are you circumsized

[Captain Zen]

Right on , therefore I can recommend the "little boy free play" technique to let the foreskin of the bit elastic and a bit streched maybe so the glans collar is protected but the head is half visible. I have noticed much approval at my perfect solution to the circumsision hype.
Originally it was done because of a follow up of the Religious Verbot to play with it.
When a young boy is made to feel guilty of a crime in the eyes of his parent's Holy Book, he will not touch himself, and the foreskin will not strech when the need arrises. Therefore, circumsize and keep the fellow from touching it!!! Control him by the fear he is doing something wrong, when he explores himself, again and again. It can make monsters out of men...

[Hooked]

Originally posted by vintagecarguy:
Female genital mutilation is illegal in the USA.
Pat Schroeder sponsered a bill that passed into law almost 10 years ago making it illegal with a possible 5 year prison sentence for those who continue to do it.
Heres a quick synopsis....

The Federal law provides for the prosecution of anyone who "circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18." Infibulation involves stitching together the labia to largely cover the vagina.

Well that's good news! The wording in that law certainly makes what these Pakis in central Texas are doing illegal! Now we need the child advocacy groups to get on this because it's still happening everyday despite the law. My next question would have to be, if such a law exists for female babies, why not for males???

[dan t]

I am not circumsized.
I rember it was my mom that explained to me that I had to keep trying to get the skin pulled back as much as possible as often as I could. This is so it would be keeped clean.
The only time I had any problem being uncut was in high school. But after that brife time in my life I never gave it a second thought.



See Me

[Andras]

Folks, I am from Hungary, which is traditionally a non-circumcising country, but I chose to get circumcised at 35, with no medical reason, and I am happily satisfied with my decision. I in fact envy the Americans, as the vast majority of them is indeed circumcised, which is a very simple procedure, and with very few risks if done properly. The circumcised penis is healthy, clean and comfortable. Parents do have the right to do their children what they sincerely think is good for them. Parents make lots of decisions on behalf of their children, such as vaccination, schooling, religious or non-religious upbrinding, etc.

In our country, while the circumcised is still a minority, more and more young men decide to get it done and get their sons circumcised.

[andy_ma]

I try to stay away from these topics, but a few thoughts. I am not. In high school and growing up in the States, I felt odd because I wasn't, i.e. it wasn't the "norm." And I must say at first, as a newbie nudist, I even felt slightly uncomfortable about it. Now, I'm just me and I am fine with it. I've never had any health problems because of it. I must say, that there are nudist groups that promote or rejoice in being cut or even shaved (neither of which I have any issue or problem with - let me repeat - that's fine), but it does sort of feel like going against the grain of acceptance or maybe even tolerance. We're all different and wouldn't it be a dull life if we were all the same personality and of the same physical characteristics. Honestly, when I saw Aaron of INA, I was like okay - it's fine to be an uncut nudist. It's another reason I think he speaks well as a nude caster. I guess I think it's best if each male can make his own decision and what is the norm may not be the norm for others. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for letting me comment.

[azgreen]

Andras' decision to be cut at age 35 underscores choice by the owner of the foreskin. While relatively few intact males choose later to be circumcised, it still is their choice. That tired old statement that circumcision in among those things that parents have the right to dictate (along with vaccinations, food, schools, haircuts, etc.) is flawed reasoning because there are obviously many other things parents are free to do with or to their children that are plain wrong, like smoking around them, constantly swearing to them, screaming at them or denying them friends. Circumcision is so engrained that many cannot or will not recognize it as bizarre, repulsive penile reduction surgery against the will of the victim. Because so few intact males ever opt for circumcision, it is clearly an endorsement for intactness and wholeness.

[NebTanner]

I am. I wasn't circumcised until I was about ten when the foreskin got infected and that was the best way to deal with it.

Originally posted by NebTanner:
I am. I wasn't circumcised until I was about ten when the foreskin got infected and that was the best way to deal with it.

At least, that is what you were told at the time.

[NebTanner]

Yeah, and that was forty-five years ago. Medicine has changed.

[azgreen]

The Forward, the largest national Jewish newspaper, a weekly in its September issue has a feature leading its arts and culture page: "A Little Off the Top: The Controversy About Circumcision." It is a review of the new book, "Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision From Ancient Judea to Modern America" by Leonard Glick (Oxford University Press, 384 pages, $30). It is a long article and worth a read. It shows how conflicted Jews themselves are on the issue, but more importantly this long book review lays out numerous acknowledgements that circumcision has many negative consequences. I ordered the book some time ago and am to get it delivered later this week. You can see the artice on line at http://www.forward.com/articles/3883

[johny]

RE: Oz-Man
""small percentage of uncircumcised males experience phimosis where the foreskin won't retract and I totally support circumcision in these cases""

However its well known that exists an alternative medicine for it`s less hurrying cases - its simple to crane it. Result comes in 100% cases after few weeks. This method is applyable even under moderate inflammation if there is possible to beat down the pus. Only in the case of harsh inflammation is no a time left to have this slow excercizing technique, so surgery is only way to save the d***.

[florida-david]

One of my sons has a small foreskin opening. About a year ago, he stretched it every morning (thank god for morning wood) and his tight foreskin mostly went away. recently, he seemed a little tight again, so he has started stretching again. If we were not a nudist family, and not open minded, than we probably would just have had him circumcised. But instead, we work at it a little at a time, in the hopes he can keep the skin he was born with. I have read at numerous different places that this is a good way to avoid problems later.

A friend had to have their son cicumcised at less than two years old, I always wondered if it was just "fear of dealing with the penis" that caused them to take this route....

[Captain Zen]

I personaly stretched the foreskin as a kid and sure liked the feeling so much so that I continued to do this on and on, up to this very day, with great good succes, very good feelings and often total abundance. Just in case my female friends did not come to take over, this is also the best way to prevent prostate cancer, by making sure nothing stays therin too long.

[Andras]

Yes, and I am very proud of my circumcised willy. I am from Hungary, and chose to get circumcised 10 years ago, at 35.

I can hardly understand anyone who would want his foreskin back. I am very happy without it and wish I were circumcised at birth, as most American males are.

[College_NudistRunner]

-Good point. I agree, though my mom chose to have me cut and I never really noticed the difference. I will say that I have heard girls in high school/college say that they feel a guy that isn't cut is weird or nasty-looking...

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is the parent's choice; no one makes them do it. But Jewish people have been doing it for YEARS and they are still cool with it. So it can't be entirely that bad if an entire race of people have done it since the days of Moses. Be easy.

Wow, it's a parent's choice? Are children property for parents to do whatever the want with them? Why can't it be the child's choice? That's like piercing a babies ears. If the infant had the choice, do you think it would choose the pain just so Mom & Dad would think it was prettier or look more like a girl? I think if you want to have your son circumsized, then you should be the one to hold him down and you should have to watch. Circumcision is as barbaric as female circumcision. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Kenv]

Over the years I've heard many negative things/problems about being uncircumcised. However I would think that many more men in the world are not circumcised, than circumcised. Plus, thats the way we were designed, so it can't be that much of a disadvantage!?

As a bit of side information, and I don't know if it means anything, but I just read that there is a much higher rate of HIV in uncircumcised men.

[vintagecarguy]

,.,

[mrbee]

Originally posted by Oz-Man:
I am abolutely opposed to ANY form of surgery upon any person under 18 unless it is absolutely medically or clinically necessary (from accident or disease). Customary, familial, religious or cultural practices are not sufficient justification to sway my view.


I am in complete agreement Oz-Man. Why would anyone cut a childs genitals unless it was a medical necessity ??????
I find it very bizarre.
Cheers, Mrbee

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Kenv:
Over the years I've heard many negative things/problems about being uncircumcised. However I would think that many more men in the world are not circumcised, than circumcised. Plus, thats the way we were designed, so it can't be that much of a disadvantage!?

As a bit of side information, and I don't know if it means anything, but I just read that there is a much higher rate of HIV in uncircumcised men.

Still, if you're not involved in promiscuous sex or practice safe sex, then what's the need? Why should we second guess what's going to happen to our children 15-20 years in the future? For all we know, in that amount of time, there may be a cure for HIV. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Kenv]

HereticChick, I really didn't mean anything by it,,just an interesting tidbit of info.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Kenv:
HereticChick, I really didn't mean anything by it,,just an interesting tidbit of info.

No worries Kenv. It's all in the name of debate http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I would never take anything in here personally...OK, not TOO personally! LOL

[Yoda002]

I'm circumcised but I wish I wasn't. I have a very tight circumcision with a big brown scar near the base of my penis which I think is very ugly and unnatural. I actually get kind of jealous seeing guys that are uncircumcised with a natural penis and a long foreskin that covers their glans. Oh well their nothing I can do about it.

[Gone]

I used to feel the same way Yoda, until I realized there is something you can do about it...and I have been doing it..

WITH AMAZING RESULTS!!!

[John Spooner]

Dear Mr. Yoda.
The dark scar of yours indicates a clamp type instrument was used, more than likely a GOMCO clamp. Because it crushes, it leaves a characteristic dark straight scar.
The location of the scar near the end of the shaft near the glans indicates a "high" cut, while the tightness is a "tight" cut.
So therefore you would have a "high and tight" Routine Infant Circ (ric). Same as me.
Would you believe that some blokes will spend vast amounts of money to achieve the same results we have had from birth.
Welcome to the group. Stay nude and comfortable.
John S

[Yoda002]

It seems like I must of got a low & tight cut. But either way I don't care for the large scar and its not even that straight its more of an angle. It seems like most other circumcised guys don't have much of a scar on their penis. I just wish I did have some looser skin.

Originally posted by Yoda002:
It seems like I must of got a low & tight cut. But either way I don't care for the large scar and its not even that straight its more of an angle. It seems like most other circumcised guys don't have much of a scar on their penis. I just wish I did have some looser skin.

So loosen it. There are ways to do that.

[Yoda002]

Thanks Cyndi, I have been able to loosen it wtih some different techniques but its still a little tight but, I guess I will just live with it. One person said I was a product of a over aggressive circumcision. Well I lasted this long with it; I will live.

I'm just glad I don't have that problem. I know some people experience various amounts of pain when they are fully erect.

[fre2bnude]

I don't have that problem either, I'm fully intact and nicely slack and love my foreskin - so does my wife!

It would seem that this subject is going on for ever. I never thought so many people could be so interested in that little bit of skin, but I've learned a lot of different views/opinions about something I've taken for granted and thought nothing about for so many years.

Fre2b

[tinner666]

Yeah.

[NudstRalph]

I'm circumsized and don't have a problem. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[FireProf]

sI just popped in for one last reply. Noticed there are.........

15 pages of this topic. Has anything been resolved? Has anyone changed their minds one way or another?

Does it really matter whether you are or you aren't circumcised? Is it only about the cut penis being cleaner and more visually appealing?

Just a whole lot of speculation, assumption and personal feelings that really don't amount to anything concrete. I should add that there seems to be quite a bit more credible information regarding the harmful effects of circumcision, the losses and the little or no benefit of this procedure.

Let me ask this question..........

Of those of you here that are not circumcised, after reading 15 pages of this topic, how many of you uncircumcised males are going to now have this procedure done because of what you read? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Polarbear1]

I am circumcised and am sad at the choice made for me by my well meaning parents. By removing healthy, sexually significant tissue, to prevent things that are statistically not likely to happen seems to me to be nothing if not detrimental.

There are two main things that really make me mad about it:
A) Sensation: I am very conscious of my penis and love the sensations it provides. Those who claim that circumcision does not reduce the sensations are both logically and manifestly wrong. By it’s very definition, the removal of sexually sensitive tissue = less sensitivity. Whether this is a 1%, or 50% loss in sensation, no one can correctly claim that there is no difference. I lament any loss I experienced.

B) Masturbation: Having a sleeve of mobile skin with which I can masturbate without the need of artificial lubricants seems like a great idea to me. Considering the 1000’s of times I have masturbated since my early teens, the seconds a day needed to keep a foreskin clean would surely offset the time needed to cleanup the myriad of artificial lubricants I have used for comfortable masturbation. This does not even include the topic of intercourse.

I don’t like to think that I am sexually deficient in any way. But by removing part of my sexual equipment, I have lost something I will never get back. Those men who claim they are happy with their circumcised status have either come to terms with what they have lost, or are still in denial or ignorance of what was done to them.

I wonder how well my parents are living their decision to reduce me sexually for no good reason… oops, I forgot…they don’t have to live with it, do they?

[NakedGary]

.

[FireProf]

Originally posted by NudstRalph:
I'm circumsized and don't have a problem. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I am UNcircumcised and I don't have a problem either! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[dan t]

FireProf, I will be the 1st to answer.
Of those of you here that are not circumsized, after reading 15 pages of this topic, how many of you uncircumsized males are going to now have thise procedure done because of what you read?

I am 47 and don't plan on changing a thing. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[NakedGary]

I plan to stay the way I am "Naturally Intact" like 80-85% of the world males are.

Who would want penile reduction and less function, protection, sensitivity and pleasure?

I know a man 55 years old who due to related medical condition had to be circumcised. He definitely said less to all the above losses.

Losses to Circumcision (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

NoCirc Organization Link & Picture (http://www.nocirc.org/)

.

[andy_ma]

I'm with FireProf - no problems and I'm staying the way I am! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As I have said other times, it would be great if every male could make his own choice about his body and feel good whatever that choice may be.

[picco]

i am not circumsized but leave my fore skin back all the time partly because i have a "prince albert" but mainly because i prefere it that way

[TXNUDE]

I am circumsized and wish I was not. I feel the penis looks better uncut and has much more sensation with the foreskin intact. I wish I was able to make a choice.

[MarkyLon]

People, please! It is just circumcision; it's not brain transplants. A lot of babies are cut. I was, and i like it better. From what I have read and heard, many men with forskin say it aches to pull it back to wash your penis and an infection can occur if it isn't cleaned properly. But i digress. It is the parent's choice; no one makes them do it. But Jewish people have been doing it for YEARS and they are still cool with it. So it can't be entirely that bad if an entire race of people have done it since the days of Moses. Be easy.

Your are not qualified to make this statement. You like it better? How do you know? You're cut!
I don't know of any men who "ache" when their foreskin is pulled back?!? Infection? Well don't brush your teeth properly and see how bad your mouth gets!?!

Your statements are poor!

[NakedGary]

MarkyLon,

Bris Backlash

Bris Backlash, Some Jews are going against tradition and not circumcising their baby boys. (http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/bris_backlash.html)

.

[NakedGary]

NY Officials Bar Rabbi from Circumcision Ritual because Herpes infection Kills infant! (http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/letter3.html) [Lower portion of article]

.

[Yoda002]

Originally posted by TXNUDE:
I am circumsized and wish I was not. I feel the penis looks better uncut and has much more sensation with the foreskin intact. I wish I was able to make a choice.

I know what its like to not have a choice and never been able to know what its like to have a foreskin. I get kind of jealous when I see a guy with a foreskin.

[G I Joe]

Yes and no! I'm probably one of the few that has been circumsized, but because not enough of the foreskin was removed I can have it both ways. I got myself circumsized when I was in military service because I actually didn't like the way I looked. For my first 30 years I was not.Even though the procedure was only partically successful (it is more difficult to get circumsized as an adult) I have never had a problem caring for myself before or after.

[fre2bnude]

quote:
People, please! It is just circumcision; it's not brain transplants. A lot of babies are cut. I was, and i like it better. From what I have read and heard, many men with forskin say it aches to pull it back to wash your penis and an infection can occur if it isn't cleaned properly. But i digress. It is the parent's choice; no one makes them do it. But Jewish people have been doing it for YEARS and they are still cool with it. So it can't be entirely that bad if an entire race of people have done it since the days of Moses. Be easy.


Your are not qualified to make this statement. You like it better? How do you know? You're cut!
I don't know of any men who "ache" when their foreskin is pulled back?!? Infection? Well don't brush your teeth properly and see how bad your mouth gets!?!

Your statements are poor!
I don't understand it when men that are cicumcised say that those with foreskins have so much trouble. I have mine and it's no problem, in fact I enjoy having it and would never out of choice have it removed. Mine certainly does not ache when rolled back, in fact it's slack enough to do so when totally erect (normal for intercourse) without any problem, I normally like to keep it rolled back as a matter of preference. But I would prefer to have that choice.

