N00dguy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
.....
Breastfeeding, like non-circumcision or "intactness," is natural and healthy. Bottlefeeding, like circumcision, is unnatural and unhealthy. Male neonatal circumcision should never be allowed to compromise the successful initiation of breastfeeding....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm confused. I was neonatally circumcised and was neonatally breastfed...........
look at me now, fit, fat and over 40, completely natural and almost healthy. (recently diagnosed as epileptic, maybe a latent result of earlier neonatal trauma /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ) [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't understand why you are confused. Being circumcised does not mean anything bad will most definitely happen to you. What it does mean is that bad things are possible so why have it done when there are no benefits and you could end up dead or without a penis? Why do something to a baby that will increase the chances for serious problems? Why put a baby through all that pain and discomfort for nothing?

LEAVE ME ALONE

10-31-2003, 07:08 AM

PUT IT BACK...THE WAY IT WAS...OH PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS...IT WAS SLIMY AND STICKY...BUT AT LEAST IT WAS A FORESKIN DICKY...LUBRICATING THE WAY IT SHOULD...OH PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS!!!

RIVERRAT

11-01-2003, 05:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
38 Good Reasons Not to Circumcise:

"I always see more problems from a circumcision than from a foreskin."

- a paediatrician, quoted on America On Line.

Most of these are (small) risks.
Those marked * are (inevitable) detriments.

1you Infection and sometimes death

2
Haemorrhage and sometimes death

3
*Pain / shock, and sometimes death

4
Meth[a]emoglobin[a]emia, brain damage and possibly death, if EMLA cream is used to anaesthetise a newborn

5
Necrotising fasciitis ("galloping gangrene")

6
*Damage (scarring, pitting) to the glans or *shaft. In the case of Dustin Evans Jr, the scarring caused a urethral stricture (narrowing of the urinary tube), and it was during an operation to relieve this that he died.

7
Urethral fissure/fistula

8
Scaphoid megalourethra

9
"Trapped/buried penis"

10
*Occlusion of penile venous system

11
Urinary Tract Infection

12
Meatitis

13
Meatal ulcer

14
Meatal stenosis

15
Multiple pyogenic [caused by pus] granuloma - a series of papillomatous [brushlike] growths around the circumcision wound

16
Eczema of the glans and meatus

17
Oedema of local tissue

18
Loss of *sensitivity / impotence

19
*Reduced volume of penis

20
May shorten the penis:

"Circumcised men had shorter erect penises than uncircumcised men (p0.05)." - Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8(2): 77-81.
21
Painful erections

22
Wound re-opening (in adulthood)

23
Chafing from underwear

"Other circumcised men complain of life-long irritation of the exposed glans as it comes in contact with clothing during normal activity." - "Sensitivity is the Rising Issue on Circumcision" by Dr. Sandra Pertot, "Australian Doctor" 25 November 1994
24
Production of ugly scar tissue, skin-bridges, skin-tags, malapposition (rejoining on the twist) and/or suture holes

25
*Breach of bodily integrity

26
*Breach of human rights

27
*Breach of property rights

28
Psychological trauma, resulting in eg. elective muteness

29
Because he had had enough of a struggle just to be born, and deserved no more pain

30
*Loss of an organ for stimulating the partner and retaining semen in the vagina after ejaculation

31
*Greater need to use lubricant for masturbation or intercourse

32
Loss of an organ for *play, docking, etc.

33
Loss of skin for plastic surgery of hypospadias

34
Loss of skin for plastic surgery to eyelids

35
Loss of protection against frostbite.

36
Because the foreskin evolved over tens of millions of years and every male mammal has one. / Because God knew what S/He was doing when S/He put it there. / Because Nature knows best.

37
Because he will almost always be glad you didn't

38
*Cost (That's why Elvis was intact.)

Eight Debatable Reasons Not to Circumcise:

1
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - cot death)

2
Because circumcision hinders the establishment of breast-feeding

3
Increased risk of HIV

4
Prostate cancer, due to reduced innervation impairing prostate function on ejaculation

5
Impotence

6
Because balanitis may indicate diabetes

7
Because condoms slip off circumcised penes more easily.

8
Because he might be switched with another baby being circumcised at the same time (Memphis, TN, 16/4/98 (AP))

9
So that he can perform the full repertoire of "Puppetry of the Penis" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you are a *************, Ihave for well over 50 years none of friends whose boys were circumsised and I have never heared of any of these horror stories you talk about. You believe the trash you read written by more like yourself who have know idea what they are talking about. you believe that trash but you wouldn't believe a word from the BIBLE because it doesn't further your cause, you are a one way street headed nowhere, what do you care what parents choose for there kids. I am greatful for my parents choice and both my boys are to, you have no business speacking on this and no right.

11-01-2003, 06:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
you are a complete idiot, Ihave for well over 50 years none of friends whose boys were circumsised and I have never heared of any of these horror stories you talk about. You believe the trash you read written by more like yourself who have know idea what they are talking about. you believe that trash but you wouldn't believe a word from the BIBLE because it doesn't further your cause, you are a one way street headed nowhere, what do you care what parents choose for there kids. I am greatful for my parents choice and both my boys are to, you have no business speacking on this and no right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Welcome back! I see you still have no clue what the rules are here. LOL!

On drugs again?

florida-david

11-01-2003, 07:08 PM

cyndiann- obviously he is not on his meds, or he would have not acted so rudely....

