are you circumsized

[hootowl]

as usual the "purists" wont see any other line of reason!!!!

[l2ltlarry]

As one of you said, this discussion is one of the most prolific ones in ClothesFreeForums.

On Sept. 23rd, I posted these stats: "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." Today Oct. 20th, just 27 days later, there are 501 replies and 33525 views, up by 40 replies and almost 2000 views. Even when nobody replied for a couple of weeks after hairyballs' reply, the views continued their ascent.

I doubt that insensitive remarks really play too great a part in perpetuating this discussion. Obviously lots of people are interested in the subject.

[Liam]

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

Well, I am the one that should be offended if anyone is. As Mr. Balls knows, I AM most definitely NOT offended! I got a good chuckle out of it! Mr. Balls has my permission to give me a ribbing at any time! I in turn have permission to tease him. It is called friendship. We have not known each other long and have not met in person, but found an immediate connection via HUMOR. I can recommend it. Humor is a vital necessity to navigate this complex and often hostile world.

Having said that I still would have any sons cut - just think it is easier to keep clean.

You think that peeling back and applying soap and water is beyond most men? Too complicated perhaps. Or maybe it is only that touching one's pee-pee, with plans to wash it, leads to an abandonment of the original plans to explore the tactile sensations further, leading to the abomination known as mas******ion. This of course removes any memory of the previous intent. Well.....perhaps you are right about the difficulty of washing afterall. Harumph!

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.

Sensitivity? Of course you are sensitive. You are a Canadian for heaven's sake! As to your sex life, I see no reason to brag in public about it....especially in front of a friend who doesn't have one! As to sushi, I have eaten it, but do not like it in any form. I can expand on this....I don't like Japanese cuisine at all but with 3 exceptions; Pork tonkatsu, beef and veggie tempura and many noodle bowls (no seafood please).

NOTE: Pork Tonkatsu is heaven but very bad for one's health. In moderation though......

[Liam]

Originally posted by 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!!!

I am glad that you and your menfolk are happy with your alterations. Many who get piercings and ritual scarrification are also happy. I even met a fellow who was very happy with his penile bifurcation.

The repeated infections certainly raise a alarum, but the response certainly would be different in my understanding.

BTW, there is a lot of scientific evidence to support a conclusion that differs from yours.

As the deed is done and you are happy with it, I wish you well and am glad all is functioning well.

[hootowl]

five or six people posting on all topics, im glad we have their intelligence to guide us!!!

[l2ltlarry]

By Liam --
"I am deeply ashamed of my deformity."

I can't relate even a little bit to feeling that circumcision is a deformity. I'm sorry.

I notice that almost 100 percent of the guys who appear in ClothesFree 'Nudes in the News', 'Photo of the Day', and everywhere else on ClothesFree are circumcised. They all look happy and look like they are enjoying themselves, some maybe because of and some maybe in spite of, their circumcisions. It seems that if they felt deformed, they wouldn't want the high visibility they have? They don't seem "any the worse for wear" for their having been circumcised.

What I think is strange and it leaves me scratching my head trying to figure out what happened, is that for thousands of years, many people seemingly were quite positive about circumcision. Of course, other cultures didn't circumcise and had animosity toward circumcising cultures. As recently as the early 80's, in a book, I think by Johns Hopkins Hospital/Medical Center or some other credible medical voice, it said a very high percentage of hospital nurses preferred that males have the clean, exposed look. My wife used to work at a nursing home, and I know that there, the caretakers very much preferred giving baths to circumcised men as an opposed to intact men; retracting their foreskins was a chore they didn't like to do. But maybe they've adapted by now.

Despite the overwhelming naysaying toward circumcision that any Google search yields, I think, and a miniscule number of websites agree, that there are benefits to circumcision. If the multitude of anti-circumcision websites is an indication (and I'm not sure the "man on the street" thinks what these websites think), then in just the last 20 or so years, my and the USA's view back then has become a very small minority view.

I don't see that the supposed extra sensitivity of foreskins is a benefit. Personally, I gained sensitivity after circumcision. The Jewish or Hebrew word 'orla' or 'orlah' which translates to 'foreskin' means "a barrier, an obstruction, an impediment." With the barrier or obstruction gone, the formerly hidden part gets to experience a different way of being. For me, that's a good thing.


And thanks to all for the recent replies that fired this discussion up again. As Bob S. and Stu2630 hold, forming replies is a good way to sharpen our arguments and thinking, and even learn things along the way.

[Liam]

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.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My dear, you have missed the aim of short post from "hairyballs". It was a teasing remark directed to me as you can see from the previous posts between us on this topic and his use of my name. Left as it was I probably would have made some mark about retaining my testicles....I was warming up to a good stupifying rejoinder.

Still, I understand that you feel strongly about this subject as I do. So with that in mind, I'll just take the liberty and advise you to be open to humor and such. I understand the power of strong feelings. I often get carried away. Too often. And often to my chagrin! From my point of view you have done no harm and I applaude your point of view. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by 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.

Not all feel the sameway. I respect your feelings on the subject. Please do the same for me.

As to the beauty of *****, it is in the eye of the beholder. I am a person with a great liking of them and some "modest" experience with them. For me, I think they usually are more attractive uncut. I certainly know that they are more fun to play with. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

[NakedGary]

Liam

Is not "*****," the slang for penises?

A real "*****," by defination is a full grown male of the domestic fowl or any male bird.

A firearm, the hammer, also its position when ready to fire.

To raise the *****, or hammer of a firearm preparatory to firing.

To stick up; be prominent.

Or a small conical pile or straw or hay. To arrange in ***** as hay.

LOL

How many famous nude male statues do you see that are other than naturally uncut?

Russian Playgirl's new magazine "Men Are a Cut Above" with an unfamiliar sight. (http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_242741.php)

Link to article: "The first issue of Russian Playgirl will feature photos of circumcised U.S. men, an unfamiliar sight for many russian women, the Moscow Times said" (http://usti.net/home/news/clari/news/wed/cj/Urussia-playgirl.ROge_EuG.html)
.

[Liam]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
Liam

Is not "*****," the slang for penises?

It is indeed! Along with many other words. I believe "****" used in this manner is to be found as long ago a Chaucer. Some like to give their penis a name....such as dick. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

A real "*****," by defination is a full grown male of the domestic fowl or any male bird.

A firearm, the hammer, also its position when ready to fire.

To raise the *****, or hammer of a firearm preparatory to firing.

To stick up; be prominent.

Or a small conical pile or straw or hay. To arrange in ***** as hay.

LOL

How many famous nude male statues do you see that are other than naturally uncut?

Russian Playgirl's new magazine "Men Are a Cut Above" with an unfamiliar sight. (http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_242741.php)

Link to article: "The first issue of Russian Playgirl will feature photos of circumcised U.S. men, an unfamiliar sight for many russian women, the Moscow Times said" (http://usti.net/home/news/clari/news/wed/cj/Urussia-playgirl.ROge_EuG.html)
.

Heh, Heh! Thanks for the list and also for the sites Gary. Very interesting!

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Naked Gary - Of course you are right in you definition regarding "*****" BUT when a boy is growing up by the time he is 5 he knows what part of anatomy is his ****, unless his parents have refered to it in its correct term, that is PENIS. More often it is refered to by baby terms such as peeper, or weinie or what ever.

I would expect being a former educator that the same boy does not know that a **** is a male bird until probably 9 years or older and at about the same age might be aware that his "****" is actually his penis.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I cant believe that I was censored in the above entry.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
I cant believe that I was censored in the above entry.

The forums software does it automatically

[tiger79]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
The forums software does it automatically What, censors "c<span class="ev_code_BLACK">oc</span>k"?

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by tiger79:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PascoDoug:
The forums software does it automatically What, censors "c<span class="ev_code_BLACK">oc</span>k"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and a list of other "inappropriate" words

There are ways around it, obviously. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[tiger79]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
Yep, and a list of other "inappropriate" words This could be a fun subject for a new thread! Everyone could post "inappropriate" words, and see whether the forum software censored them. OK, I'll start - let's try *** or ****** or ******* or ************ or ***** or bottom.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

lol - Did I ever accidentally start something!!!!!

[tiger79]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
lol - Did I ever accidentally start something!!!!! Well, I think you did. What on earth possessed you to use such an inappropriate word as **** on a public forum? As a former educator, I'd have thought you'd have had more sense! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

[York County Naturists]

Back to the Real Question. I'm kind of surprised this came up as a topic. But sure Why not. I guess if you want to know, why not ask a group of Men who are used to being exposed.

It is my understanding that Yes, it was considered a Health risk at periods of history. I am 25, and I am Circumsized. It was The way to go durring the 80's. I think they did it automatically, unless your parents said No.

I also Do know the trend has faded. I have Fathered 2 children. Both Boys. When the first was born, I asked when they were going to have it done. They almost looked at me funny. It has to be requested now. It is no longer common Procedure. Since I am, I wanted my Boys to be to.

Even though it is no longer Risky, I have heard that Uncircumsized requires extra care, and more precise cleaning.(is that true?)

[Fuzzy Nuts]

tiger79 - nice comeback!! Didnt use the word "****" when I was teaching except to describe a male bird but when I did use it in that sense always got a few giggles.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

tiger79 - good comeback -- I never used the word **** in the classroom to describe a part of the male anatomy but I did use it to describe a male bird and it always brought about a few giggles and snickers.

[tiger79]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
tiger79 - good comeback -- I never used the word **** in the classroom to describe a part of the male anatomy but I did use it to describe a male bird and it always brought about a few giggles and snickers. Giggles and snickers - kids have got filthy minds sometimes! My wife teaches and the stories she tells....

[NakedGary]

The plural of the word for male chickens "*****" is not censored by the software, but the singular is. So when your talking about a single male bird make it plural.

LOL

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
I cant believe that I was censored in the above entry.

Everyone is probably watching your posts very carefully!! You are probably VERY dangerous!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

My comment was censored too even though I don't think I used any words that Gary didn't use! I know it is automatic but I like to protest censorship!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
lol - Did I ever accidentally start something!!!!!

<Giggle> Indeed! When I hear the word "****" I think of the male appendage first, but not far behind is the French Coq....especially as Coq au Vin. I love food and cooking in case I hadn't mentioned it a thousand times before.

Perhaps I will use "Coq" in the future. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
lol - Did I ever accidentally start something!!!!!

OOPS! My first reply to you was held up for scrutiny! I feel shamed and dirty! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
The plural of the word for male chickens "*****" is not censored by the software, but the singular is. So when your talking about a single male bird make it plural.

LOL

So I noticed. I used the singular. I am now switching to the French for it. One of my censored post still hasn't appeared! Lordy! What have I done!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Liam:
So I noticed. I used the singular. I am now switching to the French for it. One of my censored post still hasn't appeared! Lordy! What have I done!!! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wiseguy.gif

Sorry Liam - we moderators have to review the censored posts and activate them manually. Sometimes it takes us awhile to check if any are waiting for review (hey we do have to eat and sleep ya know haha).

[Liam]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
By Liam --
"I am deeply ashamed of my deformity."

I can't relate even a little bit to feeling that circumcision is a deformity. I'm sorry.


Are you incapable of perceiving humor? Have you been reading this whole thread or only looking for things to pick out to pounce on? You have missed it badly Old Coq! Any normal person would have understood the joking manner of my post. Read...think...post.

[Liam]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
Sorry Liam - we moderators have to review the censored posts and activate them manually. Sometimes it takes us awhile to check if any are waiting for review (hey we do have to eat and sleep ya know haha).

Not a problem. I understand. I was just taken aback by the singular/plural thing. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Take the time you need with no argument from me! I appreciate good moderators and there are many good 'uns here.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

You Moderators - I really think you have to look very closely at all Liam's posts - he is very devious.

[Liam]

Originally posted by hairyballs:
You Moderators - I really think you have to look very closely at all Liam's posts - he is very devious.

I say Old Bean! That is a triffle hard. If we were in the Drones Club I would pelt you with a bread roll! I will admit that I have had a few suppers, not up to Anatole's standards, at the Mayfair Socialist Committee Headquarters. But I am not that controversial Old Chap! Any of the oppresive members of the Moderator's Guild may contact my man for what I hope is a very cold shoulder indeed!

Yr. Obt. Svt., etc.

[l2ltlarry]

Are you incapable of perceiving humor? Have you been reading this whole thread or only looking for things to pick out to pounce on? You have missed it badly Old Coq! Any normal person would have understood the joking manner of my post. Read...think...post.

Well, after reading the other "not normal" people's replies also taking you seriously for things you were joking about, I thought I'd better quickly dash off an apology to you. However, I still wasn't positive until your present response clarifying it for me. Not all people understand what's meant to be humorous and what's meant to be serious. You've probably done that a few times yourself?

I think if you've been reading the threads on this topic as long as I have, you'd know that some posters would say what you did and mean it. I'm sorry I mistook you for one of them. But it seems you are doing a little pouncing yourself.

Being new to posting at ClothesFreeForums, you possibly might want to look back and see what I and others have posted before posting too quickly. I see that your 317 posts since August 29th indicate you post pretty quickly. As you said, "Read...think...post."

[azgreen]

Good legal news from Chicago for proponents of leaving the foreskin where it was put.


Judge Backs Dad on Boy's Circumcision

By CARLA K. JOHNSON (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
October 24, 2006 6:11 PM EDT
CHICAGO - A judge in a case closely watched by those who oppose circumcision sided Tuesday with a divorced man who did not want his 9-year-old son to undergo the procedure.

Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said that circumcision is "an extraordinary medical procedure" for a 9-year-old and that the boy can decide for himself when he turns 18.

The boy's father sued to block the operation in a dispute with his ex-wife. The couple's 2003 divorce decree gave the father the right to be consulted before the boy underwent any "extraordinary" non-emergency procedure.

The father said he believed surgical removal of the boy's foreskin could cause long-term physical and psychological harm. The child's mother wanted the procedure to prevent recurring infections. She testified that the boy had suffered five bouts of painful inflammation and had begged her to help him.

Newborns in several mainstream religions are routinely circumcised as part of their faith, but religious beliefs did not figure in the ruling.

The Associated Press is not identifying the parents to protect the boy's privacy.

Alan Toback, the father's attorney, said the man is extremely happy with the judge's decision. A telephone call to the mother's attorney was not immediately returned.

Most U.S. newborn boys are circumcised. But a growing number of parents are opting against the surgery. The percentage of male babies circumcised has fallen from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to about 60 percent today.

In a 1999 policy statement that was reaffirmed this year, the American Academy of Pediatrics said there are "potential medical benefits" to circumcision, including a reduction in risk of urinary tract infections. But the academy said there is not enough evidence to recommend routine circumcision of newborns.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press.

[NakedGary]

In Western U.S. the [RIC] routine infant circumcision rate is down to approximately 55% so in a few years the majority will be left intact with fully functional foreskins put there for good reasons for utility, sexual purposes and protection.

Those who authorize the unkindest of cuts today to have junior look like daddy or the boys in the shower room will be in for a big surprise to find out their son will be the different one in the shower room when he is old enough to do so.

Be Nude Natural and Free, and let the barer decide himself if he wants penile reduction when he is old enough to know the difference.