People who were cut as a baby have absolutely NO idea what it's like NOT to be cut and why many of us are thankful to be uncut.

People who are NOT cut have absolutely NO idea what it's like to be cut, and many of us have absolutely NO desire to find out!

The head of my penis is so sensitive that when I pull the skin back to clean it my knees literally buckle from the pleasure of washing it even though I can no longer get erect. There is certainly no pain. How many cut men can say that their's is that sensitive when their's has been de-sensitized from constant exposure to clothing and/or the elements?

How can anyone have an opinion on what they've never experienced?

[WacoTX]

Are you circumsized? Who cares?

[Petrus]

I cannot understand why anybody would voluntarily get themselves circumcised-but then I cannot comprehend why anybody would want to have holes drilled in them in order to insert metal objects or get covered in graffitti!

[JF1569]

Yes, in the USA at least 80 percent of babies used to be circumcized. The number is lowering because many parents don't want to and there is a lot of anti-circumcision banter going on these days. I am circumcized, and I personally enjoy it. As a man, just from the visual aspect, I would not want to have a foreskin.
Most women I have known and spoken to about the topic do not like foreskin and would rather be with a circumcized man.

[azgreen]

How heartening that intact and foreskin-restored men so powerfully vouche for being whole. As someone who restored 10 years ago and have enjoyed all these years of coverage, restored sensitivityand the good fortune of being "all there," I can't fathom the I'm-happy-to-be-cut mindset. I just wished those who THINK being cut is better would grasp one thing: Every male ought to have the basic right to decide for himself. Cutting foreskins off babies and children totally runs counter to self-determination and human rights. And we know that intact males in the high 90 percent choose to keep all that nature gave them. It took me a while to decide to restore, but now I wished I had done it in my teens and had most of a lifetime to enjoy the pure joy of that structure.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by WacoTX:
Are you circumsized? Who cares?

Exactly this is a silly topic. Who cares? Each prefers his own.

[MJ_KC]

My parents made multiple life and death decisions for me while I was growing up.

This isn't even close to that important, so it was, and clearly should have been, their decision to make.

I agree, this is a silly issue.

[Outdoorsman9]

Jennifer,
Back in the 70s when I was in a high school of over 1200 students only one kid in the entire school was uncircumsized (everyone HAD to shower after gym class in those days, no exceptions!) and most of the guys nicknamed him "dog dick". Nobody ever gave any thought to the practice nor did they consider it to be a form of mutilation. Later in the Army I saw a few guys that were uncut, but they were pretty rare. In any case if it was traumatic or painful when they did it to me as a infant, I have no memory of the event. I'm glad my parents did it before I knew what was going on because I sure wouldn't go through it at a later age as some African tribes do as a rite of passage into manhood, not that it really matters one way or the other.

[l2ltlarry]

Back in the 70s when I was in a high school of over 1200 students only one kid in the entire school was uncircumsized (everyone HAD to shower after gym class in those days, no exceptions!) and most of the guys nicknamed him "dog dick". Nobody ever gave any thought to the practice nor did they consider it to be a form of mutilation. Later in the Army I saw a few guys that were uncut, but they were pretty rare.

And this was the norm back then. One Masters and Johnson's book says 98 percent of males were circumcised at its high point. In the place I grew up -- and my high school days were one to two decades earlier -- the percentage was the exact opposite. Showering with all the guys was a requirement, and only 3 boys were circumcised in our high school of 700 students.

I know the circumcision rate has come down a lot since then. Nowadays there's a lot of "intactivist" hostility against circumcision in general and routine infant circumcision in particular. I wonder, given that almost everybody male who appears in ClothesFree's videos and "official" pictures is (obviously)circumcised, are they as unhappy with their circumcision status as the opponents of circumcision apparently want everyone to be?

I think there are still a lot of us who still appreciate the fact that we are circumcised, regardless of how we got that way. One circumcision supporter says of it, "Carefree, that's the word."

By the way, I never have favored "name-calling" as in the quote. Unfortunately, many people and probably especially kids (wait a minute, a lot of name-calling goes on in this forum and we mostly are adults) either enjoy ridiculing others or at least go along with it.

[MarvinJS]

Aloha to us all.

Here in Hawai'i, it would seem that most are. I was lucky... I am very loosely cut, which means that I have partial to total coverage when flaccid. Like many have said, it is not something that I think much about, as it was done to me soon after birth.

[Kenv]

I grew up in the 50's and 60's. I am circumcised and didn't even know there was difference until I was in junior high school.

In my opinion it is a matter of personal preference. Lets face it, we were born with foreskin so what does that tell us?

Not that it matters but my nephew just had a circumcision at age 25! I didn't ask, but I think he had problems or something.
Poor guy.
Not something a guy wants to have problems with.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Kenv:
Lets face it, we were born with foreskin so what does that tell us?
Not very much, I was born with a spleen and appendix and I am getting along just fine without them after they were removed.

[azgreen]

Not very much, I was born with a spleen and appendix and I am getting along just fine without them after they were removed.

Very flawed logic. Did someone arbitrarily decide you no longer needed a spleen or appendix? Probably there was a medical condition that required their removal. Typically circumcision is rudely and crudely performed on a healthy, normal foreskin owned by a male baby or child without his consent wholly on the vagaries and whims of others. It comes down to body integrity, sovereignty over one's own body, keeping what nature has put there from the beginning of the human race like arms, hearts, brains and fingers. Carving off body parts, cosmetic surgery, from the helpless owner is unacceptable in a civilized world. Fortunately in more than 80 percent of the world, circumcision is pure nonsense and spurned. Wake up and respect self-determination. More than a few circumcised males resent the intrusion. Our 30-year-old uncut son thanks us for being so enlightened. It is flawed logic for parents to think and be so presumptive to think that circumcising their sons will just be so wonderful. Cut males can't know what they miss -- unless like some of us -- they have a modicum of a restored foreskin, which is well-worth the effort, not to mention the sense of thwarting what the circumcisers, in cahoots with misinformed parents, did to us in the first place.

[Jeff Brooks]

I dont understand what the big deal is about this. Either you are or you aren't?

Originally posted by Jeff Brooks:
I dont understand what the big deal is about this. Either you are or you aren't?

Obviously you didn't read all that was posted or you wouldn't say that. How about doing that instead of making everyone repeat themselves?

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by azgreen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not very much, I was born with a spleen and appendix and I am getting along just fine without them after they were removed.

Very flawed logic. Did someone arbitrarily decide you no longer needed a spleen or appendix? Probably there was a medical condition that required their removal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
These are all things that I get along fine without, so it is not flawed logic at all.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Very flawed logic. Did someone arbitrarily decide you no longer needed a spleen or appendix? Probably there was a medical condition that required their removal.

These are all things that I get along fine without, so it is not flawed logic at all.

Then why not cut off your ears, testicles and a couple of fingers and toes - you'll get along fine without them also.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Very flawed logic. Did someone arbitrarily decide you no longer needed a spleen or appendix? Probably there was a medical condition that required their removal.

These are all things that I get along fine without, so it is not flawed logic at all.

Then why not cut off your ears, testicles and a couple of fingers and toes - you'll get along fine without them also. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I thought you were supposed to be the moderator. I don't expect attacks from the moderator.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I thought you were supposed to be the moderator. I don't expect attacks from the moderator.

And none have occured.

Attempting to demonstrate the (I.M.H.O.) illogical practice of removing one's body parts unnecessarily isn't a personal attack on you, so please don't take it as such.

[MJ_KC]

I did and still do consider it a personal attack.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I did and still do consider it a personal attack.

Then I offer you my apologies

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I did and still do consider it a personal attack.

It's called debating. If you don't want to debate then don't post but please don't say people are attacking you when it's not true.

[azgreen]

These are all things that I get along fine without, so it is not flawed logic at all.
Again, you seem to miss the point, talking about your spleen and appendix. The issue is not whether one can do with or without a body part. The issue is: What right does someone else have to arbitrarily and according to their myths, preferences and desires decide to have some part of SOMEONE else cut off? Why should they have such willy-nilly freedom and how is a baby safe from a parent wanting to trim labia or remove ear lobes or start changing a boy to a girl or plant tattoos on him? There are boundaries and limits of what is medical ethical even for parents. Circumcision in invasive, intrusive and reductive to the penis, no sugar-coating it. Until and unless the male himself can decide to keep or lose his foreskin, it an unethical act to order a circumciser to start cutting away. It's NOT whether you can live with or without something. That argument only trivializes the discussion and misses the point. Fact remains that tens of millions of American males would not have chosen to be circumcised, even though some now are reconciled to it because they are unable to do anything about it. We are just speaking on behalf of the next males who come into this world. It's about freedom, self-determination, body integrity, wholeness and human rights.

[l2ltlarry]

By azgreen:
"More than a few circumcised males resent the intrusion."

I think this is a relatively recent change in how some circumcised males feel about their circumcisions. Of course, I can't prove this, but I see very little in all that I can read that suggests that before about 1970, circumcised males felt like this. In fact, the opposite seemed more likely to be true, in that circumcised males were proud of their condition and happy with it while many uncircumcised males wanted to be circumcised themselves. I can't prove this is a fact, but numerous men who served in the armed forces got circumcised while there, based on what I read.

[l2ltlarry]

By azgreen:
Cut males can't know what they miss -- unless like some of us -- they have a modicum of a restored foreskin, which is well-worth the effort, not to mention the sense of thwarting what the circumcisers, in cahoots with misinformed parents, did to us in the first place.
This comment keeps getting made over and over again, but aren't the posters ignoring those of us who were circumcised as adults? We are fully knowledgeable of what we are missing.

Much is made of the sexual sensitivity factor again and again. In my view, far too much if made of the sexual sensitivity issue. I think it was in this thread that a link to the Jewish 'Forward' online newspaper appeared, possibly in an azgreen post. I can't recall if the writer of the linked article was strongly anti-circumcision or not, but I thought it was interesting that he started his article saying that anti-circumcision advocates usually sound like a bunch of cranks (maybe not his exact words). In the article, he strongly emphasized the loss of sexual sensitivity as a good reason to keep or leave foreskins on boys and men. Speaking from personal experience, my sensitivity level has been very satisfactory, with only minor (even welcome) diminishment of it, going from having a foreskin to having a fully bared glans. Surely millions of men throughout the ages have not had significant problems with sexual sensitivity following their circumcisions. And probably millions of us have been circumcised as adults and from what I've read (again, this is not offering proof, just my take on what I've read seems to say), the large percentage of us are quite pleased to be circumcised.

[azgreen]

Well, two points, Larry. 1) Leaving it up to the male to decide for himself settles any doubt of preferences; the choice should always be that of the owner, not others; 2) circumcision is not the popular choice of intact males who would have the option to head to the circumcisers or keep what they have. A couple billion intact males on this planet prove that. A relatively small percentage opt for circumcision -- some because they give in to the fetishers and social pressures. Others because they "have a problem" like a tight foreskin and get circumcised rather than pursuing other alternatives like stretching the opening or tip or having a minor incision.
And if you say that before 1970, cut males were happier and more content with their situations, then you're saying that ignorance is bliss. Certainly, before intactivists got into action and started raising the issues and making cut males aware of their status, males were ignorantly accepting and oblivious about what what was taken away from them. Sure, if we didn't raise the issue, more males would stay misinformed, in the dark, hoodwinked, witless about the magnificence of the foreskin.
Just as wives no longer have to accept domestic violence, or people no longer have to remain silent around smokers, males no longer have let circumcision keep on being visited upon helpless newborn males - what is the first violence imposed on them when they enter the world. There is no freedom when someone else decides to have part of you cut off.

[l2ltlarry]

By PascoDoug:

"Then why not cut off your ears, testicles and a couple of fingers and toes - you'll get along fine without them also."

There is one difference between cutting off ears, testicles, fingers, and toes versus cutting off foreskins. Cutting off foreskins has a very long history and can be argued for as making at least some kind of sense (at least to some people). Cutting off ears, testicles, fingers, toes, and noses does not have much if any history, and it would be much harder to argue that cutting these things off makes any kind of sense to almost anybody.

Also one argument against cutting off testicles in the same numbers as foreskins, wouldn't this qualify as genocidal to some populations, Jews and Muslims, for example. And ears, fingers, toes, and noses being intact are thought by many or most people to be essential for aesthetics, while the opposite is true for foreskins. Many people think cutting off the foreskin enhances aesthetics. I can't prove this as fact, this is just what I think many or at least some people think.

[azgreen]

Many people think cutting off the foreskin enhances aesthetics.
And many think leaving the foreskin in all its glory like in classic art is attractive and ideal. The foreskin is part of normal mechanics of sex, something that rolls and unfolds and feels great.
Again, the choice should be left up to the owner only. It's the only just and fair option. Fact remains that relatively few intact males opt to get rid of their foreskins. That cannot be overlooked.

[l2ltlarry]

The foreskin is part of normal mechanics of sex, something that rolls and unfolds and feels great.
Or not. It didn't feel great to me. To me, it's far better now.


...Fact remains that relatively few intact males opt to get rid of their foreskins. That cannot be overlooked.
But why do relatively few intact males opt to get rid of their foreskins? If you read posts that are all over the Internet, it's just about universal that every older person who wants to get circumcised takes a while to get his courage up. In addition, there's the cost and the recovery time. And do we really know how many older males have quietly been circumcised and are no longer in the large percentage of men assumed by anti-circumcision advocates to still be intact?

[vintagecarguy]

Cutting off ears, testicles, fingers, toes, and noses does not have much if any history, and it would be much harder to argue that cutting these things off makes any kind of sense to almost anybody.

Actually,cutting off testicles has a long and sickening history.Many cultures for many reasons have practiced castration.Have you not heard of the castrati?After all,they thought it was right to amputate a childs testicles to preserve a singing voice.A cultural and parental choice as far as those that practiced it would claim,same as those perpetuating amputating foreskins.
In fact the same people that promoted circumcision to prevent masturbation supported castration if the foreskin amputation didn't stop the child from masturbating.
It's all there in the medical history books for those with a strong enough stomach to look.
Lets just put down the knives and allow the owner of the penis in question to TRULY own his own body.
As for thinking that no one was unhappy with being circumcised before the internet,feces of male cattle!
When I was a teen I looked desperately for information to try and help myself.I hated being an amputee.I had very real physical problems.All I could find was pro-mutilation propaganda.
I called plastic surgeons and urologists and none of them could offer any help.
I finally got up the courage to discuss it with friends and found other young men angry about what had been done but they were embarrased to say anything.Seems that too many feared ridicule.Some of you know what I mean,things like,it's just a piece of skin,or get over it,or what are you,gay?The usual attacks that those who are secure enough to say, "there is something wrong with my penis and I wish to help stop it from hurting future generations", must face everytime we open up about it.
I was elated to find NOCIRC many years later.
The thing that those who would perpetuate the crime of cutting children neglect to think about when they insist that its all crazy net propaganda is that there are, and have always been, many angry,sad or just curious about the natural penis but they have feared the psychological torture of the ignorant masses.The internet allows these men to voice their true feelings in relative safety.We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg....

Just as the Titanic was sunk,so shall be infant cutting.
sorry the post was so long,I've tried to ignore the recent posts but it's reached critical mass,again!

[l2ltlarry]

By vintagecarguy:
I've tried to ignore the recent posts but it's reached critical mass,again!
I realize I'm in the very small minority on this topic. It seems that "critical mass" only happens when someone posts in support of circumcision. The large majority of posts can be against circumcision or "who cares" and "critical mass" doesn't happen.

As for cutting off testicles, I'm well aware of the castrati, but I qualified my post, saying, "Also one argument against cutting off testicles in the same numbers as foreskins, wouldn't this qualify as genocidal to some populations, Jews and Muslims, for example." It seems to me that cutting off testicles and cutting off foreskins are not even close in their impact on people's lives. Cut off too many testicles and you no longer have a population. But men have functioned just fine without foreskins for thousands of years. (I know "just fine" is just my opinion.)