Griffin

11-01-2003, 07:32 PM

Good grief, RiverRat. You undermined your case by calling folks "idiots," and then you wrote a pretty incoherent message that we had to read a couple of times to decipher. You thank your parents for deciding on cutting off part of your body. Pardon me, but many of us believe amputation of whole structures of our bodies should be our own choice. You try to discredit a long litany of reasons why circumcision is unjustified. And there are numerous reasons why circumcision is unwarranted. When no medical societies endorse circumcision, when a whole batch of books have been written in the past few decades against circumcision and nothing of substance to support it, when the circumcision rate has dropped dramatically, when four in five males worldwide are intact and doing nicely, when some international human rights organizations have denounced circumcision as inhumane and a violation of univeral human rights, some just don't get it. Frankly, why should the penis lose its most mobile structure? Why should the penile head be altered from an internal structure to one "hung out to dry." You probably don't know that we who have restored our foreskins have regained incredible sensitivity to the glans because the keratinized (calloused) covering is gone. Now it gleams at erection and is marvelously sensitive.
Just because a circumcised penis "works" and has sensitvity does NOT justify circumcision any more than a hand with four fingers instead of five fingers can still swing a hammer and work on a keyboard. What you keep failing to grasp is that important issue of "sovereignty" over one's body. Our bodies are our own. A parent who would authorize neonatal circumcision crosses the line and makes a terrible assumption that the son will someday affirm that decision. Well, many males have objected to that decision and resent it. A parent who would leave the foreskin alone demonstrates respect for a son's own body.

Griffin

11-01-2003, 08:15 PM

One well-stated summary on why circumcision persists in the U.S. was spelled out at the 1996 Fourth International Symposium on Genital Mutilation in Lausanne, Switzerland.

"While most other countries have abandoned the practice of routine neonatal circumcision, the United States continues to have the highest rate of circumcision performed for non-religious reasons. This phenomenon is the result of the lack of children's rights and informed consent, treating circumcision differently than any other surgical procedure, censorship in American medical journals, inability of the medical community to treat the issue rationally, general ignorance in both the medical and lay communities, exploitation of the mainstream medical journals by pro-circumcision zealots, the utilization of scare tactics in the lay literature, and continuing third-party reimbursement. Future directives include demonstrating circumcision's obsolescence, challenging the rationale of third-party payment, aggressively countering the various circumcision "myths," demanding that circumcision be held to the same scientific and ethical standards as other surgical procedures, and challenging circumcision advocates to present a balanced non-biased view of the issue."

Trailscout

11-02-2003, 08:07 AM

I think a lot of parents have this surgery done on their infant sons so they will not look different from other boys.

I remember crude comments from elementary and high school about boys who were not circumcised. They were derided as having "dog d**ks".

Does anyone have any figures on the current US circumcision rates? If they have dropped, maybe boys would not be so stigmatized as in other years.

florida-david

11-02-2003, 01:08 PM

parents often have unneccessary surgeries done to themselves to make themselves fit into society, that does not mean we should force our own children to grow up thinking they are imperfect. why is it that americans are so darn stubborn and can not listen to the rest of the world? oh yeah, i forgot, we have to keep up the myth that we all arrogant no-it-alls. sorry, please ignore my rambling....

Griffin

11-02-2003, 03:58 PM

How sad-- and how often -- we hear that lame, lame argument that circumcision should be carried out to protect our sons from any future mean and cruel teasing in the locker room by cut boys. Ever thought about it the other way? That intact boys could tease circumcised boys for being maimed and missing a part of their penises as if they were a dog with his tail docked. Now, of course, we find such "reverse teasing" as unacceptable as cruel comments about intact boys.
We left our son intact and he never shared any stories of being taunted. Here in the American West, more males now survived their post-birth intact. It is believed under 40 percent of boys are now cut, the lowest rate in America.
Looking like Daddy is so weak an argument, as if the world is going around wondering why fathers and sons are different. When our son was younger and we were in naturist situations, NO ONE EVER RAISED THE ISSUE about us being different, with and without foreskins, but most of that could be because naturists, I believe, are not wont to be cruel like that and we are talking about adults.
Besides, why should any boy "lack" like Daddy?
He cannot look like Daddy in so many ways, so why should he lack like Daddy?
Dr. Dean Edell this past week again gave a wonderful discrediting of circumcision on his radio show, noting how 100 years from now, it will be one of those top items that will be looked back with shaking heads as a repulsive, cruel, ignorant practice. He got on the subject because he was quoting a recent NY Times article about how doctors still don't provide pain relief to the penis of newborns because they mistakenly think the child can't feel pain and they want to get through it quickly, and these mindless doctors think that if they cut fast, there is no pain.
Come on parents, get beyond the shallowness of protecting kids from some teasing. They'll get teased about something anyway. I was taunted for getting the best grades all the time and get "A's" for deportment and for refusing to drink beer as a teen.

11-02-2003, 04:24 PM

No one ever made fun of me for not being circumcised. The only one who ever said anything was a nephew when I was in my late 20's or early 30's. He said my penis looked funny like it had been cut off on the end. His mother told him that his had been cut.

RAD

11-02-2003, 07:14 PM

[/QUOTE]you are a complete idiot, Ihave for well over 50 years none of friends whose boys were circumsised and I have never heared of any of these horror stories you talk about. You believe the trash you read written by more like yourself who have know idea what they are talking about. you believe that trash but you wouldn't believe a word from the BIBLE because it doesn't further your cause, you are a one way street headed nowhere, what do you care what parents choose for there kids. I am greatful for my parents choice and both my boys are to, you have no business speacking on this and no right. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well my 1st time on the boards here at clothesfree and what do I find. It looks like someone who's mind has closed but whose mouth stayed open. Normally I would expect to see a group of people who may not all agree but at least no how to disagree with grace and style, and possibly even with an open mind.

Oh well

florida-david

11-02-2003, 07:38 PM

rad, please ignore the rude behaviour of one of us, he must have had a bad hair day. most of us are open-minded individuals. i hope you have better luck on your next post.

Trailscout

11-02-2003, 07:56 PM

Well at least I still have my tonsils!

My brother and I were both circ'ed because that was just the way things were done in those days. After all, "modern" doctors could improve on God's original design.

And I don't mean any offense to observant Jews who make this sacrifice to preserve their heritage. I now hear that ritual Jewish circumcision did not completely remove the entire foreskin, so it may be inappropriate to compare it with "modern" medical circumcision that does remove all the foreskin.

My brother lost his tonsils like a lot of kids in those days. Mine never gave me trouble, so I still have them in the back of my throat doing whatever it is that tonsils are supposed to do. Doctors are a lot less quick to cut them out these days.

Maybe medicine is beginning to respect the human body a little more.