A good and natural decision by Judge Kaplan.
.

[fre2bnude]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
By Liam --
I don't see that the supposed extra sensitivity of foreskins is a benefit. Personally, I gained sensitivity after circumcision. The Jewish or Hebrew word 'orla' or 'orlah' which translates to 'foreskin' means "a barrier, an obstruction, an impediment." With the barrier or obstruction gone, the formerly hidden part gets to experience a different way of being. For me, that's a good thing.

Well, for me despite having my foreskin the glans is not hidden very often. I enjoy the feeling of leaving it rolled back as a matter of course but I do think I have lost some sensitivity by doing so as I can remember when a lot younger that it was almost too sensitive to touch, now it can be handled the same as any other part. But I think it's all irelevant anyway because when erect the skin peels back automatically to expose the head - at least mine does.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by NakedGary:A good and natural decision by Judge Kaplan.
.

I am truly shocked and disgusted by both Gary and Azgreen. In their zealotry for their anti-circ position they applaud that a 9 year old boy continue to suffer from painful infections. I see that they so totally didn't comment on the pain the child is in due to recurring infections and inflamations. Obviously their cause is more important to them then the health and well being of a child!

Since neither of you are medical professionals, please don't post suggestions on how to eliminate the boy's pain and suffering. I'm certain that the boy's physicians have already been down that road!

[hillman]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NakedGary:A good and natural decision by Judge Kaplan.
.

I am truly shocked and disgusted by both Gary and Azgreen. In their zealotry for their anti-circ position they applaud that a 9 year old boy continue to suffer from painful infections. I see that they so totally didn't comment on the pain the child is in due to recurring infections and inflamations. Obviously their cause is more important to them then the health and well being of a child!

Since neither of you are medical professionals, please don't post suggestions on how to eliminate the boy's pain and suffering. I'm certain that the boy's physicians have already been down that road! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> When we read the article we see that it said the mother testifeid -NOW this is a divoirce case as well we must keep that in mind-I am not so sure if the 9 year old realy need the proceeder done,If it had said several doctors agreed,perhaps yes.The judge did the right thing.Lets wait till the boy is 18 years old No one should have the right tocut pieces off some body if not absolute necesery incl.parents or guardians.Also some one should theach the boy how to clean his penis when he takes a bath or a shower in his case bath may be the best if there realy is a problem.

[NakedGary]

NudeTopher

Read the post. [3rd & 4th paragraph] This is not a medical case or necessity; it's a dispute with the ex-wife even prior to the couple's 2003 divorce decree. The mother wanted the procedure so the father sued to block the operation and won. No doctors testified as to the necessity of this extraordinary non-emergency harmful procedure wanted by the mother.

Occasional inflammation or infection of the foreskin is not reason to circumcise, even with phimosis or more serious foreskin problems, therapeutic non surgical non invasive remedial treatment is successful 98-99% of the time without permanent penile reduction, mutilation, & life long physical, and psychological harm.
.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
NudeTopher

Read the post. [3rd & 4th paragraph] This is not a medical case or necessity; it's a dispute with the ex-wife even prior to the couple's 2003 divorce decree. The mother wanted the procedure so the father sued to block the operation and won. No doctors testified as to the necessity of this extraordinary non-emergency harmful procedure wanted by the mother.

Occasional inflammation or infection of the foreskin is not reason to circumcise, even with phimosis or more serious foreskin problems, therapeutic non surgical non invasive remedial treatment is successful 98-99% of the time without permanent penile reduction, mutilation, & life long physical, and psychological harm.
.

Yes Gary, I did read those paragraphs along with all of the others. And at the risk of repeating myself, until such time that I see the initials M.D. following your name, I urge you not to dispense medical advice.

Hillman: Yes, divorces can and do get messy. But, I'd be willing to bet that there was medical testimony for both sides during the trial. This was a newspaper article and not a trial transcript - few details are given.

[Big-Thinker]

Topher, I don't think anyone needs an M.D. to expound common sense.

I'd like to see some statistics, but I'd bet there are more complications that arise from circumcision that are prevented by it.

The only valid medical rationale (unless the person has abnormalities fighting infection, etc.) is to reduce HPV (strains of this virus cause warts, cervical cancer) contraction, harboring, transmission, but medical science is making great progress fighting that virus and now a vaccine is even available as you may have heard. And circumcized penises are not at all immune to HPV - they just don't contract/harbor/transmit it quite as effectively.

[Liam]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Well, after reading the other "not normal" people's replies also taking you seriously for things you were joking about, I thought I'd better quickly dash off an apology to you. However, I still wasn't positive until your present response clarifying it for me. Not all people understand what's meant to be humorous and what's meant to be serious. You've probably done that a few times yourself?

I think if you've been reading the threads on this topic as long as I have, you'd know that some posters would say what you did and mean it. I'm sorry I mistook you for one of them. But it seems you are doing a little pouncing yourself.

Being new to posting at ClothesFreeForums, you possibly might want to look back and see what I and others have posted before posting too quickly. I see that your 317 posts since August 29th indicate you post pretty quickly. As you said, "Read...think...post."

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif Quite an apology! Comes with condescending advice too! Thanks though. I see you do have some humor about you! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

Cheers,

[Liam]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
By Liam --
I don't see that the supposed extra sensitivity of foreskins is a benefit. Personally, I gained sensitivity after circumcision. The Jewish or Hebrew word 'orla' or 'orlah' which translates to 'foreskin' means "a barrier, an obstruction, an impediment." With the barrier or obstruction gone, the formerly hidden part gets to experience a different way of being. For me, that's a good thing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just small a correction to your post. "By Liam" is incorrect. Nothing I said appears in this quotation.

[azgreen]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0610250034...ll=chi-newslocal-hed (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0610250034oct25,1,3231682.story?coll=chi-newslocal-hed)

The full article in the Chicago Tribune had much more comprehensive information that further supports the case and the judge's position. The boy absolutely did not want to be cut and the reports on whether he, in fact, had infections is in dispute. We intactivists are happy with the decision and certainly hope it gives weight and legal precedent to the fundamental notion that each human being should have the right to decide whether to have healthy, functional, purposeful parts of his/her body amputated. It is all about sovereignty over one's body. For all you guys so happy to be circumcised there are many more who are happy they were spared. So one action should not fit all and it comes down to letting each human arrive at an age of consent to decide for himself/herself. How hard is that to grasp?

[l2ltlarry]

Comes with condescending advice too!

Liam, how in the heck is my advice condescending and your advice is not???? Oh, wait. That's right. Sorry. You're joking again.

[NakedGary]

NudeTopher

There is no medical advice being dispensed, just circumcision facts from good sources, references, and links since 2002 with 500+ posts on the subject years before you came to the forums.

Christopher you haven’t kept your word! May I enlighten the form on your previous medical and anti-circ diatribe and dislike of known facts that circumcision is harmful, mutilating and not recommended by medical associations, insurance companies, and some governments unless medical necessity and emergency, or a culture & religious requirement or practice.


Quote by “NudeTopher” January 25th, 2005 03:01 “Miscellaneous” Topic “Circumcision” page 7 <span class="ev_code_blue">Link</span> (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016152/m/9080029152?r=2200057703#2200057703) :

<span class="ev_code_red">I therefore choose to work to save others from my fate.[/QUOTE]

This will probably be my last post on this topic since I firmly believe that the anti-circ zealots and those of us that are happily cut will never agree.</span>


“Actually Oldman, I believe that your assumptions are flawed. Here we may have a higher rate of hysterectomy; but we also have higher rates with regard to heart, tonsil, and other procedures.”

“In short, what I personally observed was quite different that what was presented here and by other anti-circ fanatics.”

"My comment still stands. When it comes to medicine, pyschology, and science - 30 year old information can be quite harmful."

"I have checked my psychopathology texts as well as some online resources and I can't locate anything termed "virtual abuse". Since this seems to be a major construct of your theory can you please cite a credible reference to it?"
.
.
We get you point “NudeTropher” why do you keep posting on the subject if you said “This will probably be my last post on this topic since I firmly believe that the anti-circ zealots and those of us that are happily cut will never agree?”
.

[l2ltlarry]

Liam, let me help clarify fre2bnude's post about which you said "Just small a correction to your post. "By Liam" is incorrect. Nothing I said appears in this quotation."

fre2bnude's post was copied from my October 20, 2006 9:10pm, but omitted the first 4 paragraphs following:
By Liam --
"I am deeply ashamed of my deformity."

Of course, you said this as a joke in bantering with Mr. Balls but I mistook it for serious.

[l2ltlarry]

“NudeTropher” why do you keep posting on the subject if you said “This will probably be my last post on this topic since I firmly believe that the anti-circ zealots and those of us that are happily cut will never agree?”

Maybe he changed his mind. Would those of you who are anti-circ and consider circumcision to be genital mutilation and penile reduction (and barbarian, as some of you have commented a while ago) prefer that no one offer any rebuttals?

I do wish, though, that the debaters here could put forth arguments without putting each other down. To me, disrespect isn't helpful.

To me, what some call genital mutilation and penile reduction, I view as penile enhancement. Our age is one of "high definition", as in HDTV. To me, circumcision adds visual definition to the male member.

[l2ltlarry]

just circumcision facts from good sources, references, and links

Reminds me of a book about religious beliefs titled 'True for you but not for me'. Facts to you but not to me. Everybody's "facts" are very much connected with their beliefs. My statement isn't a fact, it's just my opinion. And I think most or everything produced by "reliable sources" are just their opinion as well.

And speaking of religion, you say "known facts that circumcision is harmful, mutilating and not recommended by medical associations, insurance companies, and some governments unless medical necessity and emergency, or a culture & religious requirement or practice."

You and the Chicago judge (maybe) and most anti-circ people I've read are willing to give a pass to "culture & religious requirement or practice." How is this fair to the rest of us?

[vintagecarguy]

You and the Chicago judge (maybe) and most anti-circ people I've read are willing to give a pass to "culture & religious requirement or practice." How is this fair to the rest of us?
I don't give them a "pass"
NO marking an ADULTS faith in a CHILDS flesh!
When that child grows up it is his choice.
Female genital mutilation is a matter of faith for some but illegal here in the USA.
It's past time for male children to be given the same protection.

[l2ltlarry]

"I don't give them a "pass".

But many others do. Naked Gary does in his post above. It might have been a more interesting trial in Chicago... "(Circuit Court Judge Jordan) Kaplan said he did not address "issues of ethnicity or religious beliefs relative to circumcision" because the parents did not raise them in their legal pleadings."

Seems like this was a pretty common hostile divorce proceeding. The article (and by the way, thanks very much azgreen for posting the link) states that --

"Circumcision, in which the foreskin of the penis is surgically removed, usually before a newborn leaves the hospital, was extremely common in the U.S. during the last century. But the percentage of U.S. babies being circumcised has gone from an estimated 90 percent in 1970 to about 55 percent today. In most other countries, circumcision is performed only for religious reasons.

"The boy, who never appeared in court, was represented by attorney David Pasulka, who recommended against circumcision at this time.

"The eight-month dispute took some nasty turns. Rizzo charged that the father did not care about the boy's health but feared his ex-wife and her new husband were trying to convert the boy to Judaism.

"The father's attorneys hinted that the mother's aim was to spite her ex and please her current husband, who is Jewish.

"The boy's stepfather and stepbrother are both circumcised, while the biological parents are Catholic immigrants from Eastern European countries where circumcision is rare."

One thing I relate to having grown up with a foreskin, is what the article called "redness and discomfort", and "infections or irritations". Having very sensitive skin, there was no degree of cleanness that worked for me. I always had a lot of itching, pain, redness and irritation, connected with extremely rapid secretions build-up that smelled awful to me. As I've said, mine was far more trouble than it was worth. All foreskins aren't perfect. They aren't as wonderful as one side makes them out to be (at least in my experience).

[vintagecarguy]

But many others do.


well...
your information about pro-body integrity groups is as innacurate as your info about circumcision.
NOCIRC has opposed faith cutting of children for over a decade as well as NOHARMM.
Have you not heard of Jewish Associates of the Circumcision Resource Center?
or the..
Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation?
Thats just the tip of the iceberg.
How about the Brit Shalom....a non-cutting naming ceremony for Jewish boys.
Not only do the major pro-body integrity groups not support faith cutting but there are movements within the faiths that cut to end this violation of the childs human rights.

[NakedGary]

l2ltlarry thanks,

I agree, no one dispensing medical advice, calling other posters zealots, fanatics or anti-circ's on this end. The posters and members should debate the issues, topics and subjects, not calling each other names or at each other. That’s not the purpose of the forums and the TOS mentions that.

The facts, links, and articles speak for them selves on 28 pages and +500 posts on the subject for over 5 years.

[l2ltlarry]

vintagecarguy, I know all of that. I'm very well informed with regard to circumcision issues. When Gary and I were comparing our tenures in this investigation, I came up with quite a few more years in the study than him. Please don't dismiss what I think because it doesn't agree with what you think. While there are those who oppose religious and cultural and ethnic circumcision, or cutting as you call it, I think it's an issue that's near and dear to huge numbers of the religious, cultural, and ethnic.

When we discussed the Finnish court decision some time ago, a case similar to the Chicago case, I asked why, when Finland is heavily pro-choice on abortion and the pre-born have no legal right to be born -- a position I support if you refer back to my post -- why do not mothers who bear the very major burden when bringing a baby to life have a right to choose whether to circumcise if it's a boy. If laws are made prohibiting them this choice, then they rightly can say, Well, I then choose not to bring this baby to life.

[l2ltlarry]

Thanks, Gary. I think civil debates work much better. There's too much fog when we devolve into attacks and name-calling. And I'm sorry I can't tell when Liam's joking. Heck, I'm not perfect. Looking back, I could see he was joking.

[vintagecarguy]

if one chooses to bring that life into the world,that life then has rights at birth,body integrity being one of those rights.
abortion is a debate seperate from what is done after a child born live.
The simple fact,not opinion,FACT,is..
a child left to grow up intact can choose to have himself modified as he sees fit.
A man cut as an infant such as myself can only do so much.No proceedure can repair all the damage done.A Jewish man who lost his glans to his bris cant get his amputated glans back so he fights to stop RIC.
Fact...it was my foreskin.
Fact...I do not have a normal functioning penis.
Fact...A man with a troublesome foreskin can choose adult circumcision.
Fact..I can't choose an adult rewind to my begining and disarm the quack with the knife thus saving the future me.
Facts,not opinions.My body my prepuce,my choice.
Please don't misunderstand...Adults can do whatever they want to their own adult bodies.Just stop cutting kids.

[fre2bnude]

Originally posted by Liam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fre2bnude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by l2ltlarry:

I don't see that the supposed extra sensitivity of foreskins is a benefit. Personally, I gained sensitivity after circumcision. The Jewish or Hebrew word 'orla' or 'orlah' which translates to 'foreskin' means "a barrier, an obstruction, an impediment." With the barrier or obstruction gone, the formerly hidden part gets to experience a different way of being. For me, that's a good thing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just small a correction to your post. "By Liam" is incorrect. Nothing I said appears in this quotation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologise for that misquote Liam, it was not what you said at all. I've now put the corrected quote in as I had intended it to be.