Changing one another's minds on this issue probably will not happen and I too try to stay out of the fray, but I get "motivated" occasionally when anti-circumcision posters can post their viewpoints with seeming favor of the majority of forum participants while pro-circumcision posters’ viewpoints like mine are largely unwelcome. (As unwelcome as pro-circumcision viewpoints are, I notice that this thread has been viewed 17,025 times. This must say something about the popularity of the subject? If attracting eyeballs to ClothesFree.com is important to it, isn't this one of the subjects that does that?)

[azgreen]

I finally got up the courage to discuss it with friends and found other young men angry about what had been done but they were embarrased to say anything.Seems that too many feared ridicule.

Thanks, Vintagecarguy for the honesty and candidness in your comments. Certainly, many males try to come to terms with their circumcision: What would it be like to be intact? Why did my parents allow this? How was the decision made? Why didn't they wait until I could decide? As a young lad, I saw intact cousins and envied what they had, but it wasn't until I read Gore Vidal's "Myra Breckinridge" that I found a case against it. Like you, I couldn't find much on the topic except the usual tripe in support of it. We're talking the 1960s. The Internet is now making all the difference, raising awareness, showing what a natural penis looks like, how it functions, why having all the moving parts is good and normal and feels good. We honored our son when he was born in 1975 by keeping all of him. Now a married man, he can enjoy all he is. And he's grateful.

[azgreen]

There's a tendency to simply look at circumcision one-dimensionally as an adult: Do I want a foreskin or not? But the ramifications of the procedure go far and wide from deaths from complications and botched circumcision to tight cutting to glans amputation to the chafing for women having sex with cut males. The December 2005 issue of "Mothering" magazine offers this from an medical study first reported in the prestigious Lancet magazine about how circumcision impacts breast-feeding:


Circumcision Leads to Breastfeeding Complications

Need another reason to skip routine circumcision? For over twenty years,
studies conducted by medical doctors and researchers have documented a
connection between circumcision and breastfeeding complications. According
to findings, the newly circumcised infant expresses noticeably decreased
responses to a mother's attempts at engaging their attention. This "subdued"
behavior has been linked by several researchers in separate studies to a
subsequent struggle in the achievement of successful breastfeeding. Research
has also demonstrated that following circumcision, infants suffer from
prolonged periods of non-REM sleep, a symptom that would further contribute
to inactive and unreceptive tendencies.

Some of the infants observed in one study were supplemented with formula
after circumcision due either to frustration on the part of the mother from
failed breastfeeding attempts or because doctors felt the infant was
incapable of postoperative breastfeeding. Because infants usually leave the
hospital seven to ten hours after the operation (many leave as early as
three to six hours post-op) the long-term negative effects of circumcision
on breastfeeding is more difficult to determine; however, "the observed
deterioration in ability to breastfeed may potentially contribute to
breastfeeding failure.

Despite the fact that "circumcision is a painful, stressful, exhausting, and
traumatic experience for many infants," as many as 45% of doctors ignore the
recommendation by medical authorities to use an anesthetic during the
procedure. Because conclusive benefits of infant circumcision are not
evident, there is no danger in refusing or delaying the procedure. The Work
Group on Breastfeeding of the American Academy of Pediatrics officially
discourages "stressful procedures" such as circumcision and promotes
breastfeeding as "primary in achieving optimal infant and child health,
growth, and development."

[Cleancut]

I love being circumcised. All the girls that I have had any kind of sexual relationship with also keenly enjoyed my circumcised penis.
At school, the circumcised boys were always looked up to, and were always proud of their circumcised status.(about 70% of all the boys were circ'd)
I see azgreen and vintagecarguy spend a rather lot of effort on chapioning un-circumcising. Where do they get the time from? And exactly how engrossed must one get with the idea of preserving foreskins???
I personally believe circumcision is good and healthy, if for no other reason than purely sexual preferences by so many women!
Viva the exposed glans!

[John Spooner]

I love being circumcised

Dear Mr. Cleancut.
Same with me.
Regards. John S.

[Norbert]

Personal Choice- I am glad I am cut. But maybe the choice should be made later in life???
Not sure if I would to choose it then... OUCH

[Ralph Harrison]

Originally posted by Norbert:
Personal Choice- I am glad I am cut. But maybe the choice should be made later in life???
Not sure if I would to choose it then... OUCH

I agree with you 100%

Hope to hear from you soon.

Ralph

Ralph43@verizon.net

[azgreen]

For the past six or seven Martin Luther King Jr/Civil Rights celebrations, I have volunteered with other guys at very highly visible circumcision education and prevention table. We always get a lot of visitors and conversations and give out a lot of informative materials. Over that time, it is clear the general public is growing more informed on the issue and come to us affirming what we are doing and sharing their support and knowledge. At the outset, there was derision and you-are-saying-what? Now they come knowing circumcision has been discredited and invasive. Clearly, circumcision is on its way out for a whole lot of reasons, including the universal human rights and medical ethics reasons. Information and education trump peer pressure and entrenched customs every time.

[tinner666]

Being clipped from birth, I can't speak about unclipped except from observation. While in Military, I met a few unclipped fellows with various infections and 2 that got clipped while there. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif
I'll stick with what I've already got, thank you. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[Ralph Harrison]

Originally posted by Ralph Harrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Norbert:
Personal Choice- I am glad I am cut. But maybe the choice should be made later in life???
Not sure if I would to choose it then... OUCH

I agree with you 100%

Hope to hear from you soon.

Ralph

P.S. Feel free to email me some more photos.

Ralph43@verizon.net </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[SunnyB]

I´m not circumsised and I think it is not as common in europe as it is in the states. However, I have once even made an appointment with a doctor to do it but something came between and it wasn´t done...I wish I had done it, but it isn´t too late perhaps..Have always the glans outside the foreskin but that isn´t the same I suppose.

[l2ltlarry]

Three points --

Point one:
This topic circumcision, despite many posts wanting to stop discussion of it, remains at the very top of the most-viewed topics in the forum.

"Are You Circumcised? has 17 pages, 337 replies, and 18,722 views as of Jan. 17th. (When I posted on December 20th, there were 17,025 views; so nearly 1700 views in 28 days.)

"Circumcision" has 15 pages, 285 replies, and 14,626 views as of Jan. 13th.

"Uncircumcising?" (in Open Discussion) has 17 pages, 330 replies, and 8,384 views as of Dec. 27th.

It's obvious to me, this topic doesn't lack for popularity.

Point two:
It impresses me that azgreen and his fellow anti-circumcision activists, based on his most recent post about his Martin Luther King day activities, have as their mission to completely stop circumcision, worldwide, of consenting adults as well as unconsenting children.

Posted by azgreen on Dec. 19th:
"And many think leaving the foreskin in all its glory like in classic art is attractive and ideal. The foreskin is part of normal mechanics of sex, something that rolls and unfolds and feels great.

"Again, the choice should be left up to the owner only. It's the only just and fair option. Fact remains that relatively few intact males opt to get rid of their foreskins. That cannot be overlooked."

It seems to me that one post contradicts the other. In addition, how is a worldwide ban on all infant circumcision at minimum and including adult circumcision as the obvious final goal not anti-Semitic? And anti-Islamic? And anti-cultural in many locales? Plus, from what I read, the jury is still out on the benefits of circumcision versus the disadvantages.

Point three:
The figure of 15 percent of the world's males having been circumcised keeps coming up. Just yesterday, I encountered an article by a mathematics professor who calculates the worldwide rate at 40 percent. Additionally, in the Sunday Jan. 15th 'Columbus Dispatch', an article titled, "No longer routine" discussed the changing attitudes on routine infant circumcision, and showed a graph of nationwide rates. Columbus and the Midwest have not caught up with the political-correctness yet; the rates here are still just shy of 80 percent.

[vintagecarguy]

UGGGHHH!!!!
.
.
.

Point two:
It impresses me that azgreen and his fellow anti-circumcision activists, based on his most recent post about his Martin Luther King day activities, have as their mission to completely stop circumcision, worldwide, of consenting adults as well as unconsenting children.


I said it before and i'll say it again.....
Adults have the right to do whatever they want to their own bodies right on up to and including nullification if thats what they want.
Just stop cutting kids.

and please,don't try and claim that those of us out to protect children are trying to stomp all over the rights of an adult to modify their own adult bodies.It just looks desperate.
I don't care if an adult want's to bisect and tattoo his organ,just leave it up the owner of said organ and leave the bloody knives off kids.

[Jennifer1]

Wow this is STILL going.

Look at this from a Christian point of view what gives you the right to mutilate something that god created as perfect? Do you feel that your above god, that you know better that god? It wouldn't have been put on every little baby boy born with a fully functioning penis if it wasn't ment to be there.

[l2ltlarry]

Interesting, another 141 views in the last 19 hours. Hot topic. Maybe this is why the topic is still going.

Jennifer1, please look at Genesis chapter 17. God required circumcision of all males who were part of Abraham's lineage and of all who lived among "God's chosen people". The word during Abraham's time for foreskin was "orlah" which when translated into language we understand, means "barrier" or "obstruction". This "barrier/obstruction" terminology enlightens on why the Bible speaks disdainfully with regard to "uncircumcised hearts and ears". Seemingly God wants open hearts and open ears. As I've posted before on this subject, some Jewish scholars believe Adam was originally created without a foreskin (i.e., barrier or obstruction), that the growth of foreskins was one of many results of the Fall after the Garden of Eden, and the circumcision of the barrier/obstruction was God's command to return man to his original created state. Coincidently, completely without intending it, I encountered that belief again yesterday when searching on a different subject.

[hazelton]

Well,- I was done immediately after Birth. And, *PROUD* of it. ! I just came out of my mother, and, I had to have (EMERGENCY) "surgery*, straight after coming out of my mother, as she was giving birth to me, on the table, in the hospital's operating-room, on the operating table. I was only: 30-secounds, old.

[barefooted]

I don't understand how or why we choose to perform cosmetic surgery on infants. I don't understand the logic of removing up to 80% of feeling from the one part that we derive the most pleasure from.
I don't think most understand that adult circumcision doesn't remove most of the feeling because the gland has grown under a foreskin. Where as, an infants foreskin is ripped from the gland to be cut and the gland is left to dry out and callouse and the adult never knows the difference.
I also don't understand the logic of removing the protection and exposing tissue to the elements that has no protective capabilities on it's own.
However, I have just found out that medicaid does'nt pay for circs anymore. I hope insurance is soon to follow. Then I think you will see a reverse in the trend.

[hazelton]

Well,-
I totally *dis-agree* with you, on this subject and topic. Circumcised,- is "BEST" ! The *earlier*, the ( Better ). !

[Boreas]

I am not circumsized http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

I fail to see why this is such an important subject for you guys. Does this mean that men really consider the penis the most important topic and item? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif

[nacktman]

Boreas, not all of us think it is such a hot topic. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/zzz.gif
Some of us actually use the brain in the "other" head at the opposite end of the body for more than a hat rack. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif
I my case this is the first I have posted on any of these Phallic threads that keep popping up (excuse me no pun intended) that I can recall. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

[deepsailer]

I was born in Germany at 1963. And I was uncircumsized until I was 39 years old. At this time, I thought, that was half of my life to live with foreskin, now its time to take it off. Now three years ago, I never missed my foreskin.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Boreas, not all of us think it is such a hot topic. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/zzz.gif
Some of us actually use the brain in the "other" head at the opposite end of the body for more than a hat rack. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif
I my case this is the first I have posted on any of these Phallic threads that keep popping up (excuse me no pun intended) that I can recall. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/bonk.gif

LOL. Yes, I have seen evidence of your brain and I know you know how to use it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

It just seems so silly that men spend so much time talking about penises in some arenas! Please know that I am not really making fun of people, I know that no one can read tone of voice and sometimes these kinds of comments get lost in translation when in print.

I personally think that men have much more to offer than a penis, circumsized or not. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[nacktman]

Boreas, Thanks for the compliment. It is nice to be known for something other than pretty face.http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/book.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[NKID_D57]

I am circumcised and have been since birth. During high school (early '70s) never saw an uncut member on any of my classmates during showers after gym classes. Yes, we took showers in school back then. In college, in my junior year, there was one guy on the floor that was uncut. He was an exchange student from London. Up until that point, I thought that all men were circumcised.
Being circumcised has never bothered me. It is how I am and I know that my parents did what they thought was best for me and I can never be angry with them for that decision. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Jennifer1]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Interesting, another 141 views in the last 19 hours. Hot topic. Maybe this is why the topic is still going.

Jennifer1, please look at Genesis chapter 17. God required circumcision of all males who were part of Abraham's lineage and of all who lived among "God's chosen people". The word during Abraham's time for foreskin was "orlah" which when translated into language we understand, means "barrier" or "obstruction". This "barrier/obstruction" terminology enlightens on why the Bible speaks disdainfully with regard to "uncircumcised hearts and ears". Seemingly God wants open hearts and open ears. As I've posted before on this subject, some Jewish scholars believe Adam was originally created without a foreskin (i.e., barrier or obstruction), that the growth of foreskins was one of many results of the Fall after the Garden of Eden, and the circumcision of the barrier/obstruction was God's command to return man to his original created state. Coincidently, completely without intending it, I encountered that belief again yesterday when searching on a different subject.
As far as i remember these books where written by men? Is that not true? and ain't the "children of god" the jews?

[Jaime Herazo B.]

Originally posted by Still_Boreas:
I fail to see why this is such an important subject for you guys. Does this mean that men really consider the penis the most important topic and item? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/goofy.gif

Well, the thing is that it is an important topic and item, but many guys don't have anywhere else to discuss this, except here . Among friends the discussion may not be acceptable (specially if they're textilists, so much shame). And the topics are important. You as a woman may not even notice it because you have so many avenues of expressing your female concerns, but look around to see the ones for males: nearly zero, if at all. Eventually some things must be discussed, and the net is as good place as any to do it, specially with the extra anonimity.

And if you're planning to have sons, it's a topic you must have in mind, since they have no way to stop their parents from doing that to them, even if they don't want to, they're literally in their hands.

Personally i'm anti-circumcision, thinking it should go down to the mists of history, along with other barbaric pseudomedical procedures like trepanation and treatments with leeches. I don't believe the foreskin is a birth defect, but an important part of the penis, which in fact is about 50% of it's surface, not just "a little bit of skin". But that's just me.

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Boreas, Thanks for the compliment. It is nice to be known for something other than pretty face.http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/book.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Well, since I have not seen your face, I can only assume you have a pretty face. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

[Boreas]

Jaime, I agree this is a good forum to discuss this issue.

I won't be having any children, but I do think that if I had a son, I would not circumsize him. In fact, most provinces in Canada, now discourage it. This used to be a procedure that was covered by health insurance, and I believe that most provincial programs no longer cover it. That means people have to pay for it themselves and have to have some good reason for it.

NKID commented about all his peers being circumsized. I went to school at the same time, and although I was not in the boys change room, I know that it was the norm to circumsize young boys born in the 50's and 60's. I think it only became an issue later, maybe even as late as the 80's.

[puffledud]

It is amazing that there are 18 pages (!) to this thread. Since most males are circumcised at birth what's it matter. In the 50-60's when a boy was born the physician would take the boy and clip his tongue and circumcise him before showing him to him mother. No questions asked. During the victorian era boys were circumsized to prevent them from developing mental illness from masturbating. When that didn't work they associated the presence of a foreskin with diabetes, and heart disease. Now they say that it's important to remove the foreskin to prevent penile cancer. Do you have any idea how common penile cancer is? Not very. And of the men who have a foreskin at the time of diagnosis most do not start at the foreskin. So, why circumsise?

People are brainwashed to thinking that it is the medically necessary thing to do. I tell parents that it is not medically necessary and that doesn't seem to matter.

Who knows? No one seems to care.

Dave

[nacktman]

Boreas, this is my face after a shot of my lifejuice Iced Tea (and they say caffene is harmful).
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/dizzy2.gif

[Boreas]

Originally posted by nacktman:
Boreas, this is my face after a shot of my lifejuice Iced Tea (and they say caffene is harmful).
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/dizzy2.gif


LOL!!! I would lay off the caffeine if I were you!