11-02-2003, 10:06 PM

I'm always amazed at how many internal body parts we can live without when they have to come out. It makes me wonder: If we can live without them, why do we have them? Tonsils, spleen (whatever that is), appendix, and maybe other things, can all be taken out, so what purpose do they serve?

vintagecarguy

11-03-2003, 01:15 AM

I would like to thank those folks who have defended the right of children to keep their whole intact bodies.
Too often on discussion boards one sees folks posting,Im cut and it didnt hurt me and Ive never seen any of these horror stories that anti-circs claim exist.
Well,mine may not be a horror story but its not fun.
I was cut at birth by what I,the owner of the mutilated penis,can only describe as a butcher.
I first noticed I had a scar when I was around 5.All I knew about scars was that it meant youd been hurt.I was given the lame excuse,thats where they cut off some extra skin,when I asked my Mom.
As a teen I would sometimes awake with blood on my sheets and a weeping tear in what little remained of my inner skin from nocturnal erections.I had been cut very lop sided and way too tight.
This was before the internet and I thought I was alone.I also have 2,yes TWO openings in my glans.I didnt learn until much later that this was caused by meatal stenosis caused by infant genital mutilation.
As I said before I thought I was alone and all the books in the litttle library in this town just refered to the foreskin as something removed at birth.
At around 15 I got up the courage to discuss it with my best freind and as I described my bleeding,painfull erections and 2 holes he said he NEVER had any trouble with his penis.Thats when I found out he was uncircumcised.I learned that the litany of trouble that the old books claimed a foreskin caused were lies.That a few folks might have trouble like an apendix can cause trouble but that the vast majority of intact men were fine and most definately DID NOT SUFFER from what I did.
Ever since ,I have been open about talking about it and actively fighting to stop infant cutting.What an adult does to his own body is his own business but stop cutting kids.
I have found ,even here in this little town of Oakhurst, many men who regret what was done to them as infants but a couple havent had the guts to stand up for the rights of their own sons when the wife insisted.Many men will not discuss their feelings for fear of ridicule and just go along with the crowd.A neighbor near my house has a horrible skin bridge,and a young man know lost his glans due to circ. A friends husband and both his brothers suffered from meatal stenosis which was surgicaly treated athe the age of 9 for the oldest.All three ,now adult men,vividly remember the pain and humiliation and are dead set against mutilation.
Even though my girlfriend claims she has no problem with my body I cant help but be self-conscious about my huge scar and abnormal meatus.
Well...,Ive droned on long enough but once again,A huge THANK YOU to those defending the rights of children.I hope that someday, stories like mine will be nothing more than an historic curiosity of an older more barbaric time.

Griffin

11-03-2003, 05:16 AM

Dear Vintagecarguy,
What a sincere, heartfelt, sensitive story you tell. These are the stories the circumcisers won't recognize. These are the stories that the defenders of circumcision don't know about or dismiss as isolated incidents. Sadly, their only lame defense is that the penis is easier to clean without a foreskin. It takes me all of 5 seconds to clean mine in the shower. I am always reminded how many other body structures get dirty and we dutiful clean: under fingernails and toenails, in ears, the anus, the crud in our eyes in the morning, the dried mucous in the nose, what gets into our hair and between our teeth and under our underarms. Seems that cleaning in those places just comes with having a body. Don't let anyone try to justify circumcision by saying it's a sanity issue. And as for a tight foreskins, they have been stretched since the beginning of time to allow great entry of the glans.
Thanks, Vintagecarguy, again for your sharing. We need to hear such stories tragic as they are.

florida-david

11-03-2003, 06:17 AM

hi vintagecarguy, did you ever have surgery to fix what the doctors did? if you still have frequent overly tight erections, you could start the foreskin restoration process but only enough so that the skin is no longer tight during erections. you do not have to fully recreate a foreskin if you do not want, but doing some of the pulling work for only 5 or 6 months would be enough to recreate skin such that your erections would not be so uncomfortable.

Griffin

11-03-2003, 05:22 PM

One of the great things about these message discussions is that some folks with no particular interest either way about circumcision come upon them and may follow some of the discussion. Hopefully is raises consciousness and perhaps leads to a growing awareness of the insidiousness of circumcision. The web is rich with helpful sites, but certainly it has some that serve only to play with the head of intact guys and get them to develop a curiosity in being cut.
One of the best huge websites chocked full of great information on how brutal and destructive circumcision is:
www.circumstiions.com (http://www.circumstiions.com)

NakedGary

11-03-2003, 07:16 PM

that circumcision link posted was incorrect. It should have been: http://www.circumstitions.com/

Naturally Intact,

"NakedGary"

RIVERRAT

11-18-2003, 09:43 PM

Hey Babyface, ******attack edited by admin*****, I would have it done now but fortunatly my parents had the foresite to have the foreskin removed when I was very young, pain, I DON'T REMEMBER NO STINKING PAIN. You like your female friend have no clue. Ask around with your heteresxual female friends and get there oppinion on skinned or unskinned. Later
PS I'm very greatful for my parents decision and so are my boys, hey lifes a ***** then we die, who the hell cares? you need to worry about finanses or something important.How bought my spelling? RAT

Fresh Air

11-19-2003, 10:24 AM

What we need is a time-machine. In some ways it is partially the choice of ones life-partner. My parents circumcized me. My wife actually prefers the circumcized penis over the non-circumcized one. But, that's my situation and it just worked out for the best. I am content.

I share the oppinion that in the end it really doesn't matter. We reproduce then we die. There are pros and cons to both choices. If one believes in God, then it is easy to conclude that God gave these instructions for a reason back then. Are they "laws"? No, not in my oppinion (perhaps for the jews).

Say medicine did not exist. There are more issues to deal with in that context if one is uncircumcized. Also, just recently I studied invasive squamous cell penile carcinomas. This is one cancer that only occurs in uncircumcized men. It is rare in the US, but is not present in the Jewish population and unfortunately in Asian cultures accounts for about 10% of all male cancers. So, this would be a 'pro' for circumcision. But again, there are pros and cons to both choices.

I lean toward the natural state, but don't see anything wrong with personal choices....especially if they have a time-machine.

Fresh Air

11-19-2003, 10:37 AM

Fresh Air, did you know you stand a much greater chance of having your penis mutilated or cut off than getting penile cancer? In other words the cure is worse than the disease.