[fre2bnude]

Well Jennifer, you started this topic off in June 2005 and it's still a hot topic. Have you got all the answers that you wanted?
From your point of view do you prefer the foreskin?

[Liam]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Liam, let me help clarify fre2bnude's post with ......

Thank you for thinking I needed help on this matter. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[Liam]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
I apologise for that misquote Liam, it was not what you said at all. I've now put the corrected quote in as I had intended it to be.

No real need for an apology. It was a small matter and harmless. Thanks mate. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
NudeTopher

There is no medical advice being dispensed, just circumcision facts from good sources, references, and links since 2002 with 500+ posts on the subject years before you came to the forums.

Christopher you haven’t kept your word! May I enlighten the form on your previous medical and anti-circ diatribe and dislike of known facts that circumcision is harmful, mutilating and not recommended by medical associations, insurance companies, and some governments unless medical necessity and emergency, or a culture & religious requirement or practice.


Quote by “NudeTopher” January 25th, 2005 03:01 “Miscellaneous” Topic “Circumcision” page 7 <span class="ev_code_blue">Link</span> (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016152/m/9080029152?r=2200057703#2200057703) :.

Sorry to disappoint you Gary, but I didn't break any promises or vows. The operative word in that old link is "probably."

In fact, you are the one with the inconsistant statements. On the one hand you just said that you don't oppose circ's for medical necessity. Yet, without a medical degree, without a specialty in urology, you have decided that this child's numerous painful infections do not meet the threshold of a medical necessity. Hmmm... Yes, I'd say that you are rendering a medical opinion albeit an uniformed one. Your medical assessment of the patient in question is not more valid then that of Dr. Frist when he diagnosed Karen Shiavo long distance via a decade old video.

For quite some time I was happy not to contribute to threads on this topic; but once medical opinions are rendered by non-medical experts the zealotry has gone too far!

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
[QUOTE]“NudeTropher” why do you keep posting on the subject if you said “This will probably be my last post on this topic since I firmly believe that the anti-circ zealots and those of us that are happily cut will never agree?”


No, "he" hasn't changed his mind. I replied to this in my previous post to Gary which I ask you to read.

There is a holocost going on in Africa. Americans and Iraqis are involved in a senseless war in the Middle East. The rest of the Middle East is a war that could break out at any moment without warning. We have North Korea with nukes and a president who refuses to directly speak with them. Poverty, hunger, and homelessness aboud while the Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, and other corporations rake in billions. Yet, you anti-circ folks choose a foreskin as your cause in life. I submit to your Messrs. Don Quixotes that there are more important windmills to which you need to raise your sword!

I wonder what Dr. Freud might say about all of this penis-centric concern?

[NakedGary]

NudeTropher

If you missed seeing the more detailed Chicago Tribune article link posted by "azgreen" as thought and posted previously by me and others, the boy's father sued to block the operation in a divorce dispute with his ex-wife and new step dad.

The boy's mother, and new stepfather failed to convince the court episodes of redness and discomfort was a medical necessity to circumcise.

The issues of ethnicity or religious beliefs relative to circumcision were not mentioned or raised by the parents in their legal pleadings.

The medical evidence was conflicting and inconclusive as to any past infections or irritations that may have been suffered by the child.

The intact child provided in a written statement to the court that he did not want to be circumcised.


__________________________________________________ ________________________________________

The judge made the right decision & agreed that circumcision without medical necessity or consent would result in unnecessary circumcision, injury, & irreversible harm. The judge stated that his court order would remain in effect until the boy turns 18 and can decide for himself whether or not he wants to undergo the medical procedure.

So "NudeTrofer" No medical advice was given by this forum, the Judge, or the medical community in this debate to circumcise without valid reason by others or without consent of the barer.

Most agree and are elated the father sought and won a court order barring the circumcision against the boy's will. No doubt he will decide to keep the integrity of his genitals intact as he was born with & put there for good reason, function, protection, and pleasure through puberty and the rest of his life.

Read the complete article by Judy Peres, Tribune staff reporter from the copyrighted Chicago Tribune article Published October 25th, 2006 below:

Link: "Court bans forcing boy's circumcision. Non-custodial dad wins right to block mother, stepfather..." (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0610250034oct25,1,3231682.story?coll=chi-newslocal-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true)
.

[azgreen]

Yet, you anti-circ folks choose a foreskin as your cause in life. I submit to your Messrs. Don Quixotes that there are more important windmills to which you need to raise your sword!
NudeTopher, it the height of your presumption to submit that some of us are totally consumed on this single issue. I have served on more than 20 boards, task forces, commmunity and church committees and have a long list of human causes including hunger-prevention, low-income advocacy, fighting discrimiantion against gays, mental health services, children's needs, Red Cross, Salvation Army and neighborhood improvement. Years ago, I won my city's annual humanitarian award for a broad range of people causes I have embraced and worked on. I speak out much, much more these days about Bush's obscene assault on the human race and American democracy. Don't try to describe an elephant by feeling its tail and don't try to get a profile of people by their passion on the given topic at hand. Some of us have enough room in our lives to speak out against injustices on many fronts.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by azgreen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yet, you anti-circ folks choose a foreskin as your cause in life. I submit to your Messrs. Don Quixotes that there are more important windmills to which you need to raise your sword!
NudeTopher, it the height of your presumption to submit that some of us are totally consumed on this single issue. I have served on more than 20 boards, task forces, commmunity and church committees and have a long list of human causes including hunger-prevention, low-income advocacy, fighting discrimiantion against gays, mental health services, children's needs, Red Cross, Salvation Army and neighborhood improvement. Years ago, I won my city's annual humanitarian award for a broad range of people causes I have embraced and worked on. I speak out much, much more these days about Bush's obscene assault on the human race and American democracy. Don't try to describe an elephant by feeling its tail and don't try to get a profile of people by their passion on the given topic at hand. Some of us have enough room in our lives to speak out against injustices on many fronts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should certainly see how the number of circ threads coupled to the amount of views and posts indicate that this topic is foremost to many on these boards. Topics regarding social injustices here including ritual murder get but a scant few views.

[kphoger]

yes, i'm circumcised. no, it wasn't my choice.

i'm not strongly against circumcising babies, but i'm not strongly in favor of it either. i guess that makes me weird. my mom (a nurse) said she thought you should do it if the father is circumcised, but not if he's not. that makes some sense to me. she also makes the point that getting a circumcision later in life is a much bigger ordeal, so you might as well play it safe.

[Fuzzy Nuts]

kphoger - I agree - I, along with all other men who were infants do not remember the pain. But the idea of getting circumsized now - no way Jose!. Sure glad my folks decided on the knife.

[Gene]

Yes I am circumsized. I like the look and I think it's much cleaner, but I agree, it wasn't my choice.

[Attached extreme close up of genitals violates the TOS and was deleted. "CFF moderator"]

[NakedGary]

Article

Trial of an Atlanta-area father accused of circumcising his 2-year-old daughter with scissors.

Law Center - Associated Press

Link to article: "Female circumcision trial may be first in U.S." (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/27/female.circumcision.ap/index.html)
.

[l2ltlarry]

"...But the idea of getting circumsized now - no way Jose!. Sure glad my folks decided on the knife."

As I saw it, the lasting benefits greatly outweighed the temporary embarrassment and pain. So it was an easy decision.

I ran across an article about a study somewhere in Africa where AIDS is epidemic that asked -- before any discussion of the subject -- a group of men if they would rather be circumcised than intact. A maybe surprising 50 or 60-some percent said they would prefer to get circumcised if the operation were free, done in a safe setting, and as painfree as possible. After the study group did a presentation on the potential benefits of circumcision, the percentage of men who would prefer to be circumcised went up to 80-some percent.

[fre2bnude]

I'm not circumcised and wouldn't want to be, but I've just read an article in the "New Scientist" where recent research has shown that there is less incidence of AIDs and other sexual diseases when men are circumcised.
There is now a high demand for the operation in many parts of Africa where AIDs is so prevalent.

[NakedGary]

fre2bnude

That research was not a medical research, and done in an area where there was a very hi rate of AID's and HIV infections in women and men, practice of unsafe sex with multiple partners, with lack of hygiene or regular bathing. Then they came back to the US and blasted the media that circumcision if widely practiced could possible eliminate AIDs or Reduce infection greatly. Not so in Africa, USA or anywhere as people that are circumcised still transmit and get HIV infections and AIDs, just as Jewish men who are circumcised still pass on or there spouses still get cervical cancer.

Research results in that specific area only showed a slight reduction in HIV positive rates comparing intact to circumcised. Use of Condoms and hygiene practice without loss of function, sensitivity, and protection from the elements have better results than permanent surgical foreskin and penis reduction [some call mutilation] less risk, less cost and more sexual function and sensitivity.

There is also studies and report of circumcised penises have less natural lubrication, dry and stretched skin during intercourse requiring extra effort physically causing abrasions, and the circumcision weaken scars both are points of entry for HIV over the naturally intact penis, and causing female abrasions also as a point of entry for them.

Long list of reasons to cut and mutilate have all proven unfounded, and 85% of the world male population live long and healthful lives being naturally intact and fully functional with all the parts Mother Nature intended.

The pro circ groups and studies are always finding unproven ways justify RIC routine infant circumcision as a benefit. Most world wide medical associations and Insurance companies say otherwise and do not recommend or cover cost of permanent penile reduction and foreskin surgical removal. The risks and permanent damage outweigh any benefits if any. Let the bearer decide the fate of his organs put there for good purpose, reason and function naturally. Circumcision without consent or to look like daddy or the boys in the locker room is lame at best and will be a minority in just a few years of being the different ones, scared, mutilated and different just as they are in Europe, Australia, Canada, South America and parts of Asia and Africa. Unless for rare medical necessity, or culture or religion practice, leave other persons genitals alone; they do very well on their own naturally.
.

[l2ltlarry]

That research was not a medical research

Gary, the article I mentioned earlier which I couldn't find then but have since found was by Harvard Medical School, a medical institution. Along with re-finding that article, I found one saying something similar by Johns Hopkins, either Medical School or Hospital, another medical institution.

[nunne]

Fuzzynuts -But the idea of getting circumcized today - no way Jose!

I was circumcized as a baby, but a lot of foreskin was left. I didn't like the way it looked or felt, so about four years ago, I decided to have it removed, and did so. Of course it was painful for a few days, but certainly was bearable. Now I don't particularly remember the little bit of pain I went through, and am much happier with the results.

I probably could have had the foreskin restored (I kind of think that that was the reason the doctor left so much in the first place, but opted to just have it removed even though I really would prefer to be natural.), but just didn't really want to go through the process of having full restoration.

Anyway, pain really isn't much of a factor at birth or as an adult. After all, enduring some pain is the manly thing to do, isn't it? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[K and C]

accept what you have! I dont believe one is better than the other.

[fre2bnude]

Originally posted by NakedGary:

The pro circ groups and studies are always finding unproven ways justify RIC routine infant circumcision as a benefit. Most world wide medical associations and Insurance companies say otherwise and do not recommend or cover cost of permanent penile reduction and foreskin surgical removal. The risks and permanent damage outweigh any benefits if any. Let the bearer decide the fate of his organs put there for good purpose, reason and function naturally. Circumcision without consent or to look like daddy or the boys in the locker room is lame at best and will be a minority in just a few years of being the different ones, scared, mutilated and different just as they are in Europe, Australia, Canada, South America and parts of Asia and Africa. Unless for rare medical necessity, or culture or religion practice, leave other persons genitals alone; they do very well on their own naturally.
.

Totally agree with you Gary, I'm happy with mine and wouldn't want to lose it.

[bnudes]

I don't get why this is a big deal. If u are ok and i'f ur not ok. I am and I'm glad I am

[runningman]

Originally posted by need2Bnude:
Maybe we should do a poll, or is it necessary http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/confused.gif It is only circumsion, and if you are, then good for you, if your not, so its a little more work, in either case I do believe it still works the same, right?

I agree, it all works the same...

[l2ltlarry]

Ann Curry, on the Today Show this morning, Wednesday, December 13th, reported that the NIH - National Institutes of Health came out today with the results of studies saying that adult male circumcision has significant benefits in preventing sexually-transmitted diseases, in particular, AIDS.

I googled "Today show NBC AIDS" and chose "Today's News from MSNBC - MSNBC.com", then followed the links under "HEALTH". There were numerous articles supporting their findings. But interestingly enough, there was a forum for people to respond to the 'Today/MSNBC' articles. The forum started at 12:02pm today and the last entry I looked at was at 10:59pm, which was post # 320-something or so. I read a lot of them, and like ClothesFree posters, at least 95-percent of the posts were anti-circumcision, with nearly everybody refusing to believe the studies.

Some of the links referred to 40 studies, some of which have been in process for 25-years and essentially all saying the same thing. Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics, maintained their 7-year-old stance, that while infant circumcision does have some benefits, they are not enough to warrant routine infant circumcision. The main NIH study was however dealing with adult male circumcision, not infant circumcision. Other links addressed infant circumcision and their conclusions were the same as the NIH's adult studies.

[NakedGary]

National Institutes of Health came out today with the results of studies saying that adult male circumcision has significant benefits in <span class="ev_code_red">preventing</span> sexually-transmitted diseases, in particular, AIDS.

l2ltlarry are you sure that the "C's" were not mixed up and they meant "Condoms" not "Circumcision" has significant benefits in <span class="ev_code_red">preventing</span> STD's and in particular, AIDS?

I have never seen or heard of such a ridiculous statement from a health Institute.

Nothing prevents STD's, in particular, AIDS except abstinence.

What about tainted blood and drug users injecting with dirty needles?

What about women passing HIV/AIDS through the birth process to their children.

What’s probably not mentioned is where these studies take place and the conditions under where they take place.

These study groups come back from rural Africa and blast the media and news about how AIDS can be prevented by circumcision.

Education, soap & water, and condoms are a much better, less costly, and safer way in actually
PREVENTING sexually transmitted diseases, in particular, AIDS.

[l2ltlarry]

Gary, please read the article and some of its linked articles. They speak for themselves. Most of the anti-circumcision 95-percent of the posters who responded on the Today Show forum very obviously had not read what the NIH and the associated supporting articles had to say.

[l2ltlarry]

Education, soap & water, and condoms are a much better, less costly, and safer way in actually
PREVENTING sexually transmitted diseases, in particular, AIDS.
The NIH, along with Harvard Medical School (or Harvard University School of (Public?) Health), Johns Hopkins Medical Institutes, the University of California at San Francisco, and another or two which I don't presently recall, disagree.

[NakedGary]

"larry", I did read the links and reports.

All these studies are done in Africa in areas where the men have multiple sexual partners, unsafe sex, and don’t practice hygiene.

The results didn't mention preventing or stopping HIV/AID's it just say IN THAT AREA a reduction of transmission with heterosexual sex to women.

These tests, studies, and results mean little in the united states, and if you say circumcised adult men prevent HIV/AIDS then why does a majority of U.S. being circumcised have the most HIV/AID's transmission of HIV.

Circumcised and uncircumcised men will still get and pass on HIV and STD's unless safe sex practices and condoms are used, and that says nothing about the many other ways HIV is passed on by dirty needles, and tainted blood supplies.