[dancin\'bare]

Originally posted by Jennifer1:
Wow this is STILL going.

Look at this from a Christian point of view what gives you the right to mutilate something that god created as perfect? Do you feel that your above god, that you know better that god? It wouldn't have been put on every little baby boy born with a fully functioning penis if it wasn't ment to be there.

It's obvious you never met my parents.

[Bare in the Desert]

I am. I had no idea there was such a thing as foreskin until I was a teen. First time I saw someone uncercumsized I thought they were deformed. Then I was convince it was necessary for medical reasons.

You're right puffledud, it is brainwashing.

I just don't see any real reason for circumcising.

[richinoregon]

Originally posted by Bare in the Desert:

..I just don't see any real reason for circumcising.

For the relgious: Neither did the Apostle Paul. " Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." (1Cor 7:18 & 19) The only reason was a symbol of the "choseness (is that a word?)" of the Jews by God. If you aren't a Jew there is no reason. However, if you are circumcised don't act as if you had a leg or hand chopped off. It's no big thing. Just so you can still use it and enjoy it then there is no problem.

[hazelton]

I was born like you were. I *too*, had no idea, that there was foreskin on a penis.

[hazelton]

Well, I puzzled.

I don't know how you un-circumcised penis's, do it. I mean, even stand up, on your own legs.

I've just forced down a piece of rubber, onto my penis's "glans". And, my legs turned to jelly, and I am screaming in pain.

From: Gregory Hazelton.

[Azmexmale50]

Hi,Im a Hispanic male here,53.I dont see the reasoning at all why boys are Circumcised at Birth.If were born with our forskin intact there has to be a reason for it, I'd say.Im Glad Im uncircumcised here,I would,nt have it any other way.The forskin serves a purpose.
Frankie

[Christian]

If one is male, the procedure if referred to as circumcision, a medical operation.

If one is female, the same procedure if referred to as female genital mutilation.

If we began to refer to circumcision as male genital mutilation, maybe more parents would opt out.

There is a "false foreskin" product available that is supposed to mimic a true foreskin for circumsized men. I've wondered what difference it would make.

If I had a son, I think I would leave him alone and just teach him how to clean.

[zikorind]

I am circumsized due to medical reason and I like it

[tout nu]

Hi Zikorind,

why do you like it ? Is there a special feeling ?

[Yoda002]

I'm actually kind of jealous of guys that have a foreskin. Partly being that I was circumcised high and tight and I'm stuck with a very large scar and no loose skin. I have a few girlfriends that have seen my penis and asked me why my penis skin is so tight and is it suppose to be like that. So there are people like me that had an overly aggressive circumcision when I was younger that has become worse over the years.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by Christian:
If one is male, the procedure if referred to as circumcision, a medical operation.

If one is female, the same procedure if referred to as female genital mutilation.

If we began to refer to circumcision as male genital mutilation, maybe more parents would opt out.

There is a "false foreskin" product available that is supposed to mimic a true foreskin for circumsized men. I've wondered what difference it would make.

If I had a son, I think I would leave him alone and just teach him how to clean.

Please see previous posts on semantics concerning terminology like "female circumcision" etc. If we are going to argue these points, we need to agree on the terms otherwise we go round in circles (moreso than usual)

But I'm with you man , circ is not good generally speaking

[Norbert]

Circumcised here- I like it.

[chadnude]

Am circumsised here too from birth. Many here in Europe at beaches and resorts from what I've seen are not. In Australia, where I was born it was common medical advice at the time. Not so now though I think.

[clebare]

While I am uncircumsized myself, I chose to have my son circumsized at birth (1974). I have always thought that it was cleaner and less apt to cause infection or other trouble in later years. I read all the propaganda regarding penile cancer and uterine cancer and I agree. Incedentally, there was no surgery involved. The doctor tied a little string looking attachment around the end of his penis before we took him home from the hospital and in a few days, his foreskin just fell off.

When my son was in high school, he refused to shower in the school locker room because his schoolmates ridiculed him. He refused to be seen naked by anyone, his friends in/around our pool, etc. - anywhere!

Scroll forward to 2002. One day when he and I were alone, and about six months after he married, he asked me why I had had him circumsized. I told him. His wife had told him that she preferred uncut men. She thought that his circumsicion reduced HER sensation during sex!

[vintagecarguy]

the little string device is called a plastibell...cutting and tearing is still involved...it kills the remaining foreskin and the necrotic tissue falls off,that is if one of the possible and all too common problems with the device doesn't occur.Its what the quack used on me.
I hope your sons results weren't as horrific as mine.

[Indy dude]

I am uncircumsized and for "social" reasons I had my son "cut". I can remember the jokes that were made at my expense being the only uncut kid in PE. I did not want my son to go through that. The DR did use the plastibell and I can tell you that (at least in our case) there were many issues with it. He is fine now and thankfully he will not remember any of the pain he went through.

[azgreen]

I am uncircumsized and for "social" reasons I had my son "cut".
Well, I am circumcised (but restored) and for "social justice" reasons I left my son uncut. I was teased in school for being short, being too nice or not wanting to drink with my peers. I don't remember that we teased the uncut guys in my gym classes. Bottom line is your son was deprived of what your anatomy has and was denied the choice, not to mention the pain you speak of. As he grows up more and more of his peers will be intact anyway.

[Journeyman]

I'm not going to go thru 374 posts about the pros and cons, but I bet this situation has not been discussed:

My 87 year old Father was not able to have a cathetar inserted in his penis to check for possible prostate trouble *because he is uncircumsized* and the surgeon said that his penile opening was impossible to find under the skin. He is recommending a circumcision. My father has also difficulty in urinating / "dribbling".

The possible operation concerns me because of my father's age and he may have to undergo general anaesthesia. He is going to see his family doc on Tuesday to get another opinion.

Any reasonable, learned opinions on this? This is purely a medical question...it has nothing to do with remaining "intact" and all that.

[vintagecarguy]

well...
my girlfriend is a RN my best friends wife is an RN and they both say it's a matter of convienence or ignorance or both.
They say that one simply has another nurse pull back the foreskin to expose the glans and then insert the catheter into the now easily found meatus.
There actualy has been a lawsuit regarding this due to man awakening from what was supposed to be a heart bypass to find himself mutilated but no heart surgery done due to a complication.
Sometimes a doc will suggest circumcision of an older man due to dribbling to make it easier on the nurses cleaning him up but if he want's to retain his foreskin a tape ring can hold it back behind the glans giving the same ease of cleaning without a knife.
It's up to him,at his age he may want the ease of not pulling back to clean or he may want to avoid the knife.
Both options should be safe for most men according to my nurse friends.
best of luck for both of you.

[Jay473]

I'm not. If it came with the penis it should stay there.

[zvonko]

i am circumcised in a usually non-circumcising country... do not think that the difference is that big... most people do not even notice the difference... i do not think it is a big deal being circumcised...

[shomymojo]

since not many men get to choose that option..it is usually decided for them as new borns...only a small handful get to decide for themselves...

[Pants off]

Have never really seen the point of this op. - much prefer to be the way God made us. Anyway, it all sounds pretty painful to me.

[denney44]

Yes

[Trailscout]

Leslie,

It was almost universal in America 30 or 40 years ago. The medical consensus was that it reduced the chances of penile cancer. The cheesy substance produced by the foreskin, smegma, if not periodically removed by regular bathing could degrade into carcinogenic substances.

The obvious choice is to simply take the trouble to bathe oneself and that would greatly reduce the odds of getting cancer.

After the medical community generally dropped their advocacy of circumcision for medical reasons, it persists for social reasons. Parents had it done so their boys would not be mocked in school and sadly, many doctors enjoyed the extra money this procedure brought them, so they kept their mouths shut.

If we are better off with foreskin than without, then the more courageous among us must break this precedent.

[KetchumMaine]

Again I ask, why is it important to you??

[Trailscout]

Kevin,

It is not personally important to me; what's done is done. But it is important on a nudist forum for a couple of reasons:
It illustrates the extent to which people are willing to modify their son's bodies so that they will appear more acceptable to their peers. Naturism would tend to teach us that the male body will function just fine without surgery and will look okay too.

Naturism, because it involves nudity, means that we are more likely to see both circumcised and uncircumcised males. There is both sameness and diversity in the human body. Those new to naturism will discover that they will generally be accepted for who they are rather than their outward appearance.

There is a fetish club in the UK that requires men to be shaved and circumcised. If this thread was begun or has been perpetuated for fetish reasons, it has no place on this forum. If that's what you are implying, I agree with you.

[fre2bnude]

No! I feel quite attached to it and don't want to lose it.

[OZJames]

Many years ago when I was in my twenties, I was the accountant for a small private hospital in Sydney. Each week I went to the hospital to calculate and pay the nurses wages so I spent a bit of time wandering along the corridors looking for the hospital manager etc.

Once when walking along a corridor a nurse rushed up to me and said "where have you been, thank goodness I have found you, come with me" . So not knowing what was going on I followed only to be led towards the operating theatre. To my ALARM I realised that they were wanting to perform a circumcision operation on me. Needless to say the mistaken identity was soon sorted before I was forced to undress and reveal that they would have been about 25 years too late - it was already done. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/angry.gif

Later I saw a young man about my age sitting in the corridor looking very sad and sorry http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/embarassed.gif

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif <span class="ev_code_RED">JAMES</span> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[swimbare]

Originally posted by shomymojo:
since not many men get to choose that option..it is usually decided for them as new borns...only a small handful get to decide for themselves...
Well, I am one of those who decided to get circ'd as an adult (15 years ago)
I can only say I am delighted! I think it looks better, it's cleaner, it functions better.
I recommend it to all men.

[steve-o]

yes, me too. ... I mean on me http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
(circumsized at birth)

[NakedTao]

I'm circumcised, and have absolutely no problem with that. Three reasons:

(1) Hygiene - it's easier, in my - and most of the other posters' on this topic - opinion, to keep a circumcised penis clean and free of infection.

(2) Religious reasons, which applies only to Jewish boys. I am not Jewish, but will speak in defense of the custom.

(3) Aesthetics.

[nakedboy06]

I'm circumcised, and I have no problem with it. I've been told I have a cute penis, so it really doesn't bother me that I have been circumcised. My penis seems to be happy with his hat..lol


Naked! It's the way I play

[Jay473]

Might sound funny but I dont know. I dont have the foreskin like some people do. lol I cant belief that I dont know if I am or not and sure Im not going to ask my parents.

[John Spooner]

Dear Steve, Tao and Clint.
Add my name to the list. I am very pleased with my cut status.
Regards. John S.

[John Spooner]

Well, I am one of those who decided to get circ'd as an adult (15 years ago)
I can only say I am delighted! I think it looks better, it's cleaner, it functions better.
I recommend it to all men.

Dear Mr. Swim bare.
I tried to send you a private e-mail to the address shown in your profile, however it is not valid and not known, the mail came back.
There was a link to our group for we cut Aussies and Kiwis "Cut-Aussies".
Regards. John S.

[swimbare]

Thanks John, I like the group and have joined it.
Sorry about the email messup which I have corrected!
Cheers
Rob

[Wiggle It]

I am circumcised, and content with the way it is, since it is the only way I've ever known it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif But if it wasn't, I don't think I'd want to have it done unless there was a serious need for it...leave well enough alone in such a place as that.

[BryanKleist]

I'm the son of immigrants from Europe (Germany), where it's never been a custom, so I wasn't circumcised at birth like the majority of my peers. Needless to say, when on American nude beaches with my wife I usually found myself the odd man out, while on the European ones I felt right at home. I never had any health problems as a result of being uncircumcised.

Well, when our son Trevor was born my wife decided that she wanted him to be circumcised, not so much for religious reasons (since she's a practicing Wiccan) so much as for "cultural" or "tribal" ones. She didn't even want a Bris - just the actual circumcision. Personally, I was leaning very much against it, mostly beacuse I wanted my son to "match" me, just to prevent any confusion or sexual identification problems when seeing me nude. My wife, however, was adamant having our son snipped and, ultimately, I had to respect that.

So, seeing as my son couldn't "match" me, I figured I could still "match" him, and got circumcised myself at the age of 36. The first week of recovery was pretty rough, and it certainly took me some time to get used to my new "look", but I am very pleased with the results. Now I can go to an American nude beach and feel right at home. The European ones, well, that's another matter. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

[Wiggle It]

Hats off to you, Dude! (pun intended) http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif I've gotta respect your fortitude; there's no way I can imagine being circumcised as an adult! Yikes! I wouldn't want any cutting in that area unless a total medical necessity. I was done as an infant and am satisfied with it in every way, but I wouldn't consider having it done now. I think it was a brave act for you.

[NakedGary]

I wanted my son to "match" me, just to prevent any confusion or sexual identification problems when seeing me nude.

BryanKleist, I'm pleased you’re satisfied with your decision of penile reduction and function over aesthetics in pleasing your son's view of "Daddy like son." Circumcision for aesthetics is one of the lamest reasons to do so.

Your son most likely will grow up to regret his parents decision without consent to permanently mutilate and alter his penis function, protection, sensitivity, and pleasure for life. Now you know both ways; he will never be able to.

You haven't got but very few years until again you will not feel at home on American nude beaches, and when your son is old enough to go to nude beaches on his own anywhere you both will a minority again as most on American as well as European nude beaches will be obviously be naturally intact as they were born.

Most all the medical associations, Insurance Companies, and most doctors and hospitals now do not recommend RIC circumcision unless it's a medical necessity, or religious or culture requirement. In just the past few years the circumcision ratio in America has gone from 75/25 to 55/45, and internationally 15/85 or approximately 85% of the world’s population left intact.
.

[Tim2]

You know what the difference of being circumcision is when you take a shower you have to pull back the skin a little so you can wash no biggy

[NakedGary]

[quote]You know what the difference of being circumcision is when you take a shower you have to pull back the skin a little so you can wash no biggy

About the same time as it takes to wash a finger in the bath or shower. Cut or intact 5-10 seconds at most. Add a second to retract and another to place foreskin over glands or let it return on its own.

I still say let the bearer decide on his own if he wants permanent genital reduction of many functions put there for good reason and purpose.

This topic/thread is sort of a non issue in social nudism or the locker room. You don't judge a nudist or person by size, shape, form, or status of their genitals.

.

[Tim2]

Boy yant that the truth, dam you older people you always keep us younger ones on are toes all the time I love you for that by the way were do you live in Sacramento if you dont mind me asking maybe you can show me a thing or two I live up in Rocklin

[NakedGary]

Tim2,

East Sacramento, 21.5 miles door to door to Laguna Del Sol Resort. 30 minutes or less if no traffic.

Ever been to the largest membership Club in California?

Link - To Laguna Del Sol - Clothes free Nudist Resort - Near Sacramento, CA. (http://www.lagunadelsol.com)

Be glad to meet you there, or show you around the facility. I believe they have a free pass for initial tour and day stay.

National nude week is July 10-16th of July. Laguna Del Sol doesn't advertise or promote the event as they have their annual Car show next Saturday July 15th, 2006. I’m sure they would honor your request, tour, and visit for the day if you haven't been there.

.

[Tim2]

Hi Gary I would love for you to take me out there, I have been out there once but new to nudisem I didnt stay. I can go out there any time you want and would love to go out with you or meet you out there, I'am looking to find a job on a resort, thats how much I love beening naked it has turned my world around.

[NakedGary]

Tim2

You’re getting off topic for the forum, Topic, Thread, so it would be best to start a new topic/thread on visiting Northern California Resorts, and job opportunities at nudist resorts, or continue this in private messaging IM or e-mail.
.

[Bob S.]

Gary:"Your son most likely will grow up to regret his parents decision"

Gary, you cannot assume that. I am cut and do not regret the choice. There is probably at least an equal likelyhood that a male will grow up accepting the choice or even thankful that he is cut.

Bob S.

[hedonist341]

i'm thankful i'm circumcised , its hygienic of course

[azgreen]

And I am thankful that I learned of foreskin restoration, carried it out and can benefit from the increased sensitivity, skin mobility and other benefits of a foreskin. And I am thankful we had the good sense 31 years ago to leave our son intact as nature intended. And I am thankful for enlightened parents who do that same thing today, ensuring genital integrity as an inherent right of a child.