There are no cons to staying natural.

And in this case it isn't a personal choice.... the decision is being made for you as an infant and much of the time is done just because the parent wasn't educated on it.

Corky

11-19-2003, 12:03 PM

Everyone can state their point of view without personally attacking others. Personal attacks will be deleted. Repeated attackers will be suspended from the forums.

Thank you!

wannabenaked2001

11-19-2003, 12:22 PM

I don't understand what the big deal is? I can see that circumcising is not necessary and maybe even harmfull, but un-circumcising? What ever happened to "body acceptance"?

I don't really understand why an adult would want to be circumcised either. I mean, from what I understand it is quite painful.

I suppose, for an adult wishing to be circumcised or un-circumcised, it is a matter of personal preferance much like breast enlargement, tattoos and peircings among others.

I admit, I was circumcised as an infant, but I have no complaints. I mean, I can't miss what I can't remember having (at least not in this situation).

I think new parents considering circumcising their son should discuss this issue with their doctors, hopefully including a urologist. But I fail to see the point in this lenghty discussion.

RIVERRAT

11-19-2003, 03:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RAD:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you are a complete idiot, Ihave for well over 50 years none of friends whose boys were circumsised and I have never heared of any of these horror stories you talk about. You believe the trash you read written by more like yourself who have know idea what they are talking about. you believe that trash but you wouldn't believe a word from the BIBLE because it doesn't further your cause, you are a one way street headed nowhere, what do you care what parents choose for there kids. I am greatful for my parents choice and both my boys are to, you have no business speacking on this and no right. [/QUOTE]say what

Well my 1st time on the boards here at clothesfree and what do I find. It looks like someone who's mind has closed but whose mouth stayed open. Normally I would expect to see a group of people who may not all agree but at least no how to disagree with grace and style, and possibly even with an open mind.

Oh well [/QB][/QUOTE]

RIVERRAT

11-19-2003, 03:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>as for me no, and never had lady complain either

RIVERRAT

11-19-2003, 04:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Fresh Air, did you know you stand a much greater chance of having your penis mutilated or cut off than getting penile cancer? In other words the cure is worse than the disease.

There are no cons to staying natural.

And in this case it isn't a personal choice.... the decision is being made for you as an infant and much of the time is done just because the parent wasn't educated on it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Come on Cyndie what do you really care?????

parakeet34

11-19-2003, 05:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by fordmustang:
Have any of you guys that are circumsised ever wished you weren't? I've always since I can remember, wish I had it back, and blame the parents/doctor for taking it without my consent.

I've been reading a book, "The Joy of Uncircumsizing" and wondered if any of you out there have started any of the various options for restoring at least the look of having foreskin.

Thanks <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>as for me no, and never had lady complain either <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

parakeet34

11-19-2003, 06:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
I'm uncut and I can asure you that the head of mine is EXTREMELY sensitive. My knees literally buckle when I just wash under the skin. I'd be willing to bet that sensitivity is lessoned considerably after being constantly exposed to clothing.

I had a brother who chose to be circumcized as an adult. His skin afterwards was black from his waist down to his knees because of another botched job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm a 34 yr-old uncircumcised male born in the U.S., as are my younger brothers. My Danish-born father decided to get circumcised at age 20, just to conform to the typical U.S. male prototype. He claims that it was just about the worst decision that he ever made, and literally had to protest what could have been my circumcision.I'm glad he protested, me and my brothers got to stay intact /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Peace ! form P-34

Griffin

11-19-2003, 08:27 PM

Sadly, what the defenders of circumcision fail to grasp is the basic, fundamental,universal right for everyone to be safe and secure in- and with - one's own body. Obviously, given the resistance and incomprehension to that concept for some, parents just keep on unilaterally ordering the cutting. Why shouldn't we respect the wholeness of a new life, a gift to us as nature made him and intended him? Why must a tribal, cultural, mutilating, entrenched practice continue? How can some of us recognize the self-evidence of the hideous practice and break the cycle.I was unjustly cut as a newborn, but, by golly, nothing about circumcision convinced me to impose the practice on my son when he was born. At 28, he thanks us for our forbearance and humanity. As a male, my basic instinct told me it was wrong and I was repulsed by it, so he stayed whole. Why is that so hard to understand for some and some obvious to others? Methinks it has something to do with our level of humanity, compassion and empathy - and the ability to realize everything should be open to questioning in every generation. How utterly enthralling to defy the tyranny of tradition, especially ending violence imposed on the helpless just because others do it. Sometimes, like it or not, we become more civilized.

Glen M

11-20-2003, 02:43 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RIVERRAT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
38 Good Reasons Not to Circumcise:

"I always see more problems from a circumcision than from a foreskin."

- a paediatrician, quoted on America On Line.

Most of these are (small) risks.
Those marked * are (inevitable) detriments.

1you Infection and sometimes death

2
Haemorrhage and sometimes death

3
*Pain / shock, and sometimes death

4
Meth[a]emoglobin[a]emia, brain damage and possibly death, if EMLA cream is used to anaesthetise a newborn

5
Necrotising fasciitis ("galloping gangrene")

6
*Damage (scarring, pitting) to the glans or *shaft. In the case of Dustin Evans Jr, the scarring caused a urethral stricture (narrowing of the urinary tube), and it was during an operation to relieve this that he died.