Jewish women still get cervical cancer thought to be passed on by those uncircumcised and 99.5% of Jewish male are circumcised.

Circumcised and uncircumcised men still get very rare cases of penile cancer.

Circumcision for 100's of years or more has been the recommended cure for hundreds of mental and physical diseases all proven worthless.

Over 80% of the billions of world males remain intact and live normal healthy lives.

The findings are a slight reduction in transmission rates only in certain parts of Africa only.

I don't know who put PREVENTING sexually transmitted diseases, in particular, AIDS. That’s totally false and a dangerous statement as circumcised males in Africa will still get and pass on HIV circumcised or not unless condoms and safe sex, and hygienic methods are all used and even that is not 100% effective.
.

[paul1961]

Circumcision may reduce risk of HIV
Posted 12/13/2006 8:08 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — Circumcising adult men may reduce by half their risk of getting the AIDS virus through heterosexual intercourse, the U.S. government announced Wednesday, as it shut down two studies in Africa testing the link.
The National Institutes of Health closed the studies in Kenya and Uganda early, when safety monitors took a look at initial results this week and spotted the protection. The studies' uncircumcised men are being offered the chance to undergo the procedure.

The link between male circumcision and HIV prevention was noted as long ago as the late 1980s. The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60%.

Still, many AIDS specialists had been awaiting the NIH's results as a final confirmation.

"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks — and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De **** of the World Health Organization.

Male circumcision is common at birth in the United States. But in sub-Saharan Africa, home to more than half of the world's almost 40 million HIV-infected people, there are large swaths of populations where male circumcision is rare.

The WHO plans an international meeting early next year to discuss the studies' results and how to translate them into policies that promote safe male circumcision — done by trained health workers with sterile equipment — while teaching men that it won't make them invulnerable.

If male circumcision were widely adopted, officials predicted that could help to avert tens of thousands of HIV infections in coming years; Fauci cited one model from South Africa that suggested possibly up to 2 million infections could be averted over a decade.

"This is tremendous news, and it could help millions of men while in turn reducing the risk faced by millions of women," said Paul Zeitz of the Global AIDS Alliance.

Why would male circumcision play a role? Cells in the foreskin of the penis are particularly susceptible to the HIV virus, Fauci explained. Also, the foreskin is more fragile than the tougher skin surrounding it, providing a surface that the virus could penetrate more easily.

Researchers enrolled 2,784 HIV-negative men in Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, into the studies. Some were circumcised; others were just monitored.

Over two years, 22 of the circumcised Kenyans became infected with HIV compared with 47 uncircumcised men, a 53% reduction. In Uganda, 22 circumcised men became infected vs. 43 of the uncircumcised, a 48% reduction.

The researchers are offering all of the studies' uncircumcised men the chance to undergo the procedure, and 80% of the uncircumcised Ugandans already have agreed, said lead researcher Ronald Gray of Johns Hopkins University.

Side effects were rare, including some mostly mild infections that were easily treated. The rate of side effects was comparable to those seen in circumcised U.S. infants, said Robert Bailey of the University of Illinois at Chicago, who led the Kenyan trial.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[hikingman]

Yes since I was 9 years old .Ron

[K1396]

I have been circumsized since I was about 4 y/o, because of medical reasons. I was the only one in my school who was and felt rather self conscious about it. Now, however, I am glad I am. Most women have told me that they prefer it, even before they know whether I was or not.

[paul1961]

I tried to post this article from USA Today directly. The forum did not want to allow it. Must contain restricted words. Here's a link instead.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-12-13-circumcision-hiv_x.htm

[tiger79]

Originally posted by Paul in MD:
I tried to post this article from USA Today directly. The forum did not want to allow it. Must contain restricted words. Here's a link instead. Yes, similar story. I tried to post this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm) from the BBC on the same research findings, and the "thought police" banned my post. I believe the reason is that it names the World Health Organisation's Director of HIV/Aids, Dr Kevin De C<span class="ev_code_BLACK">oc</span>k. Just how petty can forum administrators be?

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by tiger79:
Yes, similar story. I tried to post this report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6176209.stm) from the BBC on the same research findings, and the "thought police" banned my post. I believe the reason is that it names the World Health Organisation's Director of HIV/Aids, Dr Kevin De C<span class="ev_code_BLACK">oc</span>k. Just how petty can forum administrators be?

The "forum administrators" have nothing to with it, Tiger. It's the forum software.

There are no "thought police" here but we do have standards and at times need to preview some posts that may contain inappropriate content for a family-friendly forum. I post under review will usually be approved within a short time. Remember tho that we moderators do have to eat and sleep sometimes http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[tiger79]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
The "forum administrators" have nothing to with it, Tiger. It's the forum software. You'll note, Doug, that I deliberately used the word "administrators" rather than "moderators". As far as I'm aware, software only does what it's been told to do. Incidentally, my blocked attempt to post was well over 24 hours ago.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by tiger79:
As far as I'm aware, software only does what it's been told to do.

Well in theory. Programmers know that's not always the case. lol


Incidentally, my blocked attempt to post was well over 24 hours ago.

I regularly check my moderator e-mails and I have received no notification that your post was awaiting approval. Sorry!

[NakedGary]

As thought and mentioned previously nothing was mentioned about circumcision preventing HIV/AIDS in the released article. A slight reduction in cases in the study area in Africa only. [Big difference in Prevention and reduction of risk as quoted initally in this thread.]

Quote:"Male circumcision can lower both an individual's risk of infection, and hopefully the rate of HIV spread through the community," said AIDS expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.


But it's not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks — and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.

"It's not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention," agreed Dr. Kevin De **** of the World Health Organization.

AIDS is increasing in greater amounts in those affected Africa areas than any slight reduction in cases over a decade will prevent unless a cure or is found and those who are infected are identified and stop passing it on to others.

The study has not mentioned that education, hygiene, and use of condoms will be more effective and less costly than any surgical and risky procedures to only males of a population where as many or more women are infected as men, most do not know their infected, and many women pass on this terrible disease to their offspring unknowingly.

[paul1961]

"A slight reduction....."

The first major clinical trial, of 3,000 men in South Africa, found last year that circumcision cut the HIV risk by 60%.


I'd love to see what you consider significant.

[NakedGary]

Paul in MD

The topic/thread was opened saying circumcision prevented the transfer of HIV and resulting AIDS.

If they circumcised 100% of males they would still get STD's & HIV and pass it on just as uncircumcised do.

Education, Hygiene, Safe Sex practices, testing for the virus, and Condoms will do more at less cost to reduce the "Risk" than any amount of circumcisions. I consider 90-95% a significant amount in reducing "Risks" if the above prophylactic measures are used.

Using your theory, why does the United States has such a high indecent of HIV/AID's when a majority of males are circumcised and still get and pass on HIV to others as well as women do.
.

[Big-Thinker]

Yes, I think circumcision is very poor protection against HIV. Sure, 60% chance less risk... of contracting a virus that kills you! What a joke! A very tragic joke. This isn't poison ivy we're talking about, this is HIV/AIDS. If someone aims a gun at me and says "Oh, don't worry, there's only a 40% chance this gun is loaded.", it would be beyond stupid for me to be unconcerned. To me, the finding is interesting, but pretty useless. Now men will think if they get circumcised it will give them some sort of protection. Its only 60% less - not 99.999% less. I haven't seen the study yet, but does this reduced risk even apply to newly-circumcised men? I would bet not... as the foreskin would probably need a while to heal and to become as disease-resistant as surrounding skin.

[Liam]

Originally posted by tiger79:
You'll note, Doug, that I deliberately used the word "administrators" rather than "moderators". As far as I'm aware, software only does what it's been told to do. Incidentally, my blocked attempt to post was well over 24 hours ago.

Having been caught in this trap before, I think that the software is way too broad when casting it's net. Especially now that this forum is 18+.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by Liam:
Having been caught in this trap before, I think that the software is way too broad when casting it's net.
Especially now that this forum is 18+.

But this forum is not 18+

It is still a family-oriented forum and minors are present here.

[Liam]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
But this forum is not 18+

It is still a family-oriented forum and minors are present here.

Sorry. I must have misunderstood the recent discussion about young folks here. I have a well deserved reputation for being an airhead. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Fuzzy Nuts]

Originally posted by Liam:
Sorry. I must have misunderstood the recent discussion about young folks here. I have a well deserved reputation for being an airhead. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Dont feel too bad Liam. We all have our short-comings!

[Liam]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Liam:
Sorry. I must have misunderstood the recent discussion about young folks here. I have a well deserved reputation for being an airhead. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

Dont feel too bad Liam. We all have our short-comings! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh thanks Mr Nuts for bringing my manhood into it in public! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif Oh! The shame!

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

[Nude in the North]

To me it's just another waste of time and money.

The time and money that would be better spent on actually finding a Cure.

From what I know about Hiv, it can enter your body through any break in the skin. So it doesn't matter if you are circumsized or not if you have an unhealed cut or scratch that comes in contact with the virus.

I don't think we need to have time wasted on figuring odds.
Figure out the cure.

Steve

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I really wonder if when parents are considering to cut or not to cut whether aids even enters into their decision?

[l2ltlarry]

I've said before that I think the motivation has little or nothing to do with medical issues. I think the main driver wherever circumcision is practiced in the world is: 1) cosmetic; lots of people have a personal preference for the look of penises with the glans exposed, and 2) clean is automatic; no effort is required to maintain reasonable cleanness.

As for reason # 1, I know that lots of people feel the opposite. As for reason # 2, from personal experience, trying to keep a foreskin clean is a constant battle for some of us or maybe a lot of us. Given that there are differences in people, the ease of keeping clean with daily soap and water as many anti-circumcision people advocate doesn't apply to all males. Some of us are allergic to soap, surprisingly enough, so soap makes matters far worse. Coupled with that, some of us have extremely rapid build-up of smegma under the foreskin, and some of us have exceptionally unpleasant odor from this build-up.

While anti-circumcision people apparently do not understand it, we who are pro-circumcision revel in the beautifulness of the penis cosmetically altered to hide nothing and expose all. And having automatic cleanness is a great relief, at least for me. It's the second wonderfulness factor. Making great benefit, as Borat might say.

[BlobbyBob]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
we who are pro-circumcision revel in the beautifulness of the penis cosmetically altered to hide nothing and expose all. And having automatic cleanness is a great relief
It is fair enough if you want to get circumcised yourself, for whatever reason, it is your body. The people, like myself, who are against it are only against it when it is inflicted upon babies who have no choice in what is happening to their body, not to mention having it done and feeling the pain due to no anaesthetic.

[fre2bnude]

I wonder just how long this subject will go on, I suppose it's like the one on erections - people just enjoy talking about it.
I've said before that I'm not circumcised and wouldn't want to be, but I do leave my skin rolled back as a matter of course and it resembles a circumcised penis. I'm happy with it that way and it feels quite comfortable but I have lost some sensitivity, not that it's a problem, in some ways it's better that way. I know it stays cleaner so I can see the argument for circumcision, sometimes I think it looks better that way too, though I can't quite make up my mind on that. My choice is that I do not expose the head while out in the sun - I have a brown foreskin!
Does anyone else do as I do and keep it rolled back?

[nakedjohn]

As long as there will be new members added at CFI, this will be discussed. Some will be circumsized and others not.

[Liam]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
I wonder just how long this subject will go on, I suppose it's like the one on erections - people just enjoy talking about it.

Two entirely different subjects. The posts to the discussions about circumsison are not usually deleted or censored. Posts about erections are frequently deleted or censored. While there are often strong feelings stated about circumsision, it is nothing compared to the viciousness to be found on erection threads.

Yes, I did say viciousness. It is in no way an overstatement.

[aj308]

no i am not http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[NAKEDMAN5]

NO I AM NOT CUT.

[K and C]

Does anyone see why this is really important to know? I have met some great people in my life and never once judged someone for being cut or uncut. I just dont really see the importance of this question.

[Daniel702]

I'm not circumsized

[NakedGary]

Millions of years of evolution have fashioned the human body into a model of refinement, elegance, and efficiency, with every part having a function and purpose.

Evolution has determined that mammals' genitals should be sheathed in a protective, responsive, multipurpose foreskin.

Every normal human being is born with a foreskin. In females, it protects the glans of the clitoris; in males, it protects the glans of the penis.

Thus, the foreskin is an essential part of human sexual anatomy.

Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma or a foreskin.

82.5% of the worlds male population is intact [Uncut or uncircumcised]; with women being in the high 90% being uncircumcised. [FGM Female Genital Mutilation]

Only in America does "are you circumcised" matter" as most are lame to the benefits, protection, and function put there for a purpose not looks. I personally feel the looks of a scarred, mutilated exposed penis with up to 80% of the skin removed looks and functions unnaturally without any benefits.

Circumcision is less.

Circumcision is Reduction.

Circumcision is Mutilation.

Circumcision is unnatural.

Let the bearer decide the fate of their own foreskin when they’re able to, not others without consent.


Link to "Where is My Foreskin" Mothering magazine (http://www.nocirc.org/articles/fleiss1.php)

[PamC]

could someone explain to me what this topic has to do with naturism?

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

[NakedGary]

PamC

Seems to be a common and popular topic of conversation among naturists, nudists, and on the forums.

If you type "Circumcision" into the Forums search engine page you will find over 600 posts and 30 pages on the subject in several different forum categories since 2002 by men and women.

Link to posts by searching the term "circumcision" (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&sortType=1&groupType=1&reqWords=circumcision&forumOID=all&exactAuthor=Y&authorOID=&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&x_display_post_details=1&p=2)

[PamC]

I must say I am impressed how quickly questions are answered here!

I'm not sure how it promotes naturism though. Try to see through the eyes of the general public. They think nudism is really about sex and while I know and read that assertion is denied, we have over 600 posts and 30 pages discussing male sex organs.

Now, I know there are other females here. Infact I've received a pleasant PM from a female member welcoming me to this forum. Yet, I doubt you will find any posts comparing breast size and no mention of female sex organs.

What is the general public to believe?

[Liam]

Originally posted by PamC:
I must say I am impressed how quickly questions are answered here!

I'm not sure how it promotes naturism though. Try to see through the eyes of the general public. They think nudism is really about sex and while I know and read that assertion is denied, we have over 600 posts and 30 pages discussing male sex organs.

Now, I know there are other females here. Infact I've received a pleasant PM from a female member welcoming me to this forum. Yet, I doubt you will find any posts comparing breast size and no mention of female sex organs.

What is the general public to believe?

It is not just nudism that is discussed here. That would be very boring after a while. I agree that this topic should, perhaps, be in the area for non-nudist discussions.

Female circumcision has been a hot topic on another nudist forum I read. It is a barbaric practice that has entered the U.S. from recent immigrants from Africa. It is a lot more damaging to females than male circumcision is to males.

Still, the matter of circumcision of males is one that people have strong feelings about. While it is not a nudist specific topic, it is a topic that men and some women are concerned about.

Circumcision has nothing to do with sex. You are the first I've seen who made that connection.