[NakedGary]

hedonist341

No more hygienic than a natural intact penis. You should wash and check your penis just as often when bathing or showering. Actually more so as with the lack of foreskin your glands, and what’s left of your inter moist foreskin is more exposed to abrasion from undergarments or clothes, sun damage, and direct contact with contaminants or residue in soiled underwear.

Finally, the hygiene argument is moot for the reason that cutting it deprives the head of the natural protective moisturizing agents secreted in the area, which are good FO' yo' thang.

Sensible Hygiene is important for anyone regardless of the body part and its state of mutilation or penile reduction or not. Which, incidentally, showering twice a day and overzealous washing is NOT.

Interesting, I thought males in Romania were generally left intact and natural like the rest of Europe.

[wickptw]

well...my father is not cut so my mom and dad decided for me (their right as parents) that a father and son should match. the problem with this is my dad did not take phys ed with me and i was "unique" because i went to a small country school. i can remember only 2 other boys like me in my high school yrs. and we were not friends. that left me, pretty much, alone. at age 20 i decided enough was enough. hurt like heck, but no regrets even 27 yrs later except one. i wish i had done it sooner. did i regret my parents decision? sure....

[vintagecarguy]

well wickpt...at least you had a choice.
at least 45 percent of the time when I'm with a lady..it hurts like heck,...due to the hack job I got stuck with as an infant.

do parents have a right to chop off their childs ears?..after all,no ears,don't have to teach them to wash behind them and it would lower their chance of skin cancer.Fewer ear infections,plus a head without that redundant skin just looks so much nicer,no funny looking lumps on the side of the kids head,I wouldn't want any child of mine teased about having big ears and being called dumbo so I'd better get them hacked off at birth.
same excuses used for circumcision and heres the kicker,just as much truth to both!

[Andras]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Gary:"Your son most likely will grow up to regret his parents decision"

Gary, you cannot assume that. I am cut and do not regret the choice. There is probably at least an equal likelyhood that a male will grow up accepting the choice or even thankful that he is cut.

Bob S.

I agree very much. I was cut at 35, at my own choice, and very happy about it. I would be even happier, if my parents had deciced to get my cut as a child.

[NakedGary]

Andras

I pleased you had the chance to experience both sides of penile reduction and function and was able to make that descision on your own. Most Don't.

[Denis Swiss]

i dont understand the debate about circumcision's damages. For me, the circumcision is not a mutilation, i m circumsized since i was a little boy, and happy with.
A real mutilation is the excision, many african girls suffer that.


Originally posted by NakedGary:
hedonist341

No more hygienic than a natural intact penis. You should wash and check your penis just as often when bathing or showering. Actually more so as with the lack of foreskin your glands, and what’s left of your inter moist foreskin is more exposed to abrasion from undergarments or clothes, sun damage, and direct contact with contaminants or residue in soiled underwear.

Finally, the hygiene argument is moot for the reason that cutting it deprives the head of the natural protective moisturizing agents secreted in the area, which are good FO' yo' thang.

Sensible Hygiene is important for anyone regardless of the body part and its state of mutilation or penile reduction or not. Which, incidentally, showering twice a day and overzealous washing is NOT.

Interesting, I thought males in Romania were generally left intact and natural like the rest of Europe.

[NakedGary]

Denis Swiss

You don't understand the debate on circumcision damage as you were damaged, mutilated, and had penile reduction at a young age without your consent, and do not know the difference now. I'm pleased your happy with function and status of your penile systems.

Some who are cut as adults say the difference is like comparing HDTV in 3D Color to viewing a flat black and white television.

All mammals are born intact, and the penis glands is an internal organ. If animals were circumcised the animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma or a foreskin.

The foreskin was put there by nature for good reason, function, and protection for life. Some think not and authorize without consent mutilation other people’s bodies for life long irreversible harmful effects. Let the bearer decide if he wants to reduce, mutilate, and modify his penis function, and protection.

Circumcision is an act of destruction It destroys flesh, blood vessels, muscle tissue, sexual nerves, and much more. It destroys the victim’s sense of wholeness and their rights. It is DESTRUCTION and MUTULATION.


Link - Losses from Circumcision (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

Link - Myths about Circumcision (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html)

Link - Mothering Magazine - Foreskin functions - loss in circumcision - How Circumcision Harms (http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/)
.

[Denis Swiss]

well, big controversy for that little skin !
it is easy to find on the net or in books many opposite arguments:


for me, i do thank my parents to not let me with a phimosis when i was a kid

[vintagecarguy]

ahh..circlist...a circumcision sexual fetish site.
not exactly a good source of scientific data.
Not 1,read it again,not ONE single major medical association reccomends RIC.
Circumcision is a cosmetic surgery in search of a medical reason that all to often makes a sexual cripple.

And please,read the previous posts which will make it very easy to understand.Many of us have explained over and over why its a big controversy.
It looks like someone occasionaly reads the header and perhaps 1 or 2 posts and then puts"whats the big deal?"Just read the pages before and what the big deal is is as plain as the nose on ones face.
Some may still disagree but at least those who bother to read the old posts will know why it is a contentious issue.

[Denis Swiss]

well, i see.....perhaps i m sick to be happy with my cut penis ?

[vintagecarguy]

I'm glad your happy...but you would already know that if you would bother to read the prevous posts.

[earthpassenger(Kevin)]

All I know is someone did it to me a long time ago. I wish I could tell you all what it was like. But I just have no recollection!
Peace,
Kevin

[Fresh Air]

Denis Swiss

You don't understand the debate on circumcision damage as you were damaged, mutilated, and had penile reduction at a young age without your consent, and do not know the difference now. I'm pleased your happy with function and status of your penile systems.

Some who are cut as adults say the difference is like comparing HDTV in 3D Color to viewing a flat black and white television.

All mammals are born intact, and the penis glands is an internal organ. If animals were circumcised the animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma or a foreskin.

The foreskin was put there by nature for good reason, function, and protection for life. Some think not and authorize without consent mutilation other people’s bodies for life long irreversible harmful effects. Let the bearer decide if he wants to reduce, mutilate, and modify his penis function, and protection.

Circumcision is an act of destruction It destroys flesh, blood vessels, muscle tissue, sexual nerves, and much more. It destroys the victim’s sense of wholeness and their rights. It is DESTRUCTION and MUTULATION.


Link - Losses from Circumcision

Link - Myths about Circumcision

Link - Mothering Magazine - Foreskin functions - loss in circumcision - How Circumcision Harms

Unless a person is unhygenic or carries the rare genetic predisposition to penile cancer preventable by circumcision, then I agree that it serves no benefit to circumcise.

However, we shouldn't allow personal bias and websites of propoganda to influence our objective judgement.

The purpose of the penis is sexual pleasure, reproduction and urination. Circumsised or not, it still serves it's purpose.

One thing I think you might find interesting in regards to some of the claims you believe in is the process of developmental neurological mapping and bioneuropsychology.

The essense is this. We are not born hard wired. Just as we do not see until we learn to see (ie. neurophysiologically map the organ/brain to see). We are not born walking, we do not have the nerves, nor the brain for that at birth.

We are not born sexual. Like everything else, the mapping and physiological responses of sexual stimulation takes place later (much later).

So, I would agree that circumcision of an adult would result in altered sensation. But, I would disagree that circumcision of infants or small children would alter sexual sensations.

Destruction? Yes it is. But so it birth itself, so it sex, so is life. It heals, just like everything else. Functional purpose remains intact.

Mutilation? I suppose that is subjective in the eye of the beholder.

[Fresh Air]

well, big controversy for that little skin !
it is easy to find on the net or in books many opposite arguments:


for me, i do thank my parents to not let me with a phimosis when i was a kid

A phimosis, among other conditions, is a situation where circumcision graduates to being "medically recommended" as opposed to neutral.

For those who do not know, phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is either too small or not elastic enough to accomidate the glans (head) of the penis. It makes retraction of the head impossible.

A dangerous situation related to phimosis is paraphimosis. This occurs when the glans is forced through the stricture of the stenotic (narrow) forskin. The individual will then be unable to retract the head. Due to the internal atrial supply and external venous exit of blood, to the glans; the head of the penis will swell further making retraction of the forskin possible.

In fact, the glans will continue to swell, way beyond what it should swell too. It will only stop swelling when blood pressure is equalized by tissue compartment pressure. At this point blood supply to the head of the penis wills top. This is a problem, because without blood supply the tissues will die. And that's exactly what will happen if it is not reversed. If not medically treated on time, the head of the penis will need to be amputated.

So, paraphimosis is a medical emergency...definately. Phimosis is a medical problem where circumcision is highly recommended as treatment with the patients health in mind.

[azgreen]

That is pure alarmist talk. There is no justification for blanket circumcision of helpless, defenseless baby boys just so an occasional male might have phimosis, which can, in fact, be treated by methods other than circumcision, including stretching. It makes no sense to amputate healthy body parts to avoid that low percentage chance that something might not be just right. Enlightened medicine treats things as they occur rather than excising for some possible eventuality. Bottom line is humans should have sovereignty over their own bodies, and it crosses the line when someone else chooses to cut things off to satisfy their biases or serve their misinformation. Billions of males have done just fine intact and whole because nature intended it that way.

[NakedGary]

Fresh Air

From what I have seen heard or read mostly on the net Circumcision is Not recommended in over 90% of the cases of phimosis. Stretching and topical application solves many cases of phimosis without the necessity circumcision or surgery.

Paraphimosis is serious medical condition which needs immediate medical attention, but many cases can be resolved without complete circumcision with what I read in on the links below:

Link to - Glossary/Links on "phimosis and Paraphimosis" (http://www.circumstitions.com/Glossary.html#paraphimosis)


Link to Page "Paraphimosis? - Don't Panic! (http://www.circumstitions.com/Paraphim.html)

actual articles, in the CIRP reference library " (http://www.circumstitions.com/References.html#Hodges)

.

[David Shrimpton]

Oh stop this already; whats the big deal ask any man if he remembers if there was pain or not when he was circumsised and he,ll say NO you are done hours after your born and it has no bearing on your later sex lives. where do your people come up with these ideas? who really cares one way or another can,t we discuss some more important things than this on the forum??

[NakedGary]

David Shrimpton

Welcome to the Forums as a new user, active poster, and seasoned long term nudist.

In the short time you have been member I see where you have been on and posted in two of the most posted, discussed, and talked about subjects on the forums "Circumcision" and "Shaving". The category "Nudity & Religion" tops those as the most talked about subject.

Oh stop this already

Wher do your people come up with these ideas?

it has no bearing on your later sex lives

can't we discuss some more important things than this on the forum??
You have expressed your opinion, and debate on circumcision as hundreds of other have and millions have read on these popular and often debated subjects. You input, comments, questions, and debate is what makes the forms work and be successful.

I don't think by popular demand or being the most talked about subjects on the forums they will stop, be canceled, or go away as they have been the most discussed subjects and topics since January 2002 on the forums.

The frequently asked questions [FAQ] section or category under "General Forms" This area is for questions and topics that frequently appear in naturist discussions, including erections, body piercing & jewelry, shaving, general etiquette, etc.

May I suggest if you don't like what you read, see, subject, category, topic or thread wise do as you have done post about it or change channels or hit the X button at the top. [Just like the Radio or TV] If something offends you or you think its inappropriate then do a report post at the top of each post.

Links to "Nudity & Religion" Posts 63 Pages, 1260 Posts since Jan. 9, 2002 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=religion&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=1&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

Links to forum posts on "Shaving" 32 pages, 640 posts, since Jun. 14, 2002 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=shaving&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=1&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

Links to forum posts on "Circumcision" 24 pages, 480 posts, since July 14, 2002 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=circumcision&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=1&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

As a new user and poster you may find the following links very useful in finding prior posts on various subjects, nudist links without sexual content, and a very fast search engine on any text, subject or post sorted by member, date, etc.

CFF Forums "Search Engine" Page. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/ubb.x/search)

Link to - CFI/CFF "Nudist Explorer" [only non-sexual Nudist links, and pages. (http://www.nudistexplorer.com/index.html)

Link to CFI "Best of Links" (http://www.clothesfree.com/bestlinks.html)

CFI/CFF Terms of Service TOS all must agreed to and abide by for posting on CFI or the Forums. Also CFI complaint and contact info. Read, Printout, and use for handy Reference. (http://clothesfreeforums.com/terms.html)

Enjoy the Forums, Your participation is welcome, needed, appreciated, and what make the Forums work and be successful.

[Fresh Air]

That is pure alarmist talk. There is no justification for blanket circumcision of helpless, defenseless baby boys just so an occasional male might have phimosis, which can, in fact, be treated by methods other than circumcision, including stretching. It makes no sense to amputate healthy body parts to avoid that low percentage chance that something might not be just right. Enlightened medicine treats things as they occur rather than excising for some possible eventuality. Bottom line is humans should have sovereignty over their own bodies, and it crosses the line when someone else chooses to cut things off to satisfy their biases or serve their misinformation. Billions of males have done just fine intact and whole because nature intended it that way.


Pretty much all infants have phimotic forskins. I was talking about phimosis as a medical condition (ie. symptomatic and problematic). This happens later in life. Your right there are other treatments, but circumcision is the only sure cure. If a parent or adult patient is ok with trying other methods that is ok too.

It is always the choice of the patient/parent. I would neither coerce nor deny a circumcision. I did not mean to come across as saying I believe in blanket circumcisions, cause I don't.

I think what is most appropriate is to inform the parent or patient of the different treatment options. Share with them the probability of success, risks and benefits of each treatment. Guage the parents or patients preference on the matter, then share your recomendations.

[Fresh Air]

<u>Case 1:</u>

A 30 y/o male with a history of STD infections comes into your clinic. He is complaining of difficulty urinating and pain with erections secondary to a history of worsening stenosis at the tip of his foreskin. Patient reveals to you he has had two Urinary Tract Infections in the past 1.5 years. He also says he has herpes and states that he get's "flare ups" twice a year.

Physical exam reveals significant scaring and hardened scar tissue at the foreskin opening. Difuse scaring is also noted on the rest of the foreskin, more localized to the distal portion. Retraction of the foreskin is not possible. The patient is otherwise healthy.

How would you advise this patient?

(note, that steroid cream treatments work best in and are recomended more for a pediatric population)

[NakedGary]

Fresh Air, and Forum posters

OK, enough on detailed medical diagnosis and treatment on subjects not directly related to CFF naturist and nudist family form categories.

As a young doctor or intern fresh out of medical school I’m taken back and actually surprised that you make statements of being neutral on the pros and con's, giving advice, on circumcision in one sentence, then making an uninformed pro circ statement that circumcision is the only sure cure of phimosis.

Your right there are other treatments, but circumcision is the only sure cure.

Medical manuals, associations, and other doctors say that phimosis rarely re-occurs, and in over 95% cases of Phimosis easily treated and cured by stretching and topical ointments without the necessity of circumcision.

In rare and complicated cases as you refer to, and after exhaustive treatment and diagnosis by experienced doctors specializing in that area fail, yes circumcision might be necessary in this case only. UTI's and type II herpes outbreaks will occur circumcised or not.

There are reams and reams of medical documents enough to more than fill your house or local football field on this subject. I think I would weigh towards true medical facts, studies, and statistics over some of misinformed, outrageous, and myth and rumor put out by some on the net, and in these forums. Don't forget the circumcision debate has been going on for thousands of years, and over 80% or the world’s populations are left intact without problems for life.

Generally the foreskin or circumcision does not cause, cure, or prevent:

Cervical or Vaginal Cancer in females
Penile cancer in males
STD's in male or females
HIV infection and resultant AIDS
Erectile dysfunction
Fertility rates
Procreation

The subject is not going to go away, but I think in nudist and naturist categories the forums should comment and debate on how it relates to social nudism however you are, not the sexual, function, differences, or medical aspects of circumcision, the penis or sexual organs.

This is not a medical forum, so if you have problems with your genitals, or seek knowledgeable information on circumcision or restoration, see or consult with your HMO, doctor, or doctors specialized in those areas. Beware of the source, accuracy, and information you see, read, or hear on the Internet or in casual conversation. A lot of what you see unofficially is rumor, gossip, myth, legend, and misinformation, or someone uninformed thought on the issue or subject.