7
Urethral fissure/fistula

8
Scaphoid megalourethra

9
"Trapped/buried penis"

10
*Occlusion of penile venous system

11
Urinary Tract Infection

12
Meatitis

13
Meatal ulcer

14
Meatal stenosis

15
Multiple pyogenic [caused by pus] granuloma - a series of papillomatous [brushlike] growths around the circumcision wound

16
Eczema of the glans and meatus

17
Oedema of local tissue

18
Loss of *sensitivity / impotence

19
*Reduced volume of penis

20
May shorten the penis:

"Circumcised men had shorter erect penises than uncircumcised men (p0.05)." - Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Are condoms the right size(s)? a method for self-measurement of the erect penis. Venereology 1995; 8(2): 77-81.
21
Painful erections

22
Wound re-opening (in adulthood)

23
Chafing from underwear

"Other circumcised men complain of life-long irritation of the exposed glans as it comes in contact with clothing during normal activity." - "Sensitivity is the Rising Issue on Circumcision" by Dr. Sandra Pertot, "Australian Doctor" 25 November 1994
24
Production of ugly scar tissue, skin-bridges, skin-tags, malapposition (rejoining on the twist) and/or suture holes

25
*Breach of bodily integrity

26
*Breach of human rights

27
*Breach of property rights

28
Psychological trauma, resulting in eg. elective muteness

29
Because he had had enough of a struggle just to be born, and deserved no more pain

30
*Loss of an organ for stimulating the partner and retaining semen in the vagina after ejaculation

31
*Greater need to use lubricant for masturbation or intercourse

32
Loss of an organ for *play, docking, etc.

33
Loss of skin for plastic surgery of hypospadias

34
Loss of skin for plastic surgery to eyelids

35
Loss of protection against frostbite.

36
Because the foreskin evolved over tens of millions of years and every male mammal has one. / Because God knew what S/He was doing when S/He put it there. / Because Nature knows best.

37
Because he will almost always be glad you didn't

38
*Cost (That's why Elvis was intact.)

Eight Debatable Reasons Not to Circumcise:

1
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome - cot death)

2
Because circumcision hinders the establishment of breast-feeding

3
Increased risk of HIV

4
Prostate cancer, due to reduced innervation impairing prostate function on ejaculation

5
Impotence

6
Because balanitis may indicate diabetes

7
Because condoms slip off circumcised penes more easily.

8
Because he might be switched with another baby being circumcised at the same time (Memphis, TN, 16/4/98 (AP))

9
So that he can perform the full repertoire of "Puppetry of the Penis" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>you are a *************, Ihave for well over 50 years none of friends whose boys were circumsised and I have never heared of any of these horror stories you talk about. You believe the trash you read written by more like yourself who have know idea what they are talking about. you believe that trash but you wouldn't believe a word from the BIBLE because it doesn't further your cause, you are a one way street headed nowhere, what do you care what parents choose for there kids. I am greatful for my parents choice and both my boys are to, you have no business speacking on this and no right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glen M

11-20-2003, 02:51 AM

For the first 26 years of my life I was uncircumcised and thought it was the only way to be. Because of a bad infection I was circumcised at 26. I was stationed in the South Pacific and the heat and humidity was a contributing factor plus I had been injured and this was done hoping to save my penis. Well I was scared that as this healed up my wife, and that everything would not be the same. I was so wrong, I love being cut. My wife loves the look and the feelings/sensitivity are great. If I had it to do over I would have been cut at birth. I love being circumcised.

Glen

Griffin

11-20-2003, 04:39 AM

Glen is pleased he was circumcised as an adult. That is anecdotal. For every Glen, this are men who are unhappy they went that route and wished they had their foreskins back. And, of course, there are the intact men who are happy they can keep their wholeness. What needs always to be underscored here is that Glen got to make that choice for himself, as an adult. We should have that sovereignty over our bodies and decide ourselves what gets cut off and what stays. There are just too many of us who resent and object to having had that choice denied us. Just because Glen is happy with how is penis is today in no way can be an endorsement of how it should be.

RIVERRAT

11-20-2003, 07:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Corky:
Everyone can state their point of view without personally attacking others. Personal attacks will be deleted. Repeated attackers will be suspended from the forums.

Thank you! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Corky, I guess this note is dirrected at me, sorry, I do have an oppinion on this and if someone is offended, so am I by there oppinion, I don't think I said anything that would cause war, but I do have my point of veiw, these people who think they know it all, I have to say my veiw, I will tell you right now I fear no man or women, I believe what I believe if that gets me kicked out of the forum thats your loss. I believe in this enough to make it a very strong point, I belive anyone who belives this is mutilation or something sick has no clue from my side who has had it done and is greatful. I have the right to express how I feel as to the others who don't know.And yah, my drugs are just kicking in. so the people who who have attacked me are ok, but I'm the bad guy, well kick me out but refund my money. again your loss. Later

wannabenaked2001

11-21-2003, 07:56 AM

Riverrat Dude!

Chill out. Your opinions are not the problem. The problem is how you and maybe some others express their opinions. Foul language and name calling do nothing to strengthen one's position, and even makes the offender appear less creditable and less intelligent. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your opinions here are welcomed, and you do have much to offer the forum. It's just not a good idea to expect you can get everyone to come around to your point of view.

So, keep posting, but chill out a bit. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fresh Air

11-21-2003, 11:36 AM

Do those who have been circumcized have the right to body acceptance? Many of us are ok with the choice made. We love and accept the way we are. I just worry about those who can not accept their bodies how they are. Especially nudists.

My son's will likely be left intact, but it has nothing to do with my life experience. Give me the time machine and I would not change a thing.

Also, Griffin, asking some "tribal, cultural, mutilating, entrenched practice" to cease is not the answer. There are those who believe in the practise. Viewing another culture from you own culture is not the way to understand why they do it. It would be as if you were asked not to be nude, by an outsider.

If we look hard enough, we could probobly find a post somewhere arguing the way to form the belly button. Outy or Inny? There would be a list of the pros and cons of each. Overall, does it make a difference? Generally not.

Fresh Air

RIVERRAT

11-21-2003, 12:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
Riverrat Dude!

Chill out. Your opinions are not the problem. The problem is how you and maybe some others express their opinions. Foul language and name calling do nothing to strengthen one's position, and even makes the offender appear less creditable and less intelligent. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Your opinions here are welcomed, and you do have much to offer the forum. It's just not a good idea to expect you can get everyone to come around to your point of view.

So, keep posting, but chill out a bit. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks for that but I don't think I have ever used foul language, I have a problem with those who have no idea about which they talk. if they haven't experianced what it is about shut up. plain and simple.

RIVERRAT

11-21-2003, 12:23 PM

refund my money to my card I will not be insulted by anyone, my oppinion is mine if some have a problem with that to bad, Iam my own person if someone disagrees with that thats there problem,not mine, refund my money and you'll have no more problems, I beleive in what I believe. refund my payment it's your loss, I have been a good faith person here for over a year, no more.

Joe Nudist

11-21-2003, 01:38 PM

It time every one stop talking about Circumcized.

Hooked

11-21-2003, 01:47 PM

I just wanted to say that women have a right to have an opinion on circumcision just as men have a right to have an opinion on abortion. Sure, the formulation of their opinion won't be the same but it rarely is on any issue. When considering your choices, a person may value a male's opinion over a female's or vice-versa in an abortion situation but both genders have a right to an educated opinion on both issues.

Thank you.

please please please! Don't anyone start talking about abortion now. I know they are totally different issues...I only drew the comparison because they are often gender-related and one side often says the other gender can't have an opinion on the subject.

RIVERRAT

11-30-2003, 12:44 PM

Corey, corky or whoever,
respond to my last posting, either refund my money to my card or explain where I was wrong in anything I have said, It was implyed by someone that I used foul language, I did not, that I had offended someone OH, GEE, this is a forum we all have our oppinions and we express them, if someone dissagrees, say so, thats why were here, no two people have the same oppinion, we all disagree thats what makes this forum fun, lets agree to disagree. Tell me where I was wrong and if I can't deal with, refund my money, I believe what I believe, I will post what I believe if someone disagres, cool we can debate' or not, but I believe in what I say ,if someone else doesn't, lets talk. I'm POPEYE, Iam what I am thats all what I am, love me or hate me, I don't care......we can go from there.

Corky

11-30-2003, 02:28 PM

RIVERRAT:

The post where you said: "you are a complete idiot" was all that was deleted.

That is a little beyond making a point of view. We got complaints. It is against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

Try not to personally attack others. Feel free to totally disagree with others though! We welcome your thoughts!!!

Most of all, have fun!!

Sajari H12

11-30-2003, 08:23 PM

hi, My name is Sajari. Im 14 and im from NY. What i have to say is the total opposite of the topic but here it goes. Im was NOT circumcised at birth just because my mother chose not to. The same goes for my two little brothers. I think i doesnt matter if you are circumcised or not because you are going to use ur penis for the same funtions anyway. Also, i dont think anyone is going to be judging you on the way your penis looks. just some friendly insight here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RIVERRAT

12-03-2003, 01:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Corky:
RIVERRAT:

The post where you said: "you are a complete idiot" was all that was deleted.

That is a little beyond making a point of view. We got complaints. It is against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

Try not to personally attack others. Feel free to totally disagree with others though! We welcome your thoughts!!!

Most of all, have fun!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Corky, I said what I said , I will not say I'm sorry, Iam not, I said what I said and thats what I felt at the time. The person who I was talking to has know right to post an oppinion on this subject, lets leave it there.

RIVERRAT

12-03-2003, 01:43 AM

wannabenaked, Trust me this as chilled as I get, I guess you wanna know, don't piss me off' Im very verbal, not to fisiacl or smart either. Later

wannabenaked2001

12-03-2003, 06:06 AM

?????????????????????

florida-david

12-03-2003, 09:33 AM

Sajari H12 - i think sometimes it takes the youth on this site to clear through the other b.s. spouted by some of the so-called "mature" nudists on this site. thanks for interrupting the bickering between the adults with some positive statements in regards to the topic. i am surprised that you and your brothers have not been picked on over being uncut, i think that is great that the guys in the locker room at school are finally realizing we are all a little different and not making a big deal out of it. thanks for your input!!!

RIVERRAT

12-03-2003, 05:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
????????????????????? [/QU
Maybe you haven't noticed, Ghandi is dead, who cares what he said.

Trailscout

12-03-2003, 06:53 PM

Riverrat,

Say what? Someone's opinions cease to matter the minute they die? I still cherish the things Granny taught me when I was a kid, though she has been dead to this world for 14 years.

I don't know if you are a Christian, but do you say the same thing about Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon?

I guess that means you don't care about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln or any of those dead dudes. Nothing they stood for matters, does it?

Mohandas Gandhi stood up to the British and their dictatorial ways and helped lead his people to freedom. I admire that about him. He refused to convert to Christianity, so I have to part ways with him on that. But none of this is an issue of who is living and who is dead, but a case of what was said.

If you can say something that makes me think, I will remember it long after your ghost has left this earth.

Sajari H12

12-03-2003, 07:15 PM

Than u for the compliment florida-david, i appreciate it. and dont worry ill still be posting my ideas on this site /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

namedun

12-03-2003, 07:50 PM

Savior faiths.....always so arrogant....always so intolerant....

Trailscout

12-03-2003, 08:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by namedun:
Savior faiths.....always so arrogant....always so intolerant.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People who say "always" fairly often sound intolerant and arrogant too, don't you think?

NakedGary

12-04-2003, 10:04 AM

Uncut is natural to +85% of the male world, thoes who are mutilated, cut, scarred, exposed, or have had penile reduction or modification are the ones who are different!

TXK NUDE

12-04-2003, 05:27 PM

232 posts on this thread! 232! Can we please give this topic a rest? I think everything that can be said about circumcision has been said...on both sides! This is what I mean about giving ammunition to the textiles. Our longest threads are about sex, body parts, or erections! No wonder they think we're all sex deviants!

RIVERRAT

12-04-2003, 09:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Trailscout:
Riverrat,

Say what? Someone's opinions cease to matter the minute they die? I still cherish the things Granny taught me when I was a kid, though she has been dead to this world for 14 years.

I don't know if you are a Christian, but do you say the same thing about Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon?
I guess that means you don't care about Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln or any of those dead dudes. Nothing they stood for matters, does it?

Mohandas Gandhi stood up to the British and their dictatorial ways and helped lead his people to freedom. I admire that about him. He refused to convert to Christianity, so I have to part ways with him on that. But none of this is an issue of who is living and who is dead, but a case of what was said.

If you can say something that makes me think, I will remember it long after your ghost has left this earth. [/QUOTES
sory Trailscout you are right, I guess I reacted to the quote more than the person saying the quote, sometimes I get a little emotional. you are right.

Griffin

01-02-2004, 05:35 PM

The circumcision topic has been inactive for a month. Anyone who gets Cinemax is encouraged to watch a program on Monday night (Jan. 5)titled "The Day I Will Never Forget." Set in Kenya, it critically examines the sad, tragic and brutal tradition of female circumcision. It will note that the World Health Organization reports that at least 132 million women around the world have undergone the procedure that ranges in severity from cutting some or all of the clitoris to the more extreme, also removing the labia and sewing up the vagina so it is no more than a tiny opening about the size of a matchstick, just enough to allow for urination and difficult menstruation.
Of course, like male genital mutillation so predominant in this country, FGM continues in Africa primarily because of the tyranny of ingrained cultural tradition that defies human rights and sovereignty over one's own body. Let's hope some viewers, at least, can be offended enough to see the parallel and realize that all circumcision is unconscionable, repulsive and unacceptable in a civilized world.

01-02-2004, 06:33 PM

Dam I wish I had cable!

Rex

01-02-2004, 09:06 PM

I was not an active member of this forum when this thread started and have only just become aware of it. But, just [apparently] like every other person on the face of the earth, I have certain views and can speak from my own experience.
Please excuse me if I cover some old ground, I must admit I have not read every post.
My father's mother was Jewish, she married a [non-Jewish] man from Scotland and, for whatever reason, my father was not circumcised. [For Jewish males, I believe circumcision is mandatory].
When I was born, my mother's doctor just happened to be Jewish. [We were Protestant].
He would have circumcised me, just as a matter of course, but my mother asked if it was medically necessary. When he said it was not, my mother decided not to have it done.
Then she had a sneaking worry for 18 years that maybe she'd not done the right thing, until I got conscripted into the Royal Navy, at the time of the Korean War, and the navy doctors accepted that I required no alterations, or modifications.
Like every school kid, I got teased at times over this and that, but NEVER about not being
circumcised.
My 2 sons are not circumcised and they never got teased about it either.
On balance, I'm glad I'm not circumcised, but I have no problem with those who are. I am pleased, however, to see medical articles mostly suggesting to parents that, unless it is medically necessary, that it not be done.
[This is a complete turnaround from the predominant Australian attitude of, say, 30 years ago].
Australia is an extremely racially and culturally mixed society, and religious freedom is both legally guaranteed and overwhelmingly supported, but, I'm very pleased to say, female circumcision fills most of us with horror, and is totally illegal.

SPEEDOBOY

01-11-2004, 09:03 AM

ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMISION IS THE WORST FORM OF CHILD ABUSE,NON CONSENTUAL RITUAL GENITAL MUTILATION FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN AN $800 MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR BUTCHERING BY SO CALLED UNSCRUPOULOUS DOCTORS AND MOHELS OUT TO MAKE A BUCK AT THE SCREAMING AND IN SOME CASES DYING BOY IN THE CIRC ROOM.
MOST PROGRESSIVE COUNTRIES,OTHER THAN ISRAEL/MOSLEM COUNTRIES DO NOT BUTCHER THEIR BOYS AT BIRTH,WHY DO WE,$/IGNORANCE,IS THE ANSWER,SMALL WONDER AMERICANS GULP VIGRA DOWN TO INCREASE THEIR SEXULITY AFTER BEING AMPUTATED AND 30+% OF THEIR FEELING IN THE PENILE GLANS DIMINISHED AFTER REMOVAL OF THE PROTECTIVE FORESKIN!
BIG BUCKS BEFORE AND AFTER FOR THE MEDICAL/PHARMASUTICALS.
REAN SAY NO!TO CIRCUMCSION BY DR.RITTER OR SEE A BUTCHERINGING PERSON,THEN LET THE BOY DECIDE AT 18.
WWW.NOCIRC.ORG (http://WWW.NOCIRC.ORG)
LEARN THE FACTS BEFORE.
REX?BULLINGTON,BSW/SSW

aunaturelone

01-11-2004, 09:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMISION IS THE WORST FORM OF CHILD ABUSE <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, that honor goes to murder.

Then of course there are rape, Munchenhausen syndrome by proxy, being sold into slavery, being used by parents as slave labor, physical abuse, psychlogical abuse, sexual abuse, malnutrition, being denied an education and so on. There are lots of things worse to have happen to a boychild than to be circumcised.

It doesn't mean that circumcision is a good thing but in the great scheme of things it's way down the list of bad things that can happen.

NakedGary

01-12-2004, 05:29 AM

SpeedOBoy

It's very rude to type in all caps?, unnecessary, and many do not read, but bypass messages in all caps in email or forums, or chat rooms.

85% of the world?s male population penises are left intact, natural and fully functional.

If the animal kingdom was unnaturally circumcised it would cease to exist.

Excluding medical necessity, and religious beliefs, circumcision risks, complications, death, and life long irreversible cosmetic damage, reduction of protection, sensitivity, sexual function, and penile reduction is not justification by parents, doctors, or anyone to rip off, Mutilate, modify, excise, and profit twice by!, with out consent, someone else?s sexual body organs which the recipient must live with unnaturally for the rest of their lives.

I would sure want to know, decide and consent to the fate function, safety, protection, use and pleasure of my own sexual organs before anyone would act without my consent to:

Literally tearing, & forcibly separating attached foreskin of the glands and removing the inter and outer foreskin and 1/3 to ? or more of penile skin equal to 15 square inches or the size of a 3x5? index card [by adult age], mutilation or removal of the frenulum, the most sensitive receptor of stimulation of the organ, and a multitude of veins, nerves, blood supply, muscle, and secretion, and emollient glands for natural protection, & lubrication.

Circumcision is unnecessary, unnatural, horrific, dangerous, and results in life long irreversible damage and scaring of mind and body, and function of the sexual organs. Major medical, cancer, and health maintenance organizations, associations and insurance companies do not cover or recommend, or sanction this unnecessary procedure.

Circumcision rates have steadily declined from all most 90% to just above 50% on the west coast of the United States. In a few years the majority of males will be left intact, and natural, and the boys with the scars, modifications, and penile reduction will be the minority at nudist/naturist settings, gym, school, or group locker & shower room areas.

Many theories, studies about the foreskin or prepuce causing disease, insanity, excessive masturbation, infection etc. have been disproved if not reversed as preventing same. Unless there is a serious medical condition, the proper care is to leave the foreskin alone as it is well able to care for it?s self until natural separation and retraction occurs anywhere from sub year to teens, then normal retraction and cleansing while bathing is all that is necessary to have a healthy and full functioning intact penis for life.

Many academic articles and discussions about preputial anatomy, dimensions, immunological functions, innervation, vascularity, sexual function, and the effects of circumcision, are available on the internet by typing ?circumcision? ?foreskin? or ?prepuce? into any search engine.

So do your research, ask and find the facts before making the decision to inflict pain, irreversible modification, damage and function of a intact natural healthy body and sexual organ or parts, of another person or infant without consent or purpose. Circumcision to look like daddy or others is a lame excuse for the unnecessary and damaging procedure that someday will be illegal and considered sexual abuse to mutilate another person?s body without good reason or medical necessity.

"NakedGary"

Rex

01-12-2004, 06:11 PM

Thank you, Gary, for your clear, well-informed response to this topic.
And a perfect example of why a long post is sometimes appropriate.

Griffin

01-17-2004, 03:13 PM

It is glacially slow for most of us working for circumcision education and prevention, but there is progress. News out of Maine is that that state has just become the 13th state to end Medicaid coverage for newborn circumcisions. The governor has signed the legislation. In other words, low-income parents cannot get government-funded medical coverage (in Maine where it is called MaineCare) to pay for circumcisions. If they want it, they have to pay for it themselves, and fortunately most cannot and will not pay for the cutting -- and the baby boy is the winner.
This becomes the first Northeast U.S. state ending circumcision through Medicaid. We now have the four corners covered (California, Washington, Florida and Maine.) The other nine states that banned Medicaid for circumcision (starting in 1991 with North Dakota)are Mississippi, Missouri, Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, Oregon, Nevada and Montana. Some states made the change just because they were straining to save money where they could, and circumcision could not be defended in anybody's budget. The changes also came about because of good folks making state leaders aware of the waste, the unethical medical issue and the fact it is not medically indicated. Here in Arizona, we ended it in 2002 and spared the foreskins of 12,600 baby boys a year at a cost of $1.66 million per year in tax money saved.
It's all called human rights and social justice progress. Expect more states to wake up and stop the madness. Medicaid-funded circumcision make up about a quarter of all circs done in the U.S. If Washington stopped its flow of money for them, it would force states to get on board. Meanwhile, we will see the percentage of American males who are intact and whole continue to rise. The dirty little practice of circumcision WILL find itself on the dungheap of bizarre medical practices.

NORM-UK

05-31-2004, 09:17 PM

Hello,

I do volunteer work for NORM-UK, a British charity that gives advice on foreskin health, circumcision, and foreskin restoration. Our physicans do not recommend surgical restoration, but do suggest non-surgical restoration if a man wishes it. Non-surgical restoration is achieved by gentle stretching over time. It is painless and if done correctly perfectly safe. The nerve endings that are lost during circumcision cannot be replaced, but the new foreskin protects the glans and provides the same mechanics during intimate moments. After restoration, the penis looks intact when flaccid. I do not know of any reports of problems non-surgical restoration causes, and NORM-UK have dealt with thousands of individuals thus far.

I have personally completed a non-surgical restoration and lived very happily with it for several years. I have not had any problems, and the look and feel is much better.

I am an American living in the UK, and most men here and in Europe are intact. I didn't feel that making my body look more natural was in any way against not accepting it. Similarly, if I gain a bit of weight, say at Christmas, I try to diet and excercise more but I don't not accept myself because I'm a little fatter than usual.

As previously discussed, there is no medical reason for circumcision. Washing with just water daily is all that is needed for intact and restored men to stay healthy.

It may also be interesting for people to know that the foreskin is attached at birth to the glans and over time separates. This protects the glans from fecal matter in the nappy. (Nature is clever!) Usually separation occurs in young boys. Their foreskin may 'balloon' when they urinate. This is totally normal and is no cause for concern. In some rare cases it may take until the late teenage years for full separation to occur. The foreskin should never be forced back to wash. Just pulling back as far as is comfortable is all that is necessary. If the foreskin is still tight, gentle stretching can finish the process. A topical steroid cream can also be applied if necessary.

If anyone requires further information on the care of the intact penis, advice on foreskin problems, advice on non-surgical restoration, the campaign against female circumcision, or has any other questions, please feel free to e-mail or telephone the office. We will try to help you as soon as possible.

Best wishes to you all.

Rex

05-31-2004, 10:35 PM

I will direct this question to NORM-UK because I would prefer an unbiased scientific answer, that is if one exists.

I am English born and am uncircumcised. I will be 70 in August. I am unusually fit and healthy for my age. I am slim, well muscled, agile and have a lot of stamina. Most people who do not know my age seem to think I am probably in my fifties.

I have never smoked, drunk heavily, tried illegal drugs or been overweight. I have always been very physically and mentally active. I swim every day, dance four times a week [including fast jive and street Latin] and pump iron at a specialist gym once a week. I have a mainly good diet and take natural supplements.

I don't regard any of this as unusual, but I know some people think so.

I lost my very beautiful, very loving wife two years ago after a long devastating illness. I went back to ballroom dancing and have had a delightful lady friend since last September.

She is a very youthful 54, looks far younger than her age and has model type looks. She is very loving in every sense of the word. I hear comments from some of my somewhat younger male friends, who are in loving relationships with attractive women, to the effect that, "We're past 'that sort of thing' aren't we?"

Our love relationship would probably be considered highly satisfactory by a man half my age. I believe this is partly psychological, because we do love one another and neither of us are weighed down by cultural or religious taboos about sex outside of marriage.

But I also wonder if the fact that, being uncircumcised, I am also extremely sensitive and therefore responsive, has anything to do with it. I realise this is a psychologically sensitive subject and have put off posting it for that reason, but it does sound feasible.

I also realise that I am just one person and we can't make a scientific hypothesis, one way or the other, on the basis of a single example. That's why I am interested in hearing NORM-UK's comments.