You mention breast size and female sex organs as not being talked about here. That is not totally true. It is generally avoided or carefully worded so as to not cause offense. Most discussions of male sex organs are not complimentary. Those that are positive or nutral are usually self-depreciative or comic.

[DenitaLC]

Originally posted by PamC:
I must say I am impressed how quickly questions are answered here!

I'm not sure how it promotes naturism though. Try to see through the eyes of the general public. They think nudism is really about sex and while I know and read that assertion is denied, we have over 600 posts and 30 pages discussing male sex organs.

Now, I know there are other females here. Infact I've received a pleasant PM from a female member welcoming me to this forum. Yet, I doubt you will find any posts comparing breast size and no mention of female sex organs.

What is the general public to believe?

Hi Pam,
As you've probably noticed from looking through threads here on CFF...there is a women's only section. There have been some breast/bra topics in it but probably due to the fact that men can't post in that folder...those topics didn't go very far.

Welcome to the forum. Nice to have another WA gal on here!
http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Dee

[NakedGary]

PamC

There are not as many female posters as male, but its not uncommon for females to engage in genital or breasts or body parts discussions.

Re:

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016...070073943#3070073943 (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016152/m/1580030943?r=3070073943#3070073943)

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=breasts&exactPhrase=&optWords=&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=&exactAuthor=Y&sortType=0&ptyp_poll=Y&ptyp_album=Y&ptyp_msg=Y&ptyp_count=3&x_display_post_details=1&groupType=1&search=Search)

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=female+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)

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=female+genital+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)

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=labia&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)

And so one....Learn to use the Forums search engine page you can find most anything in text or images by searching.

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

[Naturist Mark]

Seems to be a common and popular topic of conversation among naturists, nudists, and on the forums.

Not really.

It is an overwhelming topic in online nudist bulletin boards that anyone can post on - almost as much as erections. But it is pretty much a non-issue among nudists - I can't recall ever hearing it discussed among nudists in the wild.

-Mark

[PamC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seems to be a common and popular topic of conversation among naturists, nudists, and on the forums.

Not really.

It is an overwhelming topic in online nudist bulletin boards that anyone can post on - almost as much as erections. But it is pretty much a non-issue among nudists - I can't recall ever hearing it discussed among nudists in the wild.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to think people are a little bit more open what is on their mind on an 'net forum.

I have a question though. Why are there so many guys here? And why so many guys at nude beaches compared to women?

can I expect this same ratio at a nudist resort?

[l2ltlarry]

The MSNBC news item on Dec. 13 discussing circumcision related to the International AIDS Conference that took place in South Africa that day (incidentally attended by Bill Gates and Bill Clinton, who both spoke in favor of circumcision as an "additional weapon in the armamentum" in the world-wide fight against AIDS), called circumcision "highly controversial". People discuss things that are controversial. Always have, always will.

Liam, I'm impressed by your eruditions.

[Naturist Mark]

I tend to think people are a little bit more open what is on their mind on an 'net forum.

I have a question though. Why are there so many guys here? And why so many guys at nude beaches compared to women?

can I expect this same ratio at a nudist resort?


My point was that the things that are discussed in an open forum about nudism is not in any way 'typical' of the sorts of conversations that occur among practising nudists. I'm not disparaging it, just stating an observation. Online forums attract all sorts of people - and most importantly attract the curious and those who are interested in learning about nudism - that is great, but understand that they are not representative of nudists.

That observation is very much true of the male/female ratio. There are several reasons - many females avoid being identified as female in online forums for good reason - to avoid unwanted attention from overly hormoned guys with poor judgement. So many of the 'guys' in the forum may actually have two X chromosomes. Also, many women prefer to lurk (just read) rather than participate in the conversions (an observation made by many women - not my claim). But the plain fact is that in online forums in general - with the exception of specifically female oriented ones - and of nudist forums in particular - participation is normally 90% male or more. That ratio is NOT reflected in real life.

Males ARE more likely to practice nudism than females, the typical ratio at clubs and resorts that don't enforce a strict gender balancing policy is about 60/40. Public nude beaches tend to be a bit more unbalanced towards males. But not as overwhelmingly as online bulletin boards.

Now, understand that while the readership of an online board such as this one is NOT demographically representative of nudists, there are a lot of nudists who participate here, and who are happy to answer questions from the curious, from those who are interested in nudism, and those new to the practice.

-Mark

[PamC]

Thank you so much Mark for such a well worded response. I really appreciate the effort.

another question if it's OK. What is the age range generally of those at nudist resorts?

[hm0504]

Originally posted by PamC:
...
I have a question though. Why are there so many guys here? And why so many guys at nude beaches compared to women?

can I expect this same ratio at a nudist resort?

In Europe, you would tend to find a much better male/female balance. North America still has a ways to go.

[DenitaLC]

Originally posted by PamC:
Thank you so much Mark for such a well worded response. I really appreciate the effort.

another question if it's OK. What is the age range generally of those at nudist resorts?

From the resorts (all two of them) that we've been too, the typical age range seems to be from the mid-30's to the 70's. It will all depend on the time one visits. Retirees will have more time at their disposal to enjoy such ventures which accounts for their higher numbers at these places. Weekends seem to bring in a more mix of ages.

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

[PamC]

Originally posted by DenitaLC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PamC:
Thank you so much Mark for such a well worded response. I really appreciate the effort.

another question if it's OK. What is the age range generally of those at nudist resorts?

From the resorts (all two of them) that we've been too, the typical age range seems to be from the mid-30's to the 70's. It will all depend on the time one visits. Retirees will have more time at their disposal to enjoy such ventures which accounts for their higher numbers at these places. Weekends seem to bring in a more mix of ages.

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

thanks. About how many generally of each age group?

and did you find a lot of guys with questionable motives?

[Fuzzy Nuts]

And what do the above posts have anything to do with the circumcision question???

[Liam]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:
And what do the above posts have anything to do with the circumcision question???

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

[Liam]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
Liam, I'm impressed by your eruditions.

Thank you Larry! Unfortunately my communication abilities are failing me these days. I tend to be true to my nature and therefore blunt.

You are usually quite good at insight yourself Larry! And more polite than I am!

Blessings,

[DenitaLC]

Originally posted by Fuzzy Nuts:
And what do the above posts have anything to do with the circumcision question???

Be nice Fuzzy..... http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif You know how these things threads can stray. Yes, it's off topic but we don't want to be rude to a new member and not answer a posted question now do we? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/eusa_dance.gif

___________________
Pam asked "About how many generally of each age group?"
That would depend on the resort.

and did you find a lot of guys with questionable motives?" Never at a resort and only once at a nude beach in Florida. He was promoting a swing club and looking for new blood. We told him to get lost!
Hope that helps with your questions. Feel free to post a new topic if you have more.

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

[PamC]

thanks

I have a question for fuzzy. Why that handle?

[NakedGary]

PamC

Still off topic, but you may find an answer to your quiestion by using the forums Search Engine page.

Hint: By typing "Fuzzy Nuts" in the search engine you will find posts on your question. His handle use to be "Hairy Balls"

Fuzzy Nuts are not so fuzzy any more as he mentioned shaving his shaft and the boy'z in another link. listed below.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=&exactPhrase=&optWords=fuzzy+nuts++fuzzy+balls&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=fuzzy+nuts&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)


http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=&exactPhrase=&optWords=shaft+scrotom&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=fuzzy+nuts&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)

You can find most anything brought up in the forums by learning how to use the Search engine page of the forums.

[KetchumMaine]

With absolutly no pun intended, and no implication to the topic, this thread is too long. Why do nudists have to have a discussion on being circumsized? Somebody has a sexual hang up on the topic. I can understand a short topic debunking the fears of looking diffwerent in a nudist environment, but thirty plus pages is rediculous. I don't understand how we can promote nudism as being non-sexual with such threads so prominently discussed on the forum. As a new person, I would probably see such threads and presume that there are a bunch of pervs on the forum who are getting off on "talking dirty" under the guize of innocent nudity. Just a perception.

[LamontCranston]

As a new person, I would probably see such threads and presume that there are a bunch of pervs on the forum who are getting off on "talking dirty" under the guize of innocent nudity. Just a perception. My perception as well, Ketch. Same for the shaving ad nauseum thread.

Fuzzy asks why we're drifting off-topic. How much more can be said about circumsision that isn't covered in 32 pages of posts and links?

I'm circumsized, left-handed, my name is Mike, I'm baptized, and I have the thinning hair genes. All these things happened in the first week or two of my life and I can't change any of them.

I do recognize that things are important to some that are not important to me and the opposite is true.

Welcome to our corner of the Internet Pam. The nude venues I've been to all include a "safe area" where you can chill with people that will leave you alone. It's hard for a creep to hit on you when you're standing in the shallow end of the pool amongst couples and old-timers.

Go and have fun. It's great.

[PamC]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
PamC

Still off topic, but you may find an answer to your quiestion by using the forums Search Engine page.

Hint: By typing "Fuzzy Nuts" in the search engine you will find posts on your question. His handle use to be "Hairy Balls"

Fuzzy Nuts are not so fuzzy any more as he mentioned shaving his shaft and the boy'z in another link. listed below.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=&exactPhrase=&optWords=fuzzy+nuts++fuzzy+balls&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=fuzzy+nuts&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)


http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWor...Type=1&search=Search (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums?a=search&reqWords=&exactPhrase=&optWords=shaft+scrotom&notWords=&f=all&subjectOnly=N&afterDate=&beforeDate=&authorName=fuzzy+nuts&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)

You can find most anything brought up in the forums by learning how to use the Search engine page of the forums.

thanks again Gary.

it's what I thought but I wasn't sure. I totally agree with this site being 18+ for participation. There are too many here obsessed with their genitals. I wouldn't want minors here as well.

since this is what it's all about. Why not a seperate and more risque adult section, at least for those who are so obsessed with their genitals?

just an idea.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by PamC:
thanks again Gary.

it's what I thought but I wasn't sure. I totally agree with this site being 18+ for participation. There are too many here obsessed with their genitals. I wouldn't want minors here as well.

[quote]since this is what it's all about. Why not a seperate and more risque adult section, at least for those who are so obsessed with their genitals?
just an idea.

But it's not what it's all about, Anna. Nudism is neither adults only nor is it risque. There will be no such section here. There are plenty of sites dedicated to that.

[Naturist Mark]

I totally agree with this site being 18+ for participation. There are too many here obsessed with their genitals. I wouldn't want minors here as well.
Minors ARE here, they are just not supposed to be posting. This should still be a family appropriate forum at all times.
since this is what it's all about. Why not a seperate and more risque adult section, at least for those who are so obsessed with their genitals?

just an idea.
There are plenty of websites for the genital obsessed. Seems like half of the internet. This doesn't need to be one of them.

People new to nudism, or curious about it will have some questions about such subjects, and it is appropriate to dispense with them here. But there is no need for it to be an obsession.

Circumcism could be dealt with in one or two pages - fact: nudists don't care if you are or aren't circumsized. Fact: some people think circumcism shouldn't be performed on children, others disagree. That about covers it.

-Mark

[Geo]

I thought by now this topic would go away, but since it hasn't...no I am not circumsized, but keep the foreskin pulled back, personal preference.

[PamC]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I totally agree with this site being 18+ for participation. There are too many here obsessed with their genitals. I wouldn't want minors here as well.
Minors ARE here, they are just not supposed to be posting. This should still be a family appropriate forum at all times.
since this is what it's all about. Why not a seperate and more risque adult section, at least for those who are so obsessed with their genitals?

just an idea.
There are plenty of websites for the genital obsessed. Seems like half of the internet. This doesn't need to be one of them.

People new to nudism, or curious about it will have some questions about such subjects, and it is appropriate to dispense with them here. But there is no need for it to be an obsession.

Circumcism could be dealt with in one or two pages - fact: nudists don't care if you are or aren't circumsized. Fact: some people think circumcism shouldn't be performed on children, others disagree. That about covers it.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just an observation Mark. I see 33 pages on this topic, constant talk of shaving, a member actually asking to be referred to by his genitals, and this site is now 18+ for posting.

Now, if I compare that to my golfing forum, there are no talk of genitals, and no one has a handle that refers to their genitals, although a number have golfing in it. And there is certainly no restrictions regarding age.

Now, if one just steps back and looks, what is one to suppose? For a site that claims to be not about sex, it sure has a lot of sexual content.

if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my kids to be on this site, and I would have serious reservations about taking them to a nudist resort.

[PascoDoug]

Originally posted by PamC:
Just an observation Mark. I see 33 pages on this topic, constant talk of shaving, a member actually asking to be referred to by his genitals, and this site is now 18+ for posting.

Not quite..

Now, if I compare that to my golfing forum, there are no talk of genitals, and no one has a handle that refers to their genitals, although a number have golfing in it. And there is certainly no restrictions regarding age.

Again, this has already been addressed. (sigh)

I doubt if they talk much about anything on a golfing forum. And I certainly doubt any minors would hang out on one anyway. But just out of curiosity, please provide a link to this golfing forum you seem so keen on, so that we can review the content ourselves.

Now, if one just steps back and looks, what is one to suppose? For a site that claims to be not about sex, it sure has a lot of sexual content.

I've stepped back to look and there is no sexual content here at all. I think you are confused about what "sexual" is. "Fuzzy Nuts" or even "Hairy Balls" is not sexual. Shaving isn't sexual.

Heck genitals aren't even necessarily sexual. It depends on the context.

if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my kids to be on this site, and I would have serious reservations about taking them to a nudist resort.

I'm not surprised at that at all, Anna

[Fuzzy Nuts]

I'm glad i'm not sexual - but does that make me asexual?

[BlobbyBob]

I've always found that the majority of posters on here seemed to be older anyway, very few people under 18 certainly. There are other forums which are better suited to younger people anyway, Cat's chat is one of these, a lot of posters there seem to be aged from about 13-30 and the talk is generally less genital oriented than here and other sites I've seen.

There is nothing inherently sexual about genitals, but it is does seem quite a focus here with so many threads devoted to erections, circumcision, shaving, piercings etc so not necessarily sexual, but certainly quite genital oriented. To an extent this is understandable, in that they are pretty much the thing on 'display' in nudism that aren't seen as much elsewhere, so people are curious, but such topics should be in the miscellaneous section of the forum really, as they don't really have much to do with nudism. If I started a thread about hair colour (head hair) in this section it would be moved, and rightly so, so why not ones like this?

[KetchumMaine]

It sounds like the villagers are getting restless.

Here's my thought. If nudism isn't about gawking at genitals, why are we discussing them so much? When moderating this forum, I would think that the moderator gods would consider this to be an online nudist club. The discussions here should be similar to those had at a nudist venue. Now, I have been to only a few actual clubs, but I would guess that if a guy showed up and told people to call him Dick and was always talking about his genitals, he would be watched very carefully, and perhaps invited to leave some clubs. Certainly, if he started talking to the kids about such things, he would be gone. Why is it different here??

[fre2bnude]

I suppose that the genitals are quite an important part of the body, more important to some than others.
As it is such an important and intimate part it's not easily discussed out in the open but can be on forums such as this, though it seems odd that total strangers can reveal such intimate secrets about their bodies. It also seems to indicate that people want to discuss these things in the only place possible. So I also suppose that's why it can go on for so long. As it was started by a woman I also have to assume that females are interested.