[barebum]

Hi Guys, in my family seams to depend which hospital born in, My Dad and youngest Brother circumsized, me and other brother uncut!
Personal I am happy way I am, don't want anybody going down there with a knife lol
Nude regards
Mark

[l2ltlarry]

A quote from the homepage:

"Your body is yours, a gift from God, and it is decent and wholesome just like God intended with Adam and Eve. Yes, the Bible does have a body positive message. We need to respect our bodies by not declaring it dirty or shamefully hiding it."

The Bible, from very early in the Jewish religion through much of Christian religion, also has a circumcision- positive message. Not that anybody cares, of course. In later Christianity, there is the question and answer, "Of what value is circumcision? Much, in every way!" An unbiased study of much of medical literature also ascribes at least some value to circumcision.

Approximately a year ago, on July 19, 2005, in this thread, I posted this:

Quote:
"I posted this in the Miscellaneous - scientific evidence re: circumcision:

"Remembering an article I read 2 or 3 years ago in the 'New England Journal of Medicine', I keyed in "new england journal of medicine circumcision hpv" into my Google browser. The "hpv" is "human papillomavirus". In the first few hits plus following the links, there is a huge amount of what seems to be scientific data, with the large majority of it supporting circumcision as medically beneficial."

"Also, there is a book, 'None of These Diseases' which references the scientific data in the Google hits above. The book's authors, two M.D.s, are pro-circumcision; they give more background on the M.D. (in the Google hits) who wrote the 1971 American Academy of Pediatrics statement opposing routine circumcision, but after more research, reversed himself in 1989 with the conclusion that there is truly a preponderance of medical benefits that greatly outweighs the far less frequent problems that occur with circumcisions.

"I still think that regardless of the medical benefits, the desirability of circumcision -- where it is desired -- has large aesthetic, cultural, and cosmetic components to it, and if it had no medical benefits whatever, it would still be practiced almost as much as it is now or has been for several thousand years."
End of 7-19-05 quote

I read the entire article in the 'New England Journal of Medicine'. As far as I know that journal is a credible, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Several times in recent posts, those of you who are anti-circumcision have worked to sell the view that there is no medical findings whatever to ascribe value to circumcision. I think you overstate the case in saying that.

More recently I found an article in National Geographic News online dated 7-26-05 (I entered 'National Geographic circumcision' in my Google browser). It is the first hit and is titled, "Circumcision Can Reduce AIDS Risk, Study Says". National Geographic surely is scientifically credible, isn't it?

One point in the article, which touches on Gary's and others' assertion that 80 percent of men in the world are not circumcised and they would not want to be, is this:

"Cultural Practice

Male circumcision could be a powerful way to reduce the spread of the disease, many experts say. However, getting people to change their cultural and religious practices is notoriously difficult.

"About two-thirds of the world's men are not circumcised," said Bailey, the Illinois epidemiologist. "Many of these are understandably reticent to consider a procedure that they have not experienced themselves and which they may view as risky and painful."

But studies have shown that most men and women in traditionally non-circumcising regions of Africa prefer males to be circumcised if the procedure is done safely and affordably.

In a survey of 216 adults in Kenya, Bailey found that 60 percent of men would prefer to be circumcised and that 62 percent of women would prefer circumcised partners, but only about 10 percent of men actually have the procedure done.

However, the benefits of male circumcision must be weighed against the potential harm, Bailey says. When done properly, circumcision is a simple outpatient procedure. But in unsafe conditions, complications can arise."

What I seem to be hearing in this and other circumcision and un-circumcising threads is this, "If you are on the anti-circumcision side, then what you think and say is fact; if you are on the opposite side, then what you think and say is only your opinion."

Gary, I think some of us have done at least as much research on this subject as you have, maybe far more. Just because our conclusions do not agree with yours, does not make us wrong, regardless of how hard you work to sell your viewpoint.

[vintagecarguy]

"Your body is yours, a gift from God,
Well.....
If my body is mine,who gave some quack the right to cut part of my body off!
Supporting cutting is like supporting foot binding.
Oh,and look a little deeper,the African aids studies have a major problem.....sexual practices of the various groups in the studies were very different and these differences were not accounted for in the collection of data.
Also Africa is not the industrialised world where the evidence is opposite...in the USA,the most cut of the industrialised world,we have the highest aids rate while Europe has a much lower infection rate and are not any where near as knife happy.Obviously cutting children doesn't stop aids or we wouldn't see aids in America.
Also the main point is once again lost.......
It is the birth right of any child,male or female to have their bodies whole.
Like piercing and tattoos and breast augmentation,these things should be left for people to choose for their own bodies when they are adults.If it were a cultural norm or spiritual ritual to cut off a kids ears should it be allowed?It would cut skin cancer risk.It would look better,no funny looking things sticking out of ones head and most of all children would no longer have to be told to wash behind their ears making them much cleaner.
Amputation of normal healthy tissue is simply wrong.And doctors,need I remind you of the Oath?First do no harm?
I am harmed.Many other men have stated they are harmed.We will not be riddiculed into silence.
Remember,doctors that cut my generation almost have an excuse,they didn't know better,no physician today has that easy out.Some child cut today will come back to the cutter as an adult and he won't accept excuses.The evidence of harm is being documented and those of us harmed in the past will help those harmed today to stop harm in the future.
There have already been lawsuits by men turning 18 against their cutters.
This rant brought to you in memory of David Riemer..

[Fresh Air]

As a young doctor or intern fresh out of medical school I’m taken back and actually surprised that you make statements of being neutral on the pros and con's, giving advice, on circumcision in one sentence, then making an uninformed pro circ statement that circumcision is the only sure cure of phimosis.


It is not the comment. It is the lack of understanding of the comment.

But in that context, I agree I should take more caution in what I say. I do not anticipate the misunderstandings until they are evident.

What I said makes perfect sense otherwise.

Steroids and streching has success in some studies of about 80-85%. Streching alone has some, but less success. Circumcision eliminates the phimosis, this is 100%.

Would I recommend circumcision as treatment for phimosis? No. I would prefer a parent use the less invasive option especially as the childs age increases. Would I deny the parent the option of circumcision as a treatment for phimosis? No.

[Fresh Air]

Your right there are other treatments, but circumcision is the only sure cure.

<u>Case 2:</u>

A young married couple comes into your office with their healthy 4 year old boy. They are visiting for the first time after bringing their son to the ER. They visited the ER a week ago due to paraphimosis of their son's penis. They are seeking counsuling.

They express their concern, saying that the doctor in the ER told them that had they for some reason come in a couple hours later, the head of the penis may have died and requred ampuation. They are also concerned because they were told this could happen again.

Different methods of treatment of simple phimosis are discussed. Following the discussion, the parents say, "I don't want there to be any chance that this could occur again. Are any of the procedures you discussed a 100%, "sure cure" for phimosis such that paraphimosis will not have a chance of reoccuring?".

How would you advise this family?

[vintagecarguy]

Different methods of treatment of simple phimosis are discussed. Following the discussion, the parents say, "I don't want there to be any chance that this could occur again. Are any of the procedures you discussed a 100%, "sure cure" for phimosis such that paraphimosis will not have a chance of reoccuring?".

How would you advise this family?

Lesser of 2 evils......
Dorasal slit,still allows for the repair of the slit after maturity and preservation of the prepuce into adulthood.

But........only after all other less destructive measures have been taken.
One need not strip the glans bare and amputate tissue.
Circumcision is a lazy way to handle a problem that leaves the cutters ignorance forever engraved on the penis of the victim.

[NakedGary]

I2ltlarry and Form posters


[quote]Gary, I think some of us have done at least as much research on this subject as you have, maybe far more. Just because our conclusions do not agree with yours, does not make us wrong, regardless of how hard you work to sell your viewpoint.

To sum up your above quote pointing at me:

1. I would like to mention previous mention [7 posts back] in this as well as in “Open Conversation” Restoration thread, that the subject matter is way off topic for a naturist and family nudist forum other than mention of the pro’s and con’s of personal opinion of the visual difference observed, and differences in protection from the sun in a social nude recreation venue. The restoration thread was just that, not detailed medical procedures, or reasons to cut.

2. I based my research on medical documented fact. I hope your research level is based on quality not quantity. I started my research 40 years ago prior to when home PC’s or the Internet was even thought of. I would much rather rely on medical fact on a medical subject and have always excluded religious, culture, personal opinion, aesthetic, cosmetic, and medical necessity as reason to justify penile reduction, and mutilation of perfectly healthy normal functioning genital parts without consent of the bearer which is the end user not the parents. The decision of parents to cut an infant without consent to please or to be like the boys in the locker room or to look like daddy is lame at best.

3. The anti circ posters seem to prevail in this room, and yes their opinion will differ from yours as they know that all major international medical associations, insurance companies, and some governments realize through medical fact and studies, and research that cutting without medical necessity [Excluding religious, culture, and personal opinion] has few if any medical benefits, is not necessary, and doesn’t prevent sexually transmitted diseases, or the hundreds of excuses and myths in the past of justifying the unkindest of cuts to normal functioning, healthy genital parts put there for purpose, function, and protection.

4. The minority of pro circ posters seem to grab out and post anything including inquirer and media type headlines without foundation, biased web posting, and anything that mentions any perceived, myth, personal opinion, scientific study, and some partial medical findings like your post that only mention possible if any benefits of circumcision of African people who hardly know what personal or genital hygiene is, and practice risky multi-partner unsafe sex. Not realizing the next door African country is Moslem and 100% cut and still retain the same high rates of STD’s.

5. If you will continue to research unbiased you will find out the foreskin in its self does not cause cervical cancer, or penile cancer, STD’s, HIV, or is less clean, and men and women get these diseases wither their partner or themselves are circumcised or not. Recent documented medical findings, studies, and research find that personal and genital hygiene, and risky unsafe frequent sexual practices with multiple partners is the cause and method of transfer of many STD’s, cancer, HIV in men and women.. [Which you didn’t mention in your post or referenced scientific article.] If you continue research you will find documented medical findings that confirm circumcised males are at higher risk of contacting STD’s, and HIV through the weakened circumcision scars, skin tags, and micro abrasions on tight and stretched remaining penile skin caused by the extra exertion to overcome the loss in sensitivity as a result of circumcision.

6. No matter how you look at it circumcision of the foreskin and associated genital parts at infancy, teen or adult is penile Reduction, in size, sexual function, sensitivity, and protection.

When will the pro circ side finally realize that penile reduction by cutting millions of infants without consent in routine infant circumcision to possibly prevent a few cases of 80 year old penile cancer is just not ethical, justifiable, beneficial or medically necessary. Circumcised men also get penile cancer.

If uncircumcised men caused cervical cancer in women why do Jewish women still get cervical cancer?

Circumcision is risky, harmful, painful, and mutilation of parts not replaceable. There are more deaths per year due to circumcision, than rare male breast cancer, and both uncircumcised and circumcised get breast cancer.

You quote “there is truly a preponderance of medical benefits that greatly outweighs the far less frequent problems that occur with circumcisions.”

I would like to have reference to links or see this preponderance of medical benefits you state in private messaging or “Open Conversation” but I feel and request again that posts in this family naturist and nudist forum be related to comments about how the subject of circumcision relates to social nude recreation venues, not the detailed medical aspects of the procedure, reason to justify, or cause and reason of sexual transmitted diseases which are not part of or related to social nude venues discussed in this naturist family forum.

Get back on track or move the medical discussion to "Open Conversation" category.
.

[Fresh Air]

Lesser of 2 evils......
Dorasal slit,still allows for the repair of the slit after maturity and preservation of the prepuce into adulthood.

But........only after all other less destructive measures have been taken.
One need not strip the glans bare and amputate tissue.
Circumcision is a lazy way to handle a problem that leaves the cutters ignorance forever engraved on the penis of the victim.

That is definately not a wrong answer.

It should, however be shared with the parents that the results of the dorsal slit method lead to the greatest patient dissatisfaction of all treatment methods.

Remember, the job is to ensure an informed choice, not to promote personal preference. If it was about personal preference, I'd probobly not perform as many circumcisions.

I feel sort of bad that you have the opinion for some reason that physicians who perform circumcisions for parents are "cutters" and "ignorant".

I hope you can try to understand that our job is not to promote causes but rather to serve the public. Our job is to ensure all options are avaliable to deciding parties and unbiased information along with it.

To do otherwise is malpractice.

If I somehow sin in your eyes, please forgive me. Personally, however, I can do nothing more than keep the oath that I swore to and practice the job I trained for. I do not find guilt in this.

[Fresh Air]

5. If you will continue to research unbiased you will find out the foreskin in its self does not cause cervical cancer, or penile cancer, STD’s, HIV, or is less clean, and men and women get these diseases wither their partner or themselves are circumcised or not. Recent documented medical findings, studies, and research find that personal and genital hygiene, and risky unsafe frequent sexual practices with multiple partners is the cause and method of transfer of many STD’s, cancer, HIV in men and women.. [Which you didn’t mention in your post or referenced scientific article.] If you continue research you will find documented medical findings that confirm circumcised males are at higher risk of contacting STD’s, and HIV through the weakened circumcision scars, skin tags, and micro abrasions on tight and stretched remaining penile skin caused by the extra exertion to overcome the loss in sensitivity as a result of circumcision.


I'm sorry but I must disagree with the overall gist of this comment. I don't think what was posted by myself was in anyway biased. I also never said that the forskin causes any of what you stated. Only that it is associated with increased transmission and prevelence.

In the studies I refered too standerdization methods in applied that statistically eliminate the factors you mention. Though, I must agree that the burden of association lies in the factors you mentioned. The relevent implied topic, however (I thought) was if circumcision has any benefit at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by continuing research to find what you mentioned. But I must be a little firm her and say that I have personally done the research and the professional medical opinion (not my own) is what I state in my posts.

[Fresh Air]

6. No matter how you look at it circumcision of the foreskin and associated genital parts at infancy, teen or adult is penile Reduction, in size, sexual function, sensitivity, and protection.

Based on this comment I'm not sure you are quite yet understanding the process and physiology of development.

I agree with the sensitivity (secondary to keritanization of epithelium) and protection (two extra epidermal layers) part, though. Partially on the sexual function thing too. Though, sexualy "function-AL" is a differnet entity, right?

Size is only an issue if chronic Peyronie's Disease is a byproduct. That can affect the cut or uncut, though.

[l2ltlarry]

Fresh Air, I don't see that you have anything to apologize for. Since you started posting again on this topic, you've been attacked, belittled, talked down to, called ignorant, called too young to know what you are talking about, and such like. I think you're owed an apology rather than owing an apology.

I considered Cyndiann a very unpleasant person because she constantly insisted that what she said was always fact and what everybody else who didn't think as she did said was just opinion. Obviously circumcision is an emotional issue, but I think the treatment you're getting for your viewpoints is uncalled for.

Gary, you started your research on this 40 years ago. I started a long time before that, but I don't think number of years of research has much to do with the conclusions we reach based on what we've studied. How can you so dismissively say that your research was of high quality and mine was not? Your thinking it doesn't make my research of lesser quality than yours.

As to the points Fresh Air has been making, and as for your request for supporting links, I have said before the links I've looked at and the book I referred to. In addition, if you do a Google search with "johns hopkins circumcision AIDS", numerous of the first 40 hits and their links and their links links have very recent research (2006) and scientific opinions supporting Fresh Air's and my statements that circumcision does have benefits.

quote:
Get back on track or move the medical discussion to "Open Conversation" category.
end quote

I don't understand how we're off the track. There have been 20-some pages of discussion so far along these same lines in this Miscellaneous - Are you circumcised? thread. (And of course, this is one of the most popular if not the most popular topic on clothesfree.com). I also don't understand how I would go about moving this topic to Open Conversation.

What rule says what can be talked about where? I'm not seeing how what is being discussed here is in any way, shape, or form, inappropriate.

[NakedGary]

|2ltlarry

No one is trying to argue or out do the time or years spent on research on this "Circumcision subject" except you. I only mentioned the first time I looked into the subject in public library's there was no home PC's or WWW Internet around.