I do know that before I became an "out in the open" nudist and joined in these discussions I was very self conscious of my intimate parts, now I know more about how others appear, and how they view other people it has helped me and made me less self conscious.
So, whether you agree with the discussion or not it does seem to help some, but, it has gone on too long!

[l2ltlarry]

In Legal Issues--Swimming, one person asked, "Why, even if he was embarassed, would he mention it in such a public place? What motive would there be for it? What is the possible use for such a disclosure?"

Another poster replied, "I think people find this to be an anonymous place to seek advice. I am assuming he has the same motive."

People have different interests. This topic is one of them. So people continue the discussion, despite people with other interests trying to stop it.

[bill2me]

I have stayed away from this topic because I felt it had all been said. But fre2bnude hit the nail on the head for me. Being a nudist teaches us to be more accepting of ourselves and others. That made me realize that there is a place for a topic like this, especially if it helps someone get over some personal fear they have.

[Naturist Mark]

Originally posted by PamC:
Just an observation Mark. I see 33 pages on this topic, constant talk of shaving, a member actually asking to be referred to by his genitals, and this site is now 18+ for posting.

Now, if I compare that to my golfing forum, there are no talk of genitals, and no one has a handle that refers to their genitals, although a number have golfing in it. And there is certainly no restrictions regarding age.

Now, if one just steps back and looks, what is one to suppose? For a site that claims to be not about sex, it sure has a lot of sexual content.

if I was a parent, I wouldn't want my kids to be on this site, and I would have serious reservations about taking them to a nudist resort.

As addressed in my earlier post (http://clothesfreeforums.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3400016152/m/1580030943?r=7680009564#7680009564), the topics and questions posted on this site by non-nudists is not representative of nudists.

They are merely representative of the questions of people curious about nudism.

Just to clue you in, nudists almost never talk about penises. At least not among men. Among a group of women it may be penis this, penis that, penis penis penis ... but somehow I doubt it. Penis obsession and nudism don't mix well.

-Mark

[P.J.]

I've noticed that there are over 30 pages and about 650 posts on this question. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/zzz.gif
We're not only flogging a dead horse. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif
It seems that preparations are being made plans to circumsize it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/freak.gif

[swnudedude]

it's still mutilation....perhaps the boy should be given the opportunity to decide if that's something for him once he his older

[Fuzzy Nuts]

If it is mutilation what about removing a youngster's tonsils or appendix without their permission - is this also mutilation?

If a parent thinks he or she is acting in the best interests of their son by removing their foreskin then it is not mutilation.

[WilliamCA]

Oi my God, get over it please. Now i will say this much, most women i talk to do not like foreskin, especially an abundance of it, they considered it nasty because of health concerns. Now on the less the straight male side, i hear both sides, some guys like it as a kind of "foreplay", other men think its disgusting.

Now I was circumcised as a child. Do i care, no, don't miss what i never remember having or losing. Now just about every male i have ever seen is circumcised, even in today's modern times its still done mostly for health reason's. I've seen guys as young as 18 who are circumcised. So the practice is still going on. Do i care if they stop circumcision? No. Will i allow them to circumcise my son. I reach that bridge when I get there.

WilliamCA

[Fitz1980]

Penn & Teller did a great episode about circumcision on their show "Penn & Teller: Bull****." They showed that it's mostly a Jewish & American thing. Jews do it because it symbolizes a convenient with God. Americans are about the only non-Jews who do it as a matter of practice, supposedly for health reasons. But if that's the reason than why don't people in France or England have health problems related to not being circumcised. As they pointed out here in the west we shower daily so it's not really an issue.

[WilliamCA]

Penn & Teller did a great episode about circumcision on their show "Penn & Teller: Bull****." They showed that it's mostly a Jewish & American thing. Jews do it because it symbolizes a convenient with God. Americans are about the only non-Jews who do it as a matter of practice, supposedly for health reasons. But if that's the reason than why don't people in France or England have health problems related to not being circumcised. As they pointed out here in the west we shower daily so it's not really an issue.

Well i was told it was mostly a tradition and a somewhat religious thing in most cases. Most people who were circumcised were circumcised out of habit, though.

[marc_naturist]

i am since i was a baby but that was for a med reason

[A Bay Marty]

My first and last post on the subject. Circumcision is just not necessary with today's general level of hygiene practices in developed countries, in fact a lot of people are taking hygiene too far, with antibacterial hand wash and similar things leading to bacteria that are more resistant than before. Phimosis (unusual tightness of the foreskin) is rare and treatable if it occurs. I'm 28 and uncircumcised and cleaning is a no-brainer for me.

Circumcision is just not necessary.

[G I Joe]

I got circumsized in my 20's while I was in military service. Necessary? No. My choice. I'm glad I did.

[Lake Cruiser]

I'm circumsized, my son is circumsized. I chose to have him circumsized because I was. My wife chose to have him circumsized because her first husband was not and she liked mine better. I don't remember the pain when I was an infant. I was not emotionally scarred by it. As a matter of fact when my son was born the stuck a needle in his heel and he screamed out in pain but the circumcision was done by placing a type of ring around the head of his penis and it just came off after a couple of days. I'm not knocking any one who is not cut but as for me, I'm glad momma had it done to me.

[papanudist]

I'm not and don't think I would have it any other way. My wife and I both feel its much more sensitive to touch.

[Lake Cruiser]

That's great. To each his own. We are humans not penguins. She is the only one that you need to please right?

[GrayWolf]

Wow! 66 pages on this topic.

Pretty much everyone on the site except me must have chimed in by now.

Since I'm the last one, I'll wrap up the thread by saying:

No.

[camerashy]

I am circumsized and my brother is not, all issues aside, personally I like the look better.

[nuovonudo]

Wow! 66 pages on this topic.
Pretty much everyone on the site except me must have chimed in by now.
Since I'm the last one, I'll wrap up the thread by saying:
No.

so much for getting the last word! this is one of those topics that is, shall we say, close to home. ha ha.

[BRISnude]

Well who cares! I'm not if that matters. It is the way I am. Personally I don't like it, I would prefer to be circumised, but that is that. It does not matter to me so why would it matter to someone else?

[Griffin]

While some dismiss their own circumcisions with "no big deal" comments, there are a sizable number of cut males who would prefer they were allowed to remain intact from the beginning. So logic says all males should be given the choice to make themselves. I wished I had had that choice, but I was cut after birth. So I left the choice to my son, now 33, who has remained intact, and both my kids (a son and daughter) who have had sons and have left them intact for the same good reason. Having restored my foreskin more than a decade ago through stretching, I can tell you that, in my case, it is better to have a foreskin for a lot of reasons. The foreskin is a fascinating structure. When you understand why it is there, you come to appreciate it even more. See nocirc.org or norm.org to get started in your education on the value and use of the foreskin.

[Hoosiers]

This seems like a very um sensitive subject but yes both me and my son are circumsized.

[nuovonudo]

I am circumsized and my brother is not, all issues aside, personally I like the look better.

which look? your own (circumcised), or your brother's (intact)?

[HabaneroSting]

I am circumsized because that was the thing that the time, but my son is not because we don't believe babies should be "mutilated".

[Dave5]

Not circumsized. The doc who delivered ALL the babies in a small upstate NY town back in the 50's did not believe in it.

[LeeR49]

Pardon me if this issue has come up in the thread -- I didn't take time to read all 668 posts.

I'm fortunate enough to have been circumcised as a baby, as was my son and my grandson. I say fortunate, because I will never have to expereince what happened to both my father and father-in-law. Due to medical reasons my dad had to be circumcised when he was in his late 60's and my wife's dad when he was well into his 70's. My father-in-law never spoke of it, but my dad has referred to "the screwed-up job they did that left me with almost an invisible penis." Frankly I think he should sue the jerks, but he's always been to embarrased about it, and it was way too long ago that it'll never happen. But it certianly makes me happy that I am what I am.

Besides, I think it looks better, anyway.

[Oregonav8r]

I am circumsized, and quite happy with it.

[SargentIV]

LeeR46 - I have to wonder how many opinions the two men received before getting circumcisions. Many doctors across the United States think that circumcision is the only solution to any problem that occurs with an uncircumcised penis.

The fact that they had problems with their penises after circumcision (and because of circumcision) highlights the fact that circumcision needs to be stopped for non-religious reasons. Thousands of infants receive irreparable damage to their penises as a result of circumcision (many lose their entire penis). We never hear about these cases because the hospitals are very eager to settle the issue with the parents out of court or, as in the case of your father-in-law, the victims are too embarressed to come forward.

[Nudist Trev]

I'm not but I wish I was.
Personally I think it looks better.
Dunno if I would want the operation to get it done though.

[luvdiving]

I am. Not sure what the big deal is. There isn't anything I can do about it now anyway.

Luvdiving

[nuovonudo]

There isn't anything I can do about it [i.e., being circumcized] now anyway.

actually, l.d., there are many men who have successfully restored their foreskins (or at least claim to have done so). here is just one of several websites devoted to this topic:

http://www.foreskinrestore.com/main.html

btw, i'm not sure i want to do anything about it either; what bugs me is that my parents made such a major decision without consulting me first. ouch!

[Griffin]

Today, I received my copy of "Uncut" by Sherwin Carlquist, Ph.D., a California botanist who has many high quality male nude books on the market. He has just published "Uncut" with hundreds of photos of intact penises. The book celebrates the many advantages of having a foreskin. He breaks ground with the quality of photography and his humor with all the things the foreskin does. He really captures the beauty of it and underscores why the foreskin belongs on males, its functions and advantages. It makes me proud and happy I restored years ago. Here is the link


http://www.carpecranium.com/uncut/

[anzacman]

for the females that are critical of not being, they are the smart ones, there is a correlation between those that are not circumcised and the Papolomo virus, ie cervical cancer. Also a host of male related virus' and cancer, many thanks to my parents they had foresight and had me done.

[Griffin]

Sadly the notion that cervical cancer can be traced to a foreskin is one of those long debunked statements that somehow keeps getting repeated. The American Cancer Society, for example, issued this letter in 1996 to try to educate the public on the myth. There are no diseases that can be traced to the foreskin. Please, folks, read the literature before you make such statements. And ask yourself: What foreskin-possessed person do you know who has a partner with cervical cancer?


http://www.nocirc.org/position/acs.php

[NudeTopher]

Sadly the notion that cervical cancer can be traced to a foreskin is one of those long debunked statements that somehow keeps getting repeated. The American Cancer Society, for example, issued this letter in 1996 to try to educate the public on the myth. There are no diseases that can be traced to the foreskin. Please, folks, read the literature before you make such statements. And ask yourself: What foreskin-possessed person do you know who has a partner with cervical cancer?


http://www.nocirc.org/position/acs.php

I just read the "letter" that was posted on a no-circ website. While I'm not saying that it's not authentic, I'd be more apt to believe it if a letter supposedly written the American Cancer Society didn't have the word "cancer" misspelled within the text.

[fre2bnude]

The great foreskin discussion goes on ...... and on.
I'm happy with mine and I wouldn't want to lose it. Don't know much about any medical reasons but personally I think it looks better with than without, though by choice I do keep it rolled back most of the time.

[nakedjohn]

Very few men are cut in Belgium, the standard is uncut. And there are no problems healthwise. If we are born uncut, it must have a reason.

[SargentIV]

Exactly nakedjohn-

The human race lasted for thousands and thousands of years while men had foreskins. If it was truly a health hazard homo sapiens would have died out a long time ago.

[Pete Knight]

Well I like my foreskin, in fact I've become rather attached to it.

Why, if female circumcision is deemed to be appalling mutilation, do we consider male circumcision to be acceptable?

Pete Knght

[EricNY]

I am circumcised as are my children. I based my decision on this.

The Pros and Cons

On the plus side, studies indicate that circumcised infants are less likely to contract a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. About one out of every 1,000 circumcised boys has a UTI in the first year, whereas the rate is one in 100 (at most) for uncircumcised infants.


Circumcised men may also be at lower risk for penile cancer, although the disease is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. Although some studies indicate that the procedure might offer an additional line of defense against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), particularly HIV, the results of studies in this area are conflicting and difficult to interpret.


It's also easier to keep a circumcised penis clean, although uncircumcised boys can learn how to clean beneath the foreskin once the foreskin becomes retractable (usually some time before age 5). However, some uncircumcised boys can end up with infected foreskins as the result of poor hygiene.


Some people also claim that circumcision either lessens or heightens the sensitivity of the tip of the penis, decreasing or increasing sexual pleasure later in life. But neither of these subjective findings has been proven to be true.


I personally do not consider the procedure mutilation, as it is done medically with proven benefits.

[Abra Melin]

[QUOTE=malestorm11;17091]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. QUOTE]

This only perpetuates the myth. ANYONE who doesn't keep clean is in danger of getting an infection. Self respecting men would want to be clean of course. We wouldn't remove all of our teeth so we don't have to brush them would we!? A tight foreskin is a specific problem which can be dealt with medically (when neccessary!). I wonder how many men would willingly be circumcised as an adult. Do you think there would be a queue? Not when they have realised that their penis works perfectly well without one. There is a lot of ignorance around regarding this subject. Lets hope this barbarism eventually dies away.

A.M.

[tdstorm]

I am circumsized, I don't think it's a big deal, but I hardly think it's right to be doing this sort of think to infants. It's legal to chop off my foreskin, but it's illegal if my parents punch me in the arm?

[nuovonudo]

I am circumsized, I don't think it's a big deal, but I hardly think it's right to be doing this sort of think to infants. It's legal to chop off my foreskin, but it's illegal if my parents punch me in the arm?

good point. analogous to schools being allowed to provide contraception to teenagers confidentially but not being allowed to give them aspirin. in short, an upside down world.

[Nudekj]

Most men who are born in the Jewish or Muslim traditions are circumsized.

[Dave5]

I don't see it as much more work..has to be washed either way. JMHO

[SargentIV]

Exactly Dave, cleaning an intact penis is no more or less complicated than cleaning a circumcised penis.

Nudekj - Yes, most Jewish and Muslim men are circumcised, but there's more beneath the surface. One, it is my understanding that circumcision is actually not apart of the Islamic faith, much like it isn't apart of the Christian faith, and yet the majority of Christians in the United States still practice circumcision. Two, there is a substantial minority of Jews who are opposed to circumcision.

[itbeme]

no im not, and i see nothing wrong with it.

[Unloveable]

Jennifer, unfortunately it would seem in the US that the majority of boys are circumcised soon after birth. In the UK we are more civilised and it is a minority that are mutilated and I believe getting less all the time. I agree with you that it is truly a barbaric practice. I was lucky and my mother told me that she was not going to have her baby operated on for no reason!


Having it uncircumsized makes it look smaller, and why do you think women get excited when they see something big :laugh:

[Mike_001]

I was circumcised as an infant. Given the choice, I would have not been circumcised.

[Nudekj]

SargentIV, circumcision is a part of the Islamic faith,this is why most Muslim men are circumcised. Of course there are Muslim parents who don't circumcise their male babies & regard the operation as unnecessary, but I think they would form a very small minority.

[FSUsmartboi]

I am uncircumsized

[Cal Cajun]

I too was circumcised as an infant and I do not give too hoots. Don't know what I am missing and I really don't care. I have a wonderful relationship with my wife and she doesn't much care either.

[Pete Knight]

Hey, who gives a damn, its no skin off my nose.:laugh:

Pete Knight

[nuovonudo]

SargentIV, circumcision is a part of the Islamic faith,this is why most Muslim men are circumcised. Of course there are Muslim parents who don't circumcise their male babies & regard the operation as unnecessary, but I think they would form a very small minority.

nudekj, perhaps i'm mistaken, but i thought that circumcision of muslim males took place at about age 13, and that once circumcised the boy is now considered an adult man. indeed i saw a video of such a circumcision. (ouch!)

is that not a universal practice in islam? are there sects of islam that practice infant circumcision?

[WINaturistGuy1959]

Yes, as an infant (not that I had any choice in the matter at the time). What is will be.

[grad79]

I can remember being cut at the age of around 5 or 6 then I read obout foreskin restoration and started restoring, and have gained some progress and I think all males should be left intact till the legal age then let them make up there own minds any one wishing to conntact me can do so Jim

[Nudekj]

I think in Turkey they circumcise boys at the age of 7 or 8.In africa they get circumsided during their early teen age. In Egypt boys get circumcised when they r too young to remember it afterwards!

[nuovonudo]

I think in Turkey they circumcise boys at the age of 7 or 8.In africa they get circumsided during their early teen age. In Egypt boys get circumcised when they r too young to remember it afterwards!

okay; thanks for the information, kj! i was under the impression that all muslims circumcised their males at about age 13; obviously i was mistaken. thanks for enlightening me!

ma'salameh!

[blindmanin99]

I am circumcised and so is my son and I don't have any bad feelings about it. My parents decided to have me circumcised and there is nothing I can do about it. Personally, I'm glad and I like it. My wife and I decided to continue the tradition (or whatever you want to call it) and decided to have my son circumsized as well. For whatever reasons, every culture has its ways and this is one of them. Now I personally wouldn't want plates or rings stuck into my lips or on my neck, like you sometimes see in National Geographic, but I don't see anything wrong with it, if those people have been doing it for such a long time and are okay with it. I also wouldn't get anything pierced on my body, which is something grown adults do now, and it doesn't seem to be such an issue as circumcision.

[florida-david]

I was hacked before i could voice my opinion (as a baby), but we left our boys alone. Circumcision is a nice way for the doctors to make a few extra dollars. We practically had to hide our boys from the nurses while in the hospital as they kept buggin us to have them cut, we had to say at least five times a day while in the hospital that we did not want it. I am undergoing non-surgical restoration, but it is slow as i was cut tight. It is loose now so much better, but not sure if i will ever get full ocverage. It is your right to cut or not cut, but some traditions need to change. Take that extra money and put it in a college fund not the doctors Mercedes or Porsche.

[Griffin]

We need to get past the point where parents believe they should decide whether or not a male is circumcised. It is the owner of the penis who alone should determine such a removal of a body structure.
Congratulations, Florida, on keeping your sons intact and for working on restoration. That's cool. Though I was cut, I knew well before I was married that no son of mine would be cut. When he was born, he got to keep his foreskin. Now 33 years later, he is grateful to be whole and complete. His son is intact, and our daughter's son was not circumcised.
Meanwhile, I used non-surgical stretching, beginning in 1995, and have full coverage and a largely restored foreskin that makes me proud.

[Joontiki]

Before i was married, i was with only one man - my future husband. He was uncircumcised. So we didn't circumcise our three sons. I didn't know any different. Uncircumcised was all i knew.

Now that my marriage is over and i've been with other men, i've finally come into contact with circumcision. I must say that i absolutely prefer circumcised penises. But even so, i would have left my sons uncut to make that decision themselves. It should be the man's choice.

Just as i would have left an hermaphrodite child untouched (had i had one), so that they could choose (or maybe even not choose) their sex when they were older and knew better. But that's a whole 'nuther discussion.

Of course none of this matters in the least in a nudist context! Cut or uncut, penises are just an appendage! As long as you're happy with it, then that's all that matters.

[nuovonudo]

I must say that i absolutely prefer circumcised penises.

why?

please explain.

[jon71]

I'm sure that Ms. Joontiki will answer for herself in time but I want to say can't a person just have preferences. I kind of fancy redheads. There's no big reason why. My first big love wasn't a redhead that I'm still pining over, the Celtic goddesses just make my heart beat a little faster. I like blondes and brunettes perfectly well. I've seen beautiful women who are black, hispanic, asian, and everythting else, I believe that GOD is the ultimate artist. Maybe I'm wrong but I think everybody is entitled to have their fancies.

[NudonyII]

I'm sure Joontiki didn't mean it as a slap in the face or a jab at us uncircimcized men. I was talking with a friend once, and this topic came up; when she suddenly exclaimed: "Urrghh...I could never touch an uncircumsized penis!" She didn't mean it as a slap in my face either (although it did sting a bit.) She was merely relating to me her sexual preference.

But I think it is a preference, moreso than a must; at least for women that have half a brain. My personal preference lies with thin, athletic women. I could also say that I absolutely prefer fit and trim women. But I'd be a shallow fool to dismiss a more curvy lady on this basis, without making some attempt to see the person behind the curves.

[Joontiki]

I'm sure Joontiki didn't mean it as a slap in the face or a jab at us uncircimcized men. *clip*
Oh LORD, of COURSE i didn't mean it that way! In my post, i stated it as my preference, and that men should be happy with whatever they have! I even said that even though i prefer cut, i would still not have circumcised my sons!

why? please explain.
We all are just the summation of our experiences... we ARE our baggage. That said, I had a boyfriend once who was uncircumcised and... i just can't go into it in public though, so i can't really explain what happened. Suffice it to say, that in MY experience, i just prefer cut. Actually, until that boyfriend, i had no preferences either way about cut or uncut. But like i said, we are our baggage, and this is mine. Oh, and just because it's my preference, doesn't mean i would not be with an uncircumcised guy again... I'm more open-minded than that!

My apologies for not relaying this info in the first place.

[fre2bnude]

I'm not circumcised but I do prefer having my foreskin rolled back permanently, I've got used to it that way and so has my wife. I always thought I was an oddity for doing this but have recently discovered several forums on this subject and a lot of men do just this. Now I feel like I'm in a different group or club, which I'm happy about.

I also found out that in some countries, Japan for instance, it is the normal practice to keep it rolled back. So as far as I'm concerned I have the best of both worlds by keeping my foreskin, it looks almost like a circumcised penis but still has all the foreskin sensitivity.

Joontiki, I think you sound like a nice switched on lady.

[Pete Knight]

In fact he had never worked the skin back over the glans - it was still attached. Because of that, it had never been cleaned... in his life! When we had sex, the foreskin would pull back and rip. He would bleed, and the head, which wasn't used to being unprotected, would get blood blisters on it. Honestly, it was rather traumatic, but he was a wonderful guy otherwise.

The skin of the foreskin is very elastic, like that of the vagina, the fact that he never worked the skin back himself didn't mean he couldn't have, it naturally stretches back when the penis is fully erect, spitting foreskin is a problem for many men and has little to do with how often men have sex or pull the foreskin back, it happened to a friend of mine at a time when he was quite active, and what a bloody mess it was too!

Failure to clean under the foreskin is more to do with tardiness than any lack of ability.

Pete Knight

[BlobbyBob]

I thought that some men did suffer from tighter foreskins, a very small percentage, and these were the few who really 'need' to be circumcised. Personally I have enough 'spare' skin that I can be fully erect and it still completely cover the head of my penis, so it only pulls back when I do it myself, not by itself. I'm very glad that I wasn't circumcised because my foreskin is fun to play with, and it keeps the head underneath more sensitive too. There's no logical reason to perform a primarily cosmetic surgery on infants, especially not without their ability to consent.

[malenudie]

I am circumsized and have no problems with it.

[speedoman]

I am not circumszied and my wike still loves me for who I am and that is important and to keep clean and all just do what you have to maintain a healthy lifestyle. My other x-wifes did not like me for this reason. Too ugly and not their style. So my wife accepts just the way I am. Have a nice day nude and keep smiling. Visit Deer park. in California.
Speedoman:laugh:

[NudonyII]

I hope we're not getting too graphic here. Not for me; I was thinking of the other forum readers who may be dismayed by our personal details...

But that being said...I never really thought of it, but I guess we're all a bit different in this regard. My foreskin attachment broke a long time ago ( I won't get into why...that's definitely too graphic). So I'm able to retract the foreskin completely, as free2bnude described. And he's right about it being the "best of both worlds". At the resort, I'll roll up to shower (low-key) to ensure maximum cleaneliness and also roll up in the pool or ocean. As I dry myself with the towel, I'll give a quick tug and cover back up. I tried remaining rolled up once while walking around, but the sensitivity of my gland made it uncomfortable; so that was the last of that. No one has ever seemed to notice, or care that I look circumcized coming out of the water; and uncircumsized a few moments later.

[IDNude]

I'm very glad that I wasn't circumcised because my foreskin is fun to play with, and it keeps the head underneath more sensitive too.

I've always been curious how someone who hasn't been circumcised can claim that they're more sensitive. I mean, how do you know that? Unless you've been both uncircumsized then become circumsized as an adult, how can someone possibly make the claim that one is more sensitive than the other? How is this comparison done?

Not meaning to start anything, just curious how one makes that determination.

[nuovonudo]

I've always been curious how someone who hasn't been circumcised can claim that they're more sensitive. I mean, how do you know that? Unless you've been both uncircumsized then become circumsized as an adult, how can someone possibly make the claim that one is more sensitive than the other? How is this comparison done?

Not meaning to start anything, just curious how one makes that determination.

that's a good point, idnude. do we just trust what the medical people tell us (about nerve endings and all)? how WOULD one know, unless one could remember how it felt one way, and then got cut?

incidentally, i've only known (personally) one guy who got cut as an adult and he much prefers it that way.

--n

[fre2bnude]

I've always been curious how someone who hasn't been circumcised can claim that they're more sensitive. I mean, how do you know that? Unless you've been both uncircumsized then become circumsized as an adult, how can someone possibly make the claim that one is more sensitive than the other? How is this comparison done?

Not meaning to start anything, just curious how one makes that determination.

Well, as I said earlier I started keeping my foreskin rolled back a few years ago and to begin with the head and inside of the foreskin was quite sensitive. Over time the sensitivity has decreased, which to my mind is nothing detrimental, and the membrane on the head has become more tough, similar, I imagine, to a circumcised penis.
I can also hark back to my much younger days as a young teenager before my foreskin had ever rolled back, I didn't even know that it was supposed to do so then and it was a lot tighter. One night while asleep an erection caused the skin to go right back and I woke up with the exposed head hurting. It was so sensitive it was painful and I was scared and had difficulty getting the skin back over the head. Now it's slack and can go back and forth without any difficulty, and is able to stay behind the head all the time. So I think I can say that circumcision does take away some sensitivity, at least it has with my practice, but I prefer it that way. To my mind my penis looks similar, and I imagine feels similar to a circumcised one.

[nmnudem]

I was circumsized as an infant, I often have wondered what it would be like to have a foreskin. But I guess overall I'm happy with what I've got.

[bullet]

I am circumcised. Have been since I was an infant. My father wasn't, my sons are. Never thought of it as much of an issue really, since most men who are not appear the same as me when erect, or at least that's what I'm told. Could be different I guess. As sensitive as I am, I can't imagine being more so with a foreskin but it makes sense that an unexposed area would be.

[nudepaulc]

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.

Circcumcision started and was traditionally practiced in cultures who developed in hot and desert areas. It was a healthy way to live with limited water and sanitation. In our modern society we have plenty of water to stay clean. So aside of relegious traditions, it is unnessary. Please remember that the foreskin has a purpose - to protect the glans which remains more sensitive if covered by the foreskin.

I'm glad that my parents decided not to have me cut - but it is every parents choice.

[alan1973]

I am circumsized.

[solarsid]

I was circumcised just after birth. I am now retired and spend a lot of my time naked outdoors so have quite a good tan. The English sun is generally not too hot so I don't usually bother with sunscreen except on the head of my penis which many years ago got sun burnt!

[txflight1267]

I am circumcised. If given the choice I would prefer not to be. I just think the penis looks better in it's natural state. Would love to have a foreskin.

[NudeX]

I agree with the guy just above me as I am not circumsized and am prefectlly happy with a foreskin. I think it looks nice and is there for protection

[Gio82]

I am not circumcised and absolutely love my foreskin!

[papanudist]

I'm not circumsized and my wife had no problem with that. When her best friend saw for the first time she was amazed. She had never seen one before and was embarressed by how long she was looking at it. She apoligized and I was not offended. Eventually she got used to seeing it and didn't look after a few visits.

[PaulFa]

I am, and have not cared one way or the other. That's what they did when I was born. Think it looks pretty good (lol)

[connorsdad]

Not sure what the hub-bub is about if you are or if you aren't. But I am not and niether is my son. I remember growing up that I was made to feel "wierd" when friends saw me naked in gym class or something and commented that it looked gross. Talk about a coinfidence booster. That led to a low self esteem and something to this day I have a hard time being nude in front of others.

This is one of the reasons that I choose to raise my son nudist so that he would hopefully not go through that pain and be happy with the way he looks. So far so good.

But again, why does it matter? Do I win a prize if I am not?

[Home Nudist]

I hesitate to bring this up, but.....

The Original Poster questioned the practice of and the history of circumcision in the USA.

Since the religious, health, hygienic, and mutilation issues have all been duly noted, addressed and debated, I can't help but wonder why this discussion continues to go on here, with people feeling the need to answer "yes" or "no."

Really, who cares? Circumcision has nothing to do with nudism.

And, old curmudgeon that I am, I feel that like the erection issue, it points out again that we, as nudists, SAY we are not interested in the genitals, yet, we can't keep ourselves from discussing them. Gee, I wonder why..... :shrug:

[eagle59]

Yes, I am circumsized, but it was not my choice, I was not asked my opinion, I was not aware of what was going on at the time. Now, it has always been, will always be, and I could really care less that "it" is circumsized. Who cares? The only thing that worries me about my penis is "will it continue to do its job now that I am getting older?" Other than that I couldnt care less. I cant do anything about it anyway so I will occupy my time with concerns about things I can do something about. For example, breakfast. I really am hungry right now...should I eat or should I sit here and ponder why my parents circumsized me? Humm...Cant do anything about what happend 48 years ago so I think I will go eat. Give it up people, who cares what someones penis looks like?!

[hommenudist]

Oh wow! this issue is old and resurrected - no pun intended sorry - but since it is back I shall add my two cents. Okay, yes I have no foreskin. However, I am happy my parents made this selection. If my sensitivity was diminished perhaps it is a good thing as when my wife and I get together now it is better than the fourth of July still. Am not advocating for others pro or con; I am just admitting to being circumsized and happy for it. Those who are not and happy about it, I say good for you and glad you are happy as you are also. With an appropriate mixture of gentlement circumsized and uncircumsized it gives meaning to a basketball game of shirts vs skins. Sorry, could not help it.