I’m sorry but detailed surgical and medical procedures in the operating room on how you slit or split the dorsal this or that, and how you separate the glands from the fused foreskin are just not related to nude recreation, or nudist venues, or naturist environment.

It was only suggested in two separate forums and categories that the detailed medical operations and surgery talk, case studies was getting off track of being naturist orientated and to move further detailed medical procedures talk to "Open Category" where one may talk about most or any subjects as long as stay within the Terms of service and doesn't get many complaints from posters, readers, members, and guests.

[From the circumcision thread]
I would like to have reference to links or see this preponderance of medical benefits you state in private messaging or “Open Conversation” but I feel and request again that posts in this family naturist and nudist forum be related to comments about how the subject of circumcision relates to social nude recreation venues, not the detailed medical aspects of the procedure, reason to justify, or cause and reason of sexual transmitted diseases which are not part of or related to social nude venues discussed in this naturist family forum.

[From the Restoration thread]
I do not believe the nudist and naturist forms are the place to debate or discuss detailed medical or genital medical procedures, modification, or resultant differences in sexual function. Nudist concerns of the visual aspects or differences noticed in nude social recreation or effect of the sun exposure or related thoughts, comments or debate is normal and appropriate.

Yes posts on circumcision are 22 pages of 20 posts each and have been since 2002 mostly in

Naturist categories:
Miscellaneous
Nudity & Religion
Young Naturist
New Naturist
Nudes in the News

And "Open Conversation" [Any subject OK]

The majority of posts being fairly equal between Miscellaneous and Open Category.

No one is saying anyone’s opinion is wrong on both sides of this intact/cut issues posted.

The African study you reference has been all over the internet and has been widely misused quoted, referenced, and abused world wide with media blitz type headlines "circumcision cuts Aid’s"
Stops HIV
Prevents HIV transfer
Prevents disease

That study was in Africa for Africans with little or no practice of personal or sexual hygiene, unsafe sex with multiple partners and no prophylactic, or safer sex practices, no education on safe sex or the prevention of diseases. The outcome of that study suggests that if all the Africans in that area were circumcised, there might be lesser chance of HIV transfer, and a few less cases of HIV/AID's only with this group in Africa.

If that study or suggested headlines were true world wide, why does America have 2nd or 3rd highest rate of HIV, and AID's when a Majority of males are circumcised. and why does Europe have such a low rates of HIV and AID's when most all are left intact throughout life.

Education in Prevention
Personal and sexual hygiene.
Monogamous sex partner.
Safe sex.
Use of condoms and prophylactics.
Testing facilities.
Proper and available medical treatment.
Clean needles and injection devices.
Clinics and Hospital facilities.
Medicine and antibiotics be made available.

Is the only way to prevent and reduce transmission, infection, risks, and transfer of STD's, HIV, and a host of other blood and sexually transmitted diseases, not mutilating, cutting or performing penile reduction to masses or millions of people each year as in the U.S.

Now can we get back to how the subject of circumcision relates to nude social recreation venues, and leave the blood, organs, foreskin, surgery and detailed medical procedures and details to the "General forums category" of "Open conversation".
.

[azgreen]

How's this for enlightenment? A court in Finland rules the circumcision of a 4-year-old boy, by consent of mother, is illegal.

HELSINGIN SANOMAT, Monday, 7 August 2006.


Court rules circumcision of four-year-old boy illegal
Legal status of nonmedical procedure remains murky

Finland’s first court ruling on male child circumcision was handed down by a Finnish court on Friday. A Muslim mother faced charges of assault in Tampere District Court for having her four-year-old son circumcised.
The incident was reported to the police by the boy’s father, who had not been consulted.
The court found that the mother’s action was illegal. However, it did not assign any punishment. The mother defended her action by saying that she thought that circumcisions performed by doctors were legal in Finland.
The case will now go to the Court of Appeals.

The mother said that the procedure is part of the family’s religion and cultural heritage. The court found that interfering with personal inviolability could be allowed only in cases specifically permitted by law.
"There is a perception in Finland that only girls’ circumcisions are banned by law. There is no specific legislation about them; both types are illegal under the same criminal law. After all, in both procedures, part of healthy genitalia is removed without medical foundation, or competent consent", says local prosecutor Jouko Nurminen .
Nurminen says that the "misconception" may have arisen in connection with the drafting of the new constitution, at which time only the circumcision of girls was part of the debate.
In its decision, the court notes that not even a long religious tradition justifies protecting the bodily inviolability of boys to a lesser degree than that of girls.

[NakedGary]

Im glad there serious about it.

[Fresh Air]

We are bound by a different set of laws. I suppose some might feel in some cases that is unfortunate. But, also, others might feel equally fortunate.

[azgreen]

We may operate under a different set of laws, but we have to acknowledge that 1) there are universal human rights that take some nations longer than others to recognize and adopt; and 2)Scandinavia is typically ahead of the game on matters of fairness and humanitarian matters. I would posit that Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, because they are less controlled by the pressure of religious factions, are more free to do what is good for humans and may be more governed by pure reason and rational thinking. Circumcision does not hold up when put through the rigors of reason and justice.

[Fresh Air]

We may operate under a different set of laws, but we have to acknowledge that 1) there are universal human rights that take some nations longer than others to recognize and adopt; and 2)Scandinavia is typically ahead of the game on matters of fairness and humanitarian matters. I would posit that Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, because they are less controlled by the pressure of religious factions, are more free to do what is good for humans and may be more governed by pure reason and rational thinking. Circumcision does not hold up when put through the rigors of reason and justice.


Ok, I'm not sure the whole world would agree with you. Reason and Justice are not the sum of criteria either.

But, if you wish to believe the standards of the world should be set by Scandinavia, that's cool. Just as long as your not saying, "I would posit that countries that agree with my own beliefs are more right than those which don't.", cause that would just be silly talk.

[NakedGary]

I think the intactness of over 80% of the billions of the worlds males speaks for it's self without reason, culture, religion, or medical reasons to mutilate without consent of the bearer a perfectly healthy, functioning genital part of the body put their good reason which serves a majority of the world male population with full function and protection for life.
.

[azgreen]

Major point, Naked Gary. The Web M.D posted a compelling article on his blog this week, starting off by saying he refuses to do circumcisions for parents who want them because they are medically unnecessary and just cosmetic.

Link to "Circumcision: An Unkind and Unnecessary Cut Article" by "Dr. Rod Moser" on the "WebMD'blog" online. (http://blogs.webmd.com/all-ears/2006_08_01_all-ears-archive.html)

* Non working hyperlink corrected by Mod "NG"
.

[l2ltlarry]

From "The American Enterprise Online" which was in one of my Google hits for "finland abortion scandinavia":
"Johan Norberg, 29, has emerged as Timbro's most visible activist. His book In Defense of Global Capitalism sold well in Sweden and, in translation, has become a minor classic of the American Right. Through a mixture of personal anecdote, political philosophizing, and number crunching, Norberg makes a convincing moral and economic case that global capitalism helps the world's poor. He shows that global trade has improved people's lives the world over. While Norberg says that he would have voted for George Bush over Al Gore, he hardly compares to a conventional American conservative. He says that he doesn't particularly care if government policies promote traditional families and (like almost everyone I talked to in the Scandinavian market-liberal movement) supports legal abortion and gay rights ."

From "International Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 25, Number 2, June 1999
Characteristics of Women Who Obtain Induced Abortion: A Worldwide Review":
A table shows the number of abortions for one year in each country of the world. Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway (Scandinavian countries) and nearly or all countries of the world show significant numbers of abortions. It appears abortion is legal in Scandinavian counties and most everywhere else.

My point is, when "human rights" are introduced to promote making circumcision illegal, and yet generally, the baby (or fetus) legally has no right to be born, this seems inconsistent.

I support the human right of females to not be compelled to reproduce themselves, even after they become pregnant. From all appearances, Scandinavia supports that human right the same as I do. I further support the right of the reproducer to legally make the choice for the male baby as to its circumcision status. It seems to me, the male baby's human rights is minimal compared to the human rights of the one who produced it and who will be its very, very major support system. Circumcision has a very long history; it did not start with John Harvey Kellog and his 'Road to Wellville' anti-masturbation campaign. For nearly all of circumcision's history, it was valued and viewed positively, not denigrated and considered "damaging" or "mutilating" as today's campaign does.

As to the mother's right to decide for her offspring whether it will be circumcised or not, the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics supports this right; I just read the statement 2 days ago.

[l2ltlarry]

I'm curious.

The males here who run or appear in ClothesFree's various enterprises are nearly all circumcised. Do they share the negative stance toward circumcision that those here who are anti-circumcision posters have?

I'm assuming they do, since it seems they would speak up and join the fray if they were of the opposite opinion.

[l2ltlarry]

"...because they are medically unnecessary and just cosmetic."

This has been my point all along. The visual or cosmetic is the real reason circumcision was invented (in my opinion). Adducing medical reasons in support is just a ploy. I think we should be honest. While there are (physical) benefits from circumcision as I can attest from my personal experience, the major one being, one does not have to make any special or extra effort to keep it clean. Clean is automatic. To me, this is pretty wonderful. But the real benefit is visual and cosmetic. I want to be able to be and see that I'm permanently "skinned back". I think that's the real reason someone invented it eons ago. It's a very small, simple, and minor procedure to gain the desired visual, cosmetic effect. I don't see why there is such a great movement to negativize what many people for countless generations have highly prized -- the pleasing, even beautiful, look that we want. And the reason we circumcise our male children is that we value that look and way of being so much that we want it for them too.

As for functioning and sensitivity, mine improved after circumcision. I liked (and continue to like) it much better this way. Why should others attempt to remove the human rights of we who are not Jewish or Muslim to practice and value circumcision. It seems those working to make circumcision illegal are willing to concede circumcision rights to Jews and Muslims. Why should not I, who am neither, continue to possess the same legal right?

[l2ltlarry]

I think the intactness of over 80% of the billions of the worlds males speaks for it's self without reason, culture, religion, or medical reasons to mutilate without consent of the bearer a perfectly healthy, functioning genital part of the body put their good reason which serves a majority of the world male population with full function and protection for life.

Let's see. The are reportedly 1 billion Muslims in our world of 6 billion people. Say one-half are male. As I understand it, circumcision is "100 percent" in this population, making one-twelfth or 8.33 percent of the world's population. However since only 3 billion humans are male, then this is one-sixth or 16.67 percent of the world's population that is elgible in the first place for circumcision. The Muslim population alone, then makes up almost all of the 20 percent (100 percent minus the 80 percent who are presumed intact).

There aren't nearly so many Jews, but basically one-half of them are circumcised. America continues, despite the decline, to circumcise at birth more than half of the males born, probably still more than 60 percent (down from about 80 percent or so). While in American and other Western nations that at one time practiced widespread circumcision of new-borns, the trend is downward, I don't think there is a guarantee that at some point the current popularity of leaving new-borns intact might not become less popular. I think "the jury is still out" on whether circumcision is a good thing or a bad thing.

Next, I have seen several surveys, which of course can be made to say whatever proponents or opponents want them to say, that 66 percent of men are glad they were circumcised and many of the remaining percentage are neutral on the subject. I have seen surveys that say that more than 60 percent of men in the non-Western, non-USA countries would prefer to be circumcised if there were easy, convenient, inexpensive, and culturally-supportive ways to accomplish it.

Last, the 80 percent intact/uncircumcised males, I think, are the one's we (statistics) know about. Men like myself and others that are harder to count do not get recognized in the percentage. I would think that the percentage is higher, probably much higher. As the Bible says, "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord". I imagine many men all over the world have done just that: circumcised themselves, or at least were not circumcised in any formal, countable setting. They would never be counted.

[Fresh Air]

I think the intactness of over 80% of the billions of the worlds males speaks for it's self without reason, culture, religion, or medical reasons to mutilate without consent of the bearer a perfectly healthy, functioning genital part of the body put their good reason which serves a majority of the world male population with full function and protection for life.

The world keeps spinning...life goes on.

Reproduction will not cease. The world will not stop. If the entire world was jumping off a cliff, I'd still hope people would think for themselves and have freedom.

[Fresh Air]

I'm curious.

The males here who run or appear in ClothesFree's various enterprises are nearly all circumcised. Do they share the negative stance toward circumcision that those here who are anti-circumcision posters have?

I'm assuming they do, since it seems they would speak up and join the fray if they were of the opposite opinion.


I assume the majority doesn't care.

I just have nothing better to do...

[azgreen]

The Learning Channel is taking votes on whether boys should be circumcised. As one might suspect, it is overwhelmingly running against circumcision

To vote, see:
>http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/survivingmotherhood/poll.html or the
>shorter version: http://snipurl.com/wrnu

[azgreen]

The Learning Channel is taking votes on whether boys should be circumcised. As one might suspect, it is overwhelmingly running against circumcision.

To vote, see:
>http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/survivingmotherhood/poll.html or the
>shorter version: http://snipurl.com/wrnu

[JohnFourtyTwo]

I asked my mother about this a few years ago and she told me why I wasn't circumsized because she just hated all the pain and crying my brother went through when he was circumsized as an infant. She said she didn't want me to go through that.

On a side note, my ex-wife had her son circumsized when he was 12 or 16 because it was normal for Filipinos to get circumsized at that age. She said it had something to do with a growth spirt or something like that. I would be very pissed if my mom had me circumsized that late in life. Anyway, he's about six feet tall now so and most Filipinos don't grow that tall...

[Pillowman]

I was circ'd as a baby but my brother who was adopted wean't. Hard to know how his feels comared to mine but we don't have any complaints. Most of my frieds or at least the onese who I have seen their penis are circ'd.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Yes -look closely at my photo (and I hope someone catches you with the magnifying glass up to the monitor.)

[sledge]

i was circumsized at birth and am VERY glad that i am !!!

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
Yes -look closely at my photo (and I hope someone catches you with the magnifying glass up to the monitor.)

Already done that...uncaught. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif Would I need the magnifying glass if we meet in person?

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Liam - It depends upon how good your eyesight is.

[l2ltlarry]

The Learning Channel is taking votes on whether boys should be circumcised. As one might suspect, it is overwhelmingly running against circumcision.

To vote, see:
>http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/survivingmotherhood/poll.html or the
>shorter version: http://snipurl.com/wrnu

Thanks for letting us know about this poll.

Obviously only a small subset of the world's 6 billion people know about this poll and can or will vote in it. Probably The Learning Channel and the topic 'Surviving Motherhood' will attract people with a certain viewpoint. It probably wouldn't be very useful, therefore, to generalize from this poll's results.

When Clinton was president, he said he wanted to keep abortion "Legal, safe, available, and rare." I want to keep circumcision legal, safe, available, and the free choice of those responsible for their children. If those of you who oppose circumcision can convince people to freely chose not to circumcise their male children, then more power to you. What I will fight is laws making it illegal.

[l2ltlarry]

I notice that the viewmeter on this topic has increased from 30900 a couple of weeks ago to the current 461 replies, 31534 views. It's still one of the most active topics here. So people are interested.

[JohnFourtyTwo]

I've read that circumcision makes some males less sensitive than uncircumsized males.

[Big-Thinker]

I am circumcized. I guess if I could go back to my birth and change it, I would choose to keep my foreskin, as I imagine it would be more comfortable... It does feel like something's missing. But since I can't go back, I choose to be happy as I am. I guess I should be glad it's not a botched circumcision. I have read of some real horror stories.

I don't think it's necessary and we didn't have our son circumcised when he was born. While I think it is true that circumcision reduces the contraction/spread of the HIV virus, HPV virus and perhaps another STD or two, its probably not that much of a difference. Circumcision should be seen as a very crude and perhaps barbaric practice to achieve that small medical benefit. And I think that is the onlymedical benefit.

I remember reading in college about a theory that circumcision was somehow important for psychological/cognitive stimulation of the child. Well, it stimulates alright, but I imagine the effect is more bad than good. Last time I checked, pain and trauma hurts brain development! I think the theory was pure crap and it certainly doesn't mesh with anything observed and it makes no sense it the context of evolution and other well-established foundations of medical science.

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Big-Thinker:

I don't think it's necessary and we didn't have our son circumcised when he was born. While I think it is true that circumcision reduces the contraction/spread of the HIV virus, HPV virus and perhaps another STD or two, its probably not that much of a difference. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">If it was your son that was contracting AIDS or a STD due to unprotected sex and being uncirc'd then I think to you it would be everything.</span>


Circumcision should be seen as a very crude and perhaps barbaric practice to achieve that small medical benefit. And I think that is the onlymedical benefit. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Errr wrong. There are a whole host of urological reasons including infection. </span>

I remember reading in college about a theory that circumcision was somehow important for psychological/cognitive stimulation of the child. Well, it stimulates alright, but I imagine the effect is more bad than good. Last time I checked, pain and trauma hurts brain development!. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">In the first place this isn't the dark ages. Medical circ is done with the benefit of anesthesia. I would imagine that the pain of phimosis would be significantly worse. </span>

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I agree- Wasnt blessed with a son, just a daughter but if I had been I would have my sons cut like the old man.

[vintagecarguy]

the data showing harm done by infant circumcision is so overwhelming supporting kid cutting is like those weird cults that support beating kids.

newsflash,21st century......
the earth is round
the earth is not,I repeat not the center of the universe and cutting normal healthy parts of a childs sex organs off is a violation of that childs basic fundamental human rights.

[florida-david]

Shouldn't we have learned yet that a boy's penis does not need to look like his dad's? Like big-thinker, I did not cut my two boy's though I am cut. We nudists should be better than the rest of society and realize looks aren't everything. The penis hood is there for a reason, it does not need to be removed.

Usually i agree with nude-topher, but today i am either reading his comments wrong or just don't agree with him. The jewish circ's i have seen and heard of do not involve any anesthesia. Read about circumcision and you will see the pain of the circ. was part of the ritual. We went to a friends briss and right before the cutting was too occur, my several week old baby went balistic in my arms. I think he could sence the fear and energy in the baby being cut. Thank goodness we chose to not do this to our boys...

[Fuzzy Nuts]

When i say I would have my boys cut if I had any I certainly would make sure they had an anesthetic(sorry I cant spell)

I think it is healthier and much easier to look after and as my wife says "it looks nicer"

I EXPECT A LOT OF RESPONSES AFTER THAT COMMENT.

[NakedGary]

hairyballs

If not a medical necessity, culture, or religious procedure, why would you want to have penile reduction performed on your son? It's not healthier, and results in less function, protection, size, sensitivity, and pleasure.

Circumcision to look like daddy or the boys in the shower room is lame at best and will be minority by the time he is grown. 80% of the worlds males are left intact, natural, with full function, protection, and penile health through out thier lives.

Let the bearer decide the fate of his own foreskin put there for a purpose and function.
Don't mutilate others without their consent.

Learn the facts instead of thinking its better.

Link to article in Mothering Magazine "The Case Against Circumcision, Naturally Intact is best, leave it alone. (http://www.cirp.org/news/Mothering1997/)

[AndyF]

I am not circumcised, but my father is. Clearly he made the consious decision that it was not nessesary for me to be treated as he was. I am glad he made this choice. So many fathers in his place would have had their son 'cut' just because they were.

Personaly I am quite happy as nature intended. To me a circumcised penis looks strange and (obvoiusly) unnatural.

[emsdude]

Being not circumcised can lead to a health thing later in older men, it can get hard to clean and infection can set in around the foreskin and off to the hospital you go because it's all swollen up and pain full and you have to have it taken care of.Iam circumcised and happy about it. Have a great day to all.

[Petrus]

Being not circumcised can lead to a health thing later in older men, it can get hard to clean and infection can set in around the foreskin and off to the hospital you go because it's all swollen up and pain full and you have to have it taken care of
At what age does a man become incapable of washing himself? The vast majority of males in the UK are not circumcized and I am sure there would have been reports if there had been a major outbreak of penises falling off due to disease!

[emsdude]

Petrus my work in ems I have taken men from nursing home to hospital for problems not being circumcised and poor care leads to problems.have agreat day

[Petrus]

I believe that circumcision is barbaric and unnecessary. It is a physical assault on baby who is unable to give his consent. It is not without its risks and there have been cases of haemorrhages, infection and even gangrene. It seems a drastic step to take just in case somebody may suffer poor care in old age. It would be interesting to compare the percentage of babies who had problems as a result of circumcision with the ratio of old men who actually needed treatment because they were uncircumcised.

[emsdude]

Petrus yes I think it would be a good study to see, ratio base on new born vs old age male,I think your thinking comes from being in England It;s not so set as the USA over circumcision, and what faith you come from also. England sure comes out with great broke throws in the health fild.And again evrything we do in life is not good something will get you ill.Take care and have a good day.

[AndyF]

Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, but I take the veiw that if god/nature/evolution meant men to be circumcised we would all be born withough foreskins. Clearly the foreskin serves or served some purpose in the evolution of men, even if that purpose has long been lost.

Who are we to interfere with what nature intended? As long as you wash underneath the foreskin, it poses no health problems whatsoever as far as i can see. Obviously if you are uncircumcised and you neglect hygiene in this area then problems are likely to arise.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by AndyF:
Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, but I take the veiw that if god/nature/evolution meant men to be circumcised we would all be born withough foreskins. Clearly the foreskin serves or served some purpose in the evolution of men, even if that purpose has long been lost. .

Andy, others have made this very same argument - that it's natural. But, everytime that argument is raised still others remind us that cutting one's hair, trimming finger/toe nails,shaving facial hair (male) and shaving leg/underarm hair (female) violate nature's intentions.

[azgreen]

The tired old argument that an intact old man will have infections and problems is sooo anectodal. It's all about hygiene and someone taking care of things. How many times must it be repeated that it's futile to start removing body parts pre-empitively to avoid this or that/ It would get ridiculous.
Anyway, the National Organization of Circumcision and Information Centers (NOCIRC) has produced this wonderful little 30-second PSA that is on You Tube. Check it out. It's low-keyed but effective.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDA--DXgP6s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDA--DXgP6s)

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by azgreen:
The tired old argument that an intact old man will have infections and problems is sooo anectodal. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Actually, the incidents of improper or troublsome circ's are also anecdotal.</span>



Anyway, the National Organization of Circumcision and Information Centers (NOCIRC) has produced this wonderful little 30-second PSA that is on You Tube. Check it out. It's low-keyed but effective. <span class="ev_code_BLUE">Using the NOCIRC as a fair, balanced, and unbiasd source of information is a lot like asking Muslims to speak about the divinity of Christ and Moses or asking Bush to explain all of the reasons not to invade Iraq.</span>

[azgreen]

Using the NOCIRC as a fair, balanced, and unbiasd source of information is a lot like asking Muslims to speak about the divinity of Christ and Moses or asking Bush to explain all of the reasons not to invade Iraq.

Duh! So we are to discredit the PTA when it advocates for children or the Sierra Club when it advocates for the environment? NOCIRC is the oldest, most widespread voice in the movement to end routine infant cicumcision. It is what it is, no hidden agendas, not insidious. I am so amazed the defenders of cicumcision don't recognize the massive absence of books out there advocating AGAINST circumcision. Look at the raft on ones available pointing out the absurdity, medical ethical issues and needlessless of circumcision. Most of us want the public to get one thing through their skulls: Every human ought to have the right to decide for himself/herself whether to keep all the parts of one's genitalia. It's human rights, it's medical justice, it's the universal right to have sovereignty over one's body -- which is not too much to ask. As a father of an intact son, as a male who has my foreskin as fully restored foreskin as possible, as a 30-year advocate for body integrity, I will defend to my dying day these rights to wholeness, rights that the vast majority of humans across the planet have through common sense, intelligence and social folkways.

[hillman]

circumsision should be against the law on minor childeren.A male is much better off in tact.There is anough written against circumsision.If it was better to be circumsized a lot off grown ups,who are not circumsized would still have it done but instead they keep there foreskin and have a better live because off it.Parents do not circumsize your child any more just leave them as they are and will thank you for it.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I think that this argument will go on forever with neither side giving in. I know I am cut and certainly dont remember the pain as I dont think any baby has memory of and possibly it has warped my personality but all I can say is that I am glad that Dad decided on it although I think at the time it was almost an automatic thing in Canada. ( I actually was in high school in the locker room when I saw my first male that wasn't cut and I actually at the time wondered what was wrong with his pecker as he didnt look the same as the rest of us.)

[NakedGary]

Quote by NudeTropher
Andy, others have made this very same argument - that it's natural. But, everytime that argument is raised still others remind us that cutting one's hair, trimming finger/toe nails,shaving facial hair (male) and shaving leg/underarm hair (female) violate nature's intentions.

The foreskin is natural but doesn’t grow as "One's hair, finger/toe nails, or facial, or leg/underarm hair.

I don’t think nature intended the species to be tripping and hindered by foot long finger nails, head hair dragging on the ground or getting in the way of walking or running either.
.

[NakedGary]

Quote by "hairyballs"
( I actually was in high school in the locker room when I saw my first male that wasn't cut and I actually at the time wondered what was wrong with his pecker as he didn’t look thee same as the rest of us.)

If you were in high school today in Canada the opposite would be true...You wouldn't look like the rest or be different than the majority today. [Oh that's right hardly any young males get naked or see each other naked in the locker rooms these days, but if they did you would notice most or the majority are natural and intact.]

[bnudes]

most definalty cut here, glad i am http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
Quote by "hairyballs"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">( I actually was in high school in the locker room when I saw my first male that wasn't cut and I actually at the time wondered what was wrong with his pecker as he didn’t look thee same as the rest of us.)

If you were in high school today in Canada the opposite would be true...You wouldn't look like the rest or be different than the majority today. [Oh that's right hardly any young males get naked or see each other naked in the locker rooms these days, but if they did you would notice most or the majority are natural and intact.] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks for info Gary - by the way where did you get this info?

One other question - Dont want to get my magnifying glass out but are you circumcised?
And if so why are you against it? If not dont knock it until you try it. (any surgeons available?)

[fre2bnude]

Yes, it's all been said so many times before so why do we keep talking about it. I happen to have mine and I'm quite happy with it, it rolls back out of the way as necessary without any problem. If I had been cut I'd be just as happy without it, you get used to whatever you have, or haven't.

[Liam]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
Yes, it's all been said so many times before so why do we keep talking about it.

Because it is an important subject and there is so much dis-information out there.

I happen to have mine and I'm quite happy with it, it rolls back out of the way as necessary without any problem. If I had been cut I'd be just as happy without it, you get used to whatever you have, or haven't.

Nay lad. You would not be happy without it. One does not always get used to whatever you have, or haven't. As one who had my foreskin cut when I was old enough to miss it, I assure you that I DO miss it. I remember how it was. I rember the feel of it.

Circumcised men have much less sensitivity in their glans than uncircumcised men do. This loss of sensitivity is ongowing as the glans directly rubs against clothing.

Circumcised men also have less lubrication than intact men do. This aspect is primarily of importance when masturbating though that is not always been the case.

There is also the matter of oral stimulation. The intacted male is better for both parties as his intactness gives additional oportunities for stimulation and enjoyment.

[hootowl]

None can definately tell another whether they would or wouldnt be more sensitive, or anything else with or without their foreskin! Ive posted before in this thread, that both my son, and father, had later life circumsition(sp), due to repeated infections. I on the other hand have been cut since birth, have a good sex life, and if i was any more sensitive, the wife would leave me!!!

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Liam, is that why you are hidding under your flag because you are in mourning over your missing foreskin?

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
Liam, is that why you are hidding under your flag because you are in morning over your missing foreskin?

I am deeply ashamed of my deformity. I lack the manly fiber to face up to scoffers. I lack pride so I hide. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Dammit, Liam - its just a piece of skin

[azgreen]

Dammit, Liam - its just a piece of skin

These kind of flippant, insenstive comments are what necessarily perpetuates this discussion, one of the most prolific ones in these forums.
It is NOT "just a piece of skin." It is a natural, purposeful body structure with multiple roles. The foreskin belongs where it was put. Just a little piece of skin? So is the ear lobe, eye lid, lips, labia and more. What you apologists for circumcision can never seem to grasp is sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty -- the inherent right for self-determination of one's body. It should NOT be a crapshoot that some of us have parents with the instincts and good sense to leave some of us, as babies, whole, while others have clueless, tradition-entrenched parents who have the foreskin hacked off for such shallow reasons as looks, family conformity, false notions about health, ad nauseum. Let the boy decide for himself and invariably the vast majority of males will keep what they got. And if some decide to have their foreskins amputated, again it is a choice made by the owner. Can't you understand that basic concept, folks? Stop trivializing the foreskin. Or is it simply your way of sublimating or rationalizing away your having been clipped and feeling helpless to do anything now about it? Give me a vest with that new suit. I may later not want it but I may want it. It's pretty hard later to get such a vest later. But I can decide. Cut men should stop presuming that they are the norm or are in the preferred state. They are, in fact, missing a part.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by azgreen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dammit, Liam - its just a piece of skin

These kind of flippant, insenstive comments are what necessarily perpetuates this discussion, one of the most prolific ones in these forums.
It is NOT "just a piece of skin." It is a natural, purposeful body structure with multiple roles. The foreskin belongs where it was put. Just a little piece of skin? So is the ear lobe, eye lid, lips, labia and more. What you apologists for circumcision can never seem to grasp is sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty -- the inherent right for self-determination of one's body. It should NOT be a crapshoot that some of us have parents with the instincts and good sense to leave some of us, as babies, whole, while others have clueless, tradition-entrenched parents who have the foreskin hacked off for such shallow reasons as looks, family conformity, false notions about health, ad nauseum. Let the boy decide for himself and invariably the vast majority of males will keep what they got. And if some decide to have their foreskins amputated, again it is a choice made by the owner. Can't you understand that basic concept, folks? Stop trivializing the foreskin. Or is it simply your way of sublimating or rationalizing away your having been clipped and feeling helpless to do anything now about it? Give me a vest with that new suit. I may later not want it but I may want it. It's pretty hard later to get such a vest later. But I can decide. Cut men should stop presuming that they are the norm or are in the preferred state. They are, in fact, missing a part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Sorry to offend - I know it is not just a "piece of skin" but I was just ribbing Liam. We have to lighten up.

Having said that I still would have any sons cut - just think it is easier to keep clean. Maybe I am missing some sensitivity but I have no complaints about my sex life. Sort of like sushi which I have never eaten so dont really know if I miss it.

[hillman]

He Mr Hairyballs perhaps you should have toenails removed too as sometimes people get infection underneat those.
Please leave your boys as they are do not cicumsize them,if it realy was so good to be circumsized,uncirumsized grown ups still would have it done.
Looks is a matter off taste to me uncircumsized looks much better more natural.Hillman

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Originally posted by hillman:
He Mr Hairyballs perhaps you should have toenails removed too as sometimes people get infection underneat those.
Please leave your boys as they are do not cicumsize them,if it realy was so good to be circumsized,uncirumsized grown ups still would have it done.
Looks is a matter off taste to me uncircumsized looks much better more natural.Hillman


Hillman - Everybody has their own opinion on this but many adult men are being circumsized every day. I am not sure if it is for health reasons or for appearance. On the other hand I have also heard of guys being operated on to restore their foreskin.

All I know is what I have (or maybe lack) I like.

[l2ltlarry]

I got mine off at age 22. I had been married a year, so I know what it's like both ways. To me, it was and remains far better without it than with it. To say I don't know what I'm missing is just wrong. From the age of 12 on, I liked the look and wanted to look that way. I wanted the clean, exposed look. To me, it's like when I was in 4-H and took Home Beautification as a project; only it's body beautification. I don't feel like I lost anything but rather that I gained from it. I know some of you feel the exact opposite. And speak extremely negatively about that which others of us feel very positive about.

One book, I think it was something like '365 Ways to Better Sex', said circumcision is the world's most widely practiced cosmetic surgery. I would bet that almost 100 percent of non-religious circumcision is for aesthetics, with medical reasons often given as an excuse.

I think it's interesting that many circumcision opponents are willing to give a pass to religious circumcision, however grudgingly, but the rest of us circumcision proponents don't get the same consideration. Why?