[Griffin]

In this issue, I am just amazed how so many males so passively accept that their most male private part was permanently altered and they can so lamely say, "So what? I can't do anything about it now." First, with any amount of research on the issue of circumcision, it becomes quickly apparent the foreskin is a valuable, useful structure put there for important purposes. Secondly, to have such an I-don't-care attitude speaks of surrender and raises the question, "What else could someone do to you and you woulnd't care?" Third, such capitulation has a tendency to give license to others to let the circumcisers have at the foreskins. Well, here is one adult male who resents having been cut (I had restored to get most luxurious coverage back) and we never had our son or grandsons circumcised because we knew it was ethically and medically wrong to authorize that perfomed on another human without his consent or authority. Please don't be so presumptuous to think circumcision is no big deal. Resigning yourself that there's nothing you can do now overlooks that the next generation doesn't have to end up the same way.

[smoothm]

In this issue, I am just amazed how so many males so passively accept that their most male private part was permanently altered and they can so lamely say, "So what? I can't do anything about it now." First, with any amount of research on the issue of circumcision, it becomes quickly apparent the foreskin is a valuable, useful structure put there for important purposes. Secondly, to have such an I-don't-care attitude speaks of surrender and raises the question, "What else could someone do to you and you woulnd't care?" Third, such capitulation has a tendency to give license to others to let the circumcisers have at the foreskins. Well, here is one adult male who resents having been cut (I had restored to get most luxurious coverage back) and we never had our son or grandsons circumcised because we knew it was ethically and medically wrong to authorize that perfomed on another human without his consent or authority. Please don't be so presumptuous to think circumcision is no big deal. Resigning yourself that there's nothing you can do now overlooks that the next generation doesn't have to end up the same way.
Not sure if any studies were ever done , but I doubt that many circumsized men would really respond negatively to their circumcisions. Personally, I am glad my parents had me done.

[Ita3rd]

Not sure if any studies were ever done , but I doubt that many circumsized men would really respond negatively to their circumcisions. Personally, I am glad my parents had me done.

Same here. I was circumcized at birth (or close to it anyway) and I have no problem with it. Honestly I think it looks better, but that may be some bias creeping in.

[mel3652]

I was circumsized at birth, which is a custom in the US, it is not right or wrong it just is. I feel that is group teaches body acceptance, therefore it should not mater.

[Home Nudist]

In this issue, I am just amazed how so many males so passively accept that their most male private part was permanently altered and they can so lamely say, "So what? I can't do anything about it now." First, with any amount of research on the issue of circumcision, it becomes quickly apparent the foreskin is a valuable, useful structure put there for important purposes. Secondly, to have such an I-don't-care attitude speaks of surrender and raises the question, "What else could someone do to you and you woulnd't care?" Third, such capitulation has a tendency to give license to others to let the circumcisers have at the foreskins. Well, here is one adult male who resents having been cut (I had restored to get most luxurious coverage back) and we never had our son or grandsons circumcised because we knew it was ethically and medically wrong to authorize that perfomed on another human without his consent or authority. Please don't be so presumptuous to think circumcision is no big deal. Resigning yourself that there's nothing you can do now overlooks that the next generation doesn't have to end up the same way.

Since most males are circumcised at birth and are blasé about the fact, perhaps it's a case of feeling "you never miss what you never had."

Unless ones feels violated, angry, and militant about it (as you apparently do), it's simply a non-issue for most men.

[BlobbyBob]

I was circumsized at birth, which is a custom in the US, it is not right or wrong it just is. I feel that is group teaches body acceptance, therefore it should not mater.
Just because it's something which happens doesn't make it beyond right or wrong. It is a cosmetic surgery performed on someone without their consent - why don't we cut off ear-lobes and little toes too?

Since most males are circumcised at birth and are blasé about the fact, perhaps it's a case of feeling "you never miss what you never had."
Only in the US are circumcised men the majority - 80% of the men in the world are not cut.

This is nothing against men who are happy with what they've got - the point of discussing this is to stop it being done to infants in the future. Let them grow up and decide what they want to do with their own body.

[Griffin]

Having written about this topic for decades, and for many years in discussion groups, I come to the conclusion that many circumcised men just don't understand the concept of body integrity and the idea of sovereignty over one's body. It's like: I don't care what others do or have done to my body. It is so breathtaking how dismissive they are to their circumcisions. Sure, much of it, of course, is the fact they don't know what it was like when they had a foreskin or its mechanics or what they are missing. So it's a case of no knowing what they are missing. Then the sad part is their quick statement that it's no big deal and no one else should fuss about it. We simply are saying the foreskin is worth keeping because it is a neat, moveable, protective structure that add to sex and, yes, looks. Now that I have foreskin coverage again, I feel vulnerable and naked when it is rolled back and my glans is exposed. We are saying males should have the option and opportunity. There surely is no rush to the circumcisers by intact men to get rid of their foreskins.

[Griffin]

http://www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/DomesticPoliticalNews/PoliticiansEyeingCircumcisionBan.htm

Politicians eyeing circumcision ban
Several parliamentary parties are considering creating legislation that would spare all children from circumcision - not just girls


A proposal to ban circumcision for boys may be on its way to parliament after intense discussions by MPs over the past week, reports Kristeligt Dagblad newspaper.

Although circumcision of girls was outlawed in response to the practice being common among immigrants from some Muslim countries, boys may still be circumcised if a certified physician is present.

Jewish traditions calls for the circumcision of newborn boys, and many Muslims and Christians support the practice as well. But both the Ethics Council and the National Council for Children have recently criticised the practice, stating that a boy should be able to decide for himself if he wants the procedure performed when he reaches the age of 15 - the legal age in Denmark for a child to have sole jurisdiction over his own body.

While the Social Democrats, Red-Green Alliance and Liberal Alliance have come out in support of a ban, the Danish People's Party called it 'tyranny'.

'It's completely ridiculous to compare the circumcision of girls - which is a barbaric mutilation - with that of boys, where it's just the removal of a skin flap,' said the party's Jesper Langballe.

But the party's own health spokeswoman, Liselott Brixt, said she supports a ban.

'A lot of parents want it done to their children because they themselves had it done. But we're living in the present and it isn't fair to expose healthy children to religious circumcision.'

Medical wisdom is mixed on the supposed benefits of male circumcision, some studies claiming it prevents disease while others indicate normal hygiene procedures sufficiently negate the need for the practice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not support male circumcision, indicating any health advantages from it are minimal.

[K1396]

This proposed Danish law is simply a bad idea.

First of all, Jews have practiced circumcision for some 5000 years. It is not just a custom; it is a religious rite. They will continue to do it, law or no law. To them, the law of God outweighs the law of Man.

Muslims will also continue the practice; again, it is a religious requirement. If they cannot get it done in Danmark, Germany is only about an hour away and they should have no problem there.

Therefore the only people who might be affected by the law are Christians and non-religious people who probably do not cut there sons anyway.

And what if circumcision is medically necessary? Do you then needs an act of parliament to be allowed to seek treatment? or do we tell them "come back when he is 15"?

This is an other example of politicians getting all worked up about non-issues. Still, it is probably better than them trying to actually fix the economy or something.

[yyz66]

I was circumcised at birth, > 40years ago, as that was the custom here in Canada (like the USA).

I prefer the circumcised look- because that's what I have. But ...

I think it should be up to the individual male - which obviously one is not able to do at birth, or even as a young child.

I don't criticize my parents for getting it done. There wasn't as much consideration of informed consent back then.

But we did not get our son circumcised. If he wants to do that when he's older, he can decide. It will be his choice, when he's old enough to make it.

Now the religious argument ... well I don't think that provides any further justification ... especially when (much of) the world is moving more towards informed consent. But my 2 cents worth won't stop the practice.

D y

[jennan32za]

This is always such a hot topic, wherever you go.

It's like: I don't care what others do or have done to my body.

Look, our parents were misinformed, which is perhaps why they had it done. Or perhaps because it was fairly common. Or perhaps because (whatever the reason is).

Fact is, I'm not going to hate my parents for doing what they thought was right for whatever reason. Thus, as far as my own case is concerned, it is no big deal. Everything works, it does what it needs to do and I have no complaints.

It is so breathtaking how dismissive they are to their circumcisions. Sure, much of it, of course, is the fact they don't know what it was like when they had a foreskin or its mechanics or what they are missing. So it's a case of no knowing what they are missing.

Exactly - if you don't know, you can't say whether it would be better or worse. Either way, nobody will ever know which is better, since better is always going to be a matter of personal taste.

I know a guy who was circumcised for medical reasons (after getting an infection of some sort, not a phimosis or anything like that) at 19 and says he feels no difference before and after; and I know a guy who had something similar and swears blind that after is worse because of a loss in sensitivity. Thirdly, I know a guy who had it done for cosmetic reasons - literally, he preferred the circumcised look - and he reckons its much better now. Exactly how much psychology is involved in each of these cases is unknown, but there are three conflicting opinions right there, from guys who have more authority than most having experienced both sides.

Then the sad part is their quick statement that it's no big deal and no one else should fuss about it. We simply are saying the foreskin is worth keeping because it is a neat, moveable, protective structure that add to sex and, yes, looks. Now that I have foreskin coverage again, I feel vulnerable and naked when it is rolled back and my glans is exposed.

You feel naked and vulnerable during sex?

For those of us who don't, it is no big deal. FYI for those of you who are against this: some of us don't mind having been circumcised and don't need you to campaign for us. Campaign for the newborns if you like, but a.) don't call us "mutilated"; and b.) please don't call our parents "butchers". Thanks.

We are saying males should have the option and opportunity. There surely is no rush to the circumcisers by intact men to get rid of their foreskins.

I agree with you - for that reason I'm not going to have my sons circumcised, if I have sons. However, I'm not going to lynch anyone whose kids are circumcised.

-d-

[Yuppers]

A very high majority of boys in Australia are circumcised soon after birth. Arguements used is an alledged health risk of STD's and other infections. Another arguement which I have heard among some mothers which I don't understand is that it is better to look at. What? Do they plan on doing some extra-curricular activities with them?

[Griffin]

You can pooh-pooh the Danes on what I believe is a more enlightened, progressive approach to circumcision -- banning it because it really cannot be legitimately justified on helpless, defenseless baby boys. So much of human rights and social justice change in this world depends on the enlightenment of the culture --- be it allowing women to vote, outlawing slavery, allowing minorities to hold leadership roles, building and food safety codes or bans on smoking. The list goes on and on. As I read you defenders of circumcision, I put you in the same group of people who really just don't get it -- you haven't journeyed far enough in understanding the issues related to circumcision, body integrity, sovereignty over one's body and basic human rights. Like those who still think homosexuality is a sin, or that women should not be pastors or in the military, you may think nothing about the hypocrisy and double standard that female genital mutilation is appalling while male circumcision is quite alright. Once you recognize the concept of personal body rights, you may be on your way to be farther down the road to understanding why many circumcised males sincerely resent that a structure of their bodies was rudely and crudely cut from them without their consent. Civilization is just a slow process of learning to be kind.

[1Ace]

Matt speaks the truth about the USA...

[Home Nudist]

As I read you defenders of circumcision, I put you in the same group of people who really just don't get it -- you haven't journeyed far enough in understanding the issues related to circumcision, body integrity, sovereignty over one's body and basic human rights. Like those who still think homosexuality is a sin, or that women should not be pastors or in the military, you may think nothing about the hypocrisy and double standard that female genital mutilation is appalling while male circumcision is quite alright. Once you recognize the concept of personal body rights, you may be on your way to be farther down the road to understanding why many circumcised males sincerely resent that a structure of their bodies was rudely and crudely cut from them without their consent. Civilization is just a slow process of learning to be kind.

You're awfully arrogant. You "get it," and no one else does?

This is obviously a "cause" of yours, and while I admire your zeal, I think you are completely out of line telling circumcised men HOW they should feel about their already circumcised bodies. What gives you that right? What gives you the right to say that everyone should feel the same way you feel? Why are you right, and why is everyone else with an opinion wrong?

I don't hear anyone "defending" the practice. They're simply stating they're not bothered by the fact that it was done. And, for some reason, that bothers you. They should fret and be bothered? Maybe you should examine why. I don't see where it's any concern of yours.

Most people here have said what I said: "You never miss what you never had." And, you're telling them they should. Please get over yourself.

If you want to campaign to make the practice illegal on non-consenting infants, I could understand what you are saying. But to tell men who are not bothered by being circumcised that their feelings are INVALID (and that YOU know better) is the height of arrogance.

And, here's the group I put YOU into: You remind me of people who don't want to see others smoke or drink (or do anything they wouldn't do), not because it bothers them directly, but because they just don't want them to. They have control issues. I think you do, too. As I said, please get over yourself.

[litlbigman1]

Today when people are mutilating their bodies with tatoos, rings, piercings and not to mention the needless plastic surgery, why make a big deal about circumsizing an infant? I was circusized and am very glad my parents had it done - didn't question their reasons either. Wife and I decided to have our son circumsized also. He doesn't remember, i don't remember, so what is the big concern?
Personally I think I have a more attractive penis whether I am natural or aroused - been complemented on my appearance many times and the same for my son. Not having the 'turkey beard' blob of extra skin around the head of my penis makes me feel better.
Sorry to offend you noncircusized gentlemen out there, but why make a big deal out of nothing. If you are happy with yourself, one way or the other, so be it. But just look around and see what folks are doing to their bodies today, including the genitalia and circumsizing is really no big thing.

[K1396]

This discussion has been going on for 75 pages and will probably go on a while longer. Let me just say that I am quite happy to been circumsized and do not miss having a foreskin one bit. Having said that, I don't believe in forcing my view on anyone else. If I had sons, I would circumsize them too, but I don't, so it all academic.
I agree with the previous poster about all the self mutilation that is happening these days; circumcision is really no big deal.
The so-called female circumcision, however, is truly mutilation and should be condemned in the strongest terms and have fines and imprisonments for those who force it upon their daughters. I find Griffen's linking of male and female circumcision rather offensive. If he doesn't see that there is a difference, then perhaps he should refrain from posting his views.
I also noticed several posters seemto regard circumsized men as mutilated. We are not! The vast majority of us either don't care one way or another, or we are happy about it. I used to be in the "who cares" camp, but after several women told they prefer it, I am now quite happy about it.

[bgnaked]

I'm a bit surprised by some of these comments from people in favor of circumcision....

It's a fact that any involuntary mutilation is just that -- I don't really understand how people can say it's okay to do to everyone just because they like theirs. Circumcision on babies is just so wrong on so many levels. If you as an adult wants to get it done, then go for it... remove your whole penis if you want, maybe you would like that better. (not to say you would, I'm just saying it's just as wrong)

There are plenty of people out there that would rather just be their natural selves, and I think you would feel a bit differently if more people around you were that way as well.

Last, how can you say you don't miss something you've never experienced? Never missed that Lamborghini you got to own for 5-minutes before it was ripped away? It's also hard to listen to people who voluntarily got circumcised later in life saying "I LOVE IT!!!!11!!111!!!" because they were so determined to get it done in the first place. There are billions of uncircumcised boys and men in the world that wouldn't consider any other way.
:rolleyes: