are you circumsized

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28:
I am not against it for when there are genuine indicators to circumcise. Only when it is elective, when it is done for no real medical reason. Then it just becomes pointless.
Why only when it's elective would you deny people the choice? To me, this reflects an animosity against circumcision for boys or men who might want it done for whatever their reasons.

To clarify my earlier statements, I did not have a penis problem. My penis was perfectly normal. My skin condition was that I was allergic to all soaps and if I bathed or showered frequently, I got crusty sores on my arms and legs. My normal penis also had the same intolerance for soap. Bathing every other day, as my doctor advised to prevent sores, caused my penis to smell and look quite bad, and to itch, both from being dirty and from contact with soap. More recently, my dermatologist diagnosed my skin condition as actinic keratosis. I can use the aloe soap which didn't exist back when I was young, but still have to be careful about too-frequent bathing.

My reason for wanting to be circumcised at a young age was completely elective. By the time I was 12, I had only seen 2 circumcised classmates. After seeing the second one, I was so impressed with the beauty of a penis without its foreskin that I knew I had to get that look for myself, hence, my self-circumcision attempts.

OK, let the charges of my being shallow begin. I don't apologize for thinking that uncovered penises are far more beautiful than covered ones.

One irony of my 12-years-old circumcision decision is, when I was 7, my parents planned to take my 2 younger brothers and I to get us circumcised. I don't know why. But I protested so loudly when they told us that they decided against it. Had they gone through with it, it would have doubled the population of circumcised boys in our town (based on knowledge of who was and who wasn't from school restrooms, 4-H camp, band camp, skinny dipping, and phys. ed.) Obviously, I was raised in a pretty pro-foreskin area. It would be logical to think I should have liked them, but I didn't.

Edited Aug. 6th, 12:56AM EDT to correct above statement:
===========================================
I originally said "actinic kerotitis". I meant to say actinic keratosis. And back when I was young, my skin condition was plain keratosis, not actinic keratosis, which I have now. Back then I was allergic to soaps. Now I'm allergic to the sun, which is what "actinic" refers to.
===========================================

[l2ltlarry]

By Someone28, addressing Matt's story on Nip/Tuck:
Quite a tragic story. But if that's really what he wanted, then fine. Just don't force it on anybody else... That's what we're asking here. Not to outlaw it completely.

Quote from l2ltlarry:
With the several self-circumcision devices now available on the Internet and Internet instructions on how to use them, no boy who wants to be circumcised will ever have to wait until he is "of age". And I'm certain that making your own clamp that closely approximates the several clamps available from manufacturers is a very simple task.

With no anesthetic? You can create the clamp, yes, but what would you use to kill the pain once a boy goes on to do it in private like that? I'm sure it would sound VERY odd and suspicious if he asks his parents for painkilling meds out of nowhere. This is another way circumcision harms. Our culture throwing insecurities on the intact encouraging them to go on with things like this.

Quote from l2ltlarry:
Like Matt, I had tried to do what he did when I was 12 or 13 or so and I failed, but not as badly as Matt did. Knowing what I know now, it would have been very simple.

Sorry to hear that. You should have gotten proper attention for something like that. But what's done is done. I don't know what point is trying to be made here, though. The same thing happens but in the reverse situation. A cut man can learn of what was done, and then turn severely depressed. Irrational actions and behaviors can occur as a result. I am guilty of this.

Quote from l2ltlarry:
The information age and the Internet is a wonderful thing. People are no longer captives to the powers-that-be.

Not completely. Laws still exist, and if broken, you can bet authority will attempt to track you down if you get into such a position. But otherwise, yes I agree.

Someone28, first let me say, I appreciate your reasoned and respectful arguments. And the apparent thought that goes into your responses. While we disagree, I think this is what people mean by disagreeing without being disagreeable. So, thanks.

You question the lack of anesthetic. I'm sure millions of men and boys throughout the ages have been circumcised without anesthetic, whether by someone else or as a do-it-yourself project. They tolerate the pain involved, which certain techniques can limit. (One can learn a lot of interesting stuff from the Internet.)

As for pain, I think lots of kids do self-piercings. My daughters did, without parental knowledge. The pain of the two activities are similar.

My statement about the wondrousness of the stuff we can find out from the Internet, and that the powers-that-be will continue to have decreasing power to keep people from doing the things they want to do. I was thinking back to an article by Colorado columnist David Harsanyi about teen sexting. And their educating themselves by way of the Internet about any subject they choose. I think his article appeared in April. His big point was that society's gatekeepers or the keepers-of-the-keys who would control and parcel out knowledge have been rendered mostly powerless by the Internet. More recently he had a couple of other articles on freedom from authoritarians. I'm sure his articles can be found on the Internet, just as anything else can.

As for the authorities tracking you down, they don't do that for speeding unless you are significantly over the limit. And there are more people than there are authorities, so they'd have quite a difficult time of accomplishing very much, just like now if they tried to catch every speeder.

Once again, laws that don't have widespread public support don't work very well.

[l2ltlarry]

By walter05:
I am troubled by your post. You said, "I had tried to do what he did when I was 12 or 13 or so and I failed, but not as badly as Matt did." I am troubled as to why a 12 or 13 year old boy would think there is something wrong with his penis.

Could you talk openly with your parents?

If you really had a skin condition that made circumcision necessary, then you should have been able to discuss it openly. I would like to think you could even pull your pants down and show it to your father at least, or to a doctor.

I am troubled by a 12 or 13 year old boy who could not talk about issues involving his penis with his parents. Yet, he could be so troubled as to try circumcise it himself.

I am glad for you that you were able to get the circumcision you wanted so your penis would look, feel, and smell they way your want it. However, I would not believe that a 12 oe 13 year old should be able to make that decision on his own.

We have statuatory rape because the law views minors as unable to consent to sex with adults. I think they are unable to consent to tattoos and even piercings, even if the law does not necessarily agree. I certainly think an operation as major as a circumcision should require parental approval.
By the time a kid is 12 or 13, they don't talk openly with their parents about very much of anything, especially about sexual things. And especially about wanting to get circumcised.

There is a huge embarrassment factor in getting circumcised, whether as 12-year-olds or adults. When I went to get it done at 22, I had a great amount of embarrassment to overcome.

I think that lots of men in the world who might rather be circumcised, don't do it either because of embarrassment or because of not knowing how to find a place to get it done. Many countries actively discourage it, so places to get it done are hard to find. Which is a victory of sorts for those who think men should have to go through life with their foreskins. It seems that many people can't see how men can stand to go through life without their foreskins. Myself, I don't see how men can stand to go through life with them.

Why might they want to get it done? More that any other factor, I think the huge majority of men (and women) in the world think that penises are more beautiful when they are uncovered than when covered. And permanently uncovered rather than part-time uncovered might hold appeal for many more men worldwide if circumcision were held to be a positive rather than a negative.

As for what's being proposed, that circumcision be banned for males under 18 -- there are 2 major obstacles in the way. The Jews and the Muslims, neither of whom are going to go along with that any time soon, no matter how many laws are passed.

[timothyc]

I am almost 35 years old and not circumcisedand hope to stay that way. However my doctor not long ago suggested that it might be a good idea to get circumcised because of a problem I sometimes have with infections down there.I would only consider it as a last resort if ever because not nly do I not like the idea of losing my foreskin I would not exactly enjoy the surgery itself and the recovery from it which is of course painful.

[eagle59]

[QUOTE=slo;16] It boils down to the decision(s) the birth parents make, the religious convictions and the choice a consenting male would/will make. All other discussions on this matter are strictly conjecture and do not really warrant additional elaberation.

Here, Here!!! I couldn't agree more. I do not understand why people worry about this so much. What is done is done and what is not done can be changed if you want. Make a decision, be happy with what you got, and worry about things you can change.

[walter05]

By walter05:

By the time a kid is 12 or 13, they don't talk openly with their parents about very much of anything, especially about sexual things. And especially about wanting to get circumcised.

There is a huge embarrassment factor in getting circumcised, whether as 12-year-olds or adults. When I went to get it done at 22, I had a great amount of embarrassment to overcome.


When I was 12 or 13, I was able to talk about my penis and sex with my father. This is because we had discussed them so regularly since about 8, that it was not new. I think your post is a huge warning to kids. We need to talk openly about sex and genitals with our kids.

When my kids turn 6, my wife and I sat down with them and discussed anatomy.

When they turned 8, we discussed sex including the religious implications. We discussed the anatomy and process in detail and answered questions. We did it together with the girls and boys. We wanted them to know there was nothing dirty about the subject.

Once my girls got close the puberty, they have continued to have these discussions with my wife.

On a couple of questions, they have asked me questions about boys antomy and sex drives and I have answered it openly.

My oldest son has started asking questions of me only.

On more than one occasion, my daughters have asked my wife or me about things they have heard from other teens.

However, with both boys and girls, any time there is a news story where sex is a part of it or in the background, we discuss it openly.

I would like to think that just as I was able to discuss it with my father, my kids can with me. Sex is a holy and important part of life. We should not treat it as a forbidden subject.

Parents must be open about it. As L2ltlarry points our if we don't make ourselves the primary sources of information, the kids will turn to the internet, sexting etc.


One more question however, do you think that 12, 13, or even 17 year olds are mature enough to make such a dramatic decision as to have his foreskin removed without parental permission? The law does not and neither do I.

[l2ltlarry]

By walter05:
One more question however, do you think that 12, 13, or even 17 year olds are mature enough to make such a dramatic decision as to have his foreskin removed without parental permission? The law does not and neither do I.

I'm having trouble putting this together with your Jewish religious practice of circumcision on the 8th day. If I recall correctly, you made the decision to circumcise your boys according to Jewish law -- according to the Old Testament or Torah commands.

It's OK if a boy is 8 days old or 1 or 2 days old, but not 12, or 13, or 17? Wait, wait. Not 1 or 2 days old, because you disagree with people circumcising their kids unless it's an 8th-day circumcision, or maybe a 12-year-old Muslim circumcision. At 12, 13, or 17, boys have much more volition than just after birth. And your position might prohibit those Muslims who continue to circumcise at 12 or 13 from following their religious practices, or is the parental permission what makes it right? I'm really not understanding the level of aghastness by you and others about a boy deciding to get circumcised at 12.

"...do you think that 12, 13, or even 17 year olds are mature enough to make such a dramatic decision as to have his foreskin removed without parental permission?" Short answer: Yes. And "such a dramatic decision"? Why is deciding to get circumcised a dramatic decision? I'm still scratching my head over your position that were you not an Orthodox Jew, you would not have had your boys circumcised (or something to that effect.)

My position is, if you can choose circumcision for your newborn sons for religious reasons, then my First Amendment rights allow me to choose circumcision for my sons, or myself, for any reason, every reason, or no reason.

"The law does not and neither do I."

Where is that law? As Someone28 pointed out, a person can ask anybody to circumcise himself or his male children, basically or maybe entirely without restrictions. I did not know that until I was researching FGM and found that out.

I think the court decision in the Oregon case of the boy whose mother and father were divorced and battling because the Jewish father was going to get him circumcised at age 10 but the boy's Christian mother wouldn't let him be circumcised. I think the court decision took until the boy was 12 and the court decision was, "Ask the boy what he wants and abide by his wishes."

As for 12-year-olds discussing things -- especially sexual things -- with their parents, seemingly we're of a different age. When I was 12, it was unheard of. It just wasn't done. When my kids were 12, it was very much frowned upon and discouraged. Such things were kept secret from your kids for as long as possible, until you were forced into discussing them because of "events".

Have things changed so much in child-raising that people openly and fully discuss sexuality with their kids? David Harsanyi, the columnist, didn't seem to think so. I think to be disturbed that I couldn't discuss it with my parents and they wouldn't discuss it with me, is unrealistic. That's the way things were done. But I grew up on a farm so I didn't have as great a need for parental enlightenment about such matters. Plus, in the days before the Internet, I was an information addict, and I had a great need to know anything and everything about everything, so I was mostly very good at finding out what I wanted to know, on my own.

[l2ltlarry]

From my post #1001 above:
More recently, my dermatologist diagnosed my skin condition as actinic kerotitis.

I originally said "actinic kerotitis". I meant to say actinic keratosis. And back when I was young, my skin condition was plain keratosis, not actinic keratosis, which I have now. Back then I was allergic to soaps. Now I'm allergic to the sun, which is what "actinic" refers to.

I guess I wouldn't make a very good nudist, being allergic to sunlight. I do support the cause of nudism though.


Clothesfree's homepage uses God and Adam and Eve in arguing that nudism is a good thing, with these words:
...We believe the human form is neither immoral nor inappropriate and endorse the culture of positive body acceptance. We protest the “pornification” of the human body. All parts of the body are just natural and should not be treated as anything that should be hidden. To hide body parts for the sole purpose of shame only causes people to have unhealthy or shameful thoughts about the nude body. CFI approved places provide a safe, healthy, wholesome atmosphere for the whole family that allows everyone, including children, to have a better body image, learn respect and have more self esteem. Sadly, some people believe that the sight of an unclothed body is shocking and harmful and must be censored, yet murder and severed body parts aren't censored at all. No wonder people grow up with a lack of body respect. The censoring of Greek or other culture's statues or artwork is offensive to people all over the world. The purpose of female breasts is to feed babies. They are not obscene and shouldn't be illegal to be seen in public. It is the same with any part of the body. Being nude is fun and good for the soul. It promotes body acceptance, age acceptance, family unity, freedom, and increased self confidence. Discover the stress-free adventure of nude recreation. Discover yourself! Say YES to naturist values. Say NO to the immoral disrespect of our bodies. Say NO to the media's twisted thinking that bodies are shameful, disgusting, hair in the wrong places, and need to be plucked, tucked, stretched, starved and draped in cloth at all costs, and it DOES cost. Say NO to fake images and say YES to yourself and the wholesome body God gave you....

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

One point is, we should not have to hide our bodies because Adam and Eve did not have to hide theirs. I think the "Adam and Eve" probably was more likely "Adams and Eves", a society of males and females. I've said before that I don't like hiding. I think the Bible indicates that God never liked hiding either. My theory on where foreskins fit into God's design for Adam or the Adams, is, they didn't. I can't believe God would create the beauty of the human penis, then cover it up. Just my speculation. There have been several discussions about where circumcision came from and why. The explanation I find most plausible is that men did not have foreskins in their original version. Foreskins came about, along with other changes, after "the Fall", for reasons unknown. There is, as said before, some evidence that men were circumcising themselves for a very long time before religion(s) began. The word that's translated "foreskin" in the Hebrew scriptures is "orlah", which also means, "barrier" or "obstruction". God seemingly was never a fan of coverings or barriers, consequently Clothesfree's use of God and Adam and Eve in its argument favoring nudism. It makes sense to me that since men were removing their barriers or obstructions long before God institutionalized circumcision, one reason for God's religious commandment was to return men to his original state or design.

Not meaning to be offensive. Just offering an alternative explanation. Just my opinion, as everybody knows.

[Someone28]

Alright, l2ltlarry, I am going to address some of the things you've said.

Why only when it's elective would you deny people the choice? To me, this reflects an animosity against circumcision for boys or men who might want it done for whatever their reasons.

But it isn't. I apologize, perhaps I should have been more clear and used more specific terms, as it seems you have misunderstood me. What I had meant to say, was this: I am against it, when done to an infant or child, who cannot provide his informed consent. Why is this? Because it is on the elective behalf of the parents (not the patient, the one who doctors have a duty towards) in complete absence of a genuine medical indicator usually. And it isn't even guaranteed to prevent a thing. Besides phimosis, obviously, but can you really diagnose that in someone so young? And the fact that it violates the infant/childs rights to future self determination is a no brainer. He cannot go back. Like I said, I don't have a problem where there's a real condition, but it should be a good one otherwise... What is the point? I do not have a problem with those who grew up with one and desire to have it removed, for whatever reason. The benefit of this is that they had a CHOICE in the matter. Circumcisions dealt with like the above... The "patient" never has a choice... Unfortunately. I am a victim of this AND one who feels offended by it. I consider it a mockery of good medicine. All the more so because it is carried out in completely sanitary environments for all those stupid (like I said, usually. Do not have a problem with real need.) reasons. When people should know better. Try to understand a bit better where I come from. I'm trying to be respectful here of you as well.

My reason for wanting to be circumcised at a young age was completely elective. By the time I was 12, I had only seen 2 circumcised classmates. After seeing the second one, I was so impressed with the beauty of a penis without its foreskin that I knew I had to get that look for myself, hence, my self-circumcision attempts.

And this is fine. But bear in mind, choice is the primary concern here. If you wanted that and it truly made you feel happiest, then good for you! Just remember: The same cannot be said of everyone. Myself here, to the personal extent where an uncut penis is mystifying to me. It sounds strange to one like you I'm sure, but I honestly prefer it's look... That, was deprived from me. The best I can do to attempt to gain one is terrible (my opinion) plastic surgical procedures with bad records behind them or tension my skin... And it is not completely the same thing in structure either. Nor probably what my natural one would have been like. I can't know how it would have turned out... That is extremely frustrating to me. I have no hints whatsoever, no real control. You can respect that these options are significantly poorer, can't you?

OK, let the charges of my being shallow begin. I don't apologize for thinking that uncovered penises are far more beautiful than covered ones.

I wouldn't charge you, neither do you need to apologize. It's personal preference. The key to it is respect, both ways. If you do not regret the decision at such a young age and still enjoy how you are... There is no problem. You got what you wanted. That is the ENTIRE point here.

One irony of my 12-years-old circumcision decision is, when I was 7, my parents planned to take my 2 younger brothers and I to get us circumcised. I don't know why. But I protested so loudly when they told us that they decided against it. Had they gone through with it, it would have doubled the population of circumcised boys in our town (based on knowledge of who was and who wasn't from school restrooms, 4-H camp, band camp, skinny dipping, and phys. ed.) Obviously, I was raised in a pretty pro-foreskin area. It would be logical to think I should have liked them, but I didn't.

That's a pretty strange thing to have happened, but fate works in mysterious ways... I'm not sure what to say, other than I think it odd your parents would have suddenly chosen that for you, at THAT age. Coercion is something I can't stand when it comes to this. But, it seems to have turned out well enough for you and as such, that is something to be glad about. I was raised in an entirely circumcised setting, now just look at what I've turned into. Doesn't make sense, does it? The other men I live with apparently don't have a problem, I still do.

To clarify my earlier statements, I did not have a penis problem. My penis was perfectly normal. My skin condition was that I was allergic to all soaps and if I bathed or showered frequently, I got crusty sores on my arms and legs. My normal penis also had the same intolerance for soap. Bathing every other day, as my doctor advised to prevent sores, caused my penis to smell and look quite bad, and to itch, both from being dirty and from contact with soap. More recently, my dermatologist diagnosed my skin condition as actinic keratosis. I can use the aloe soap which didn't exist back when I was young, but still have to be careful about too-frequent bathing.

It was unfortunate that you had such a medical condition, but that's just poor luck of the draw... Speaking of poor luck, similar things happened to me in it's own way. What can you do, other than voice how it has affected you? It's still helpful to remind that even if one has problems, that doesn't mean others WILL have that problem for definite... Individual variation. That applies to preference too. Something that needs to be better acknowledged. For the sake of that ideology, I think choice is a pretty solid answer in response...

Someone28, first let me say, I appreciate your reasoned and respectful arguments. And the apparent thought that goes into your responses. While we disagree, I think this is what people mean by disagreeing without being disagreeable. So, thanks.

Yes, we can both speak respectfully of this and thoroughly consider what the other has to say... I hope some of the points I make here do stick out to you even in some small way.

You question the lack of anesthetic. I'm sure millions of men and boys throughout the ages have been circumcised without anesthetic, whether by someone else or as a do-it-yourself project. They tolerate the pain involved, which certain techniques can limit. (One can learn a lot of interesting stuff from the Internet.)

As for pain, I think lots of kids do self-piercings. My daughters did, without parental knowledge. The pain of the two activities are similar.

It's just disappointing that anyone would have to go through that. Pain of any sort. I know I've hurt myself over this as well. In different ways from you, of course... But I have, when I was severely depressed. I would be surprised though if cutting into that sort of flesh isn't painful enough to make you reel. Pain, in a sense, is our friend. God gave it to us, or it evolved, (whatever) as a warning sign to tell us when something is wrong. But, the fact that someone would go on to do something like that and just tell the pain to shove it, no matter how dire of a warning... It flies in the face of that model. Pain unheeded, further suffering endured to satisfy a personal end... It's a bit... Masochistic, even if for valid reasons. It just stuns me how the human mind will do this. How it's susceptible to it. I'm guilty of it myself like I said.

My statement about the wondrousness of the stuff we can find out from the Internet, and that the powers-that-be will continue to have decreasing power to keep people from doing the things they want to do. I was thinking back to an article by Colorado columnist David Harsanyi about teen sexting. And their educating themselves by way of the Internet about any subject they choose. I think his article appeared in April. His big point was that society's gatekeepers or the keepers-of-the-keys who would control and parcel out knowledge have been rendered mostly powerless by the Internet. More recently he had a couple of other articles on freedom from authoritarians. I'm sure his articles can be found on the Internet, just as anything else can.

As for the authorities tracking you down, they don't do that for speeding unless you are significantly over the limit. And there are more people than there are authorities, so they'd have quite a difficult time of accomplishing very much, just like now if they tried to catch every speeder.

Once again, laws that don't have widespread public support don't work very well.

Yes, you are correct that you can learn a lot of interesting stuff from the net... But it comes in both good and bad. One should use caution and be mindful, in light of this. But I do not doubt the good it can do. I am... Thankful for it too. Even if that information pains.

Yes, you're right about law... It can't exist where there is nothing to uphold it. Or speak for it. Of course there are many more people than there are authorities, but in a way... That too can work against criminals. Ever heard of stories where a pedestrian or random person would just happen to jump right into the fray where very convenient in order to help the police capture someone at their own expenses? Just a small example. The world is a chaotic place in all spectrum's... Law does have a difficult time. But people also have their own internal sense of justice I should think.

By the time a kid is 12 or 13, they don't talk openly with their parents about very much of anything, especially about sexual things. And especially about wanting to get circumcised.

There is a huge embarrassment factor in getting circumcised, whether as 12-year-olds or adults. When I went to get it done at 22, I had a great amount of embarrassment to overcome.

I agree with how walter says someone young should be able to communicate frankly about such things and never feel ashamed... But, I would like to share something with you. I too, had to deal with a lot of uncertainty and internal stress when I wanted to confess to my parents and family that I did NOT like what they did to me. And explain why. My heart literally raced when I was about to speak at first. I could feel small tremblings over my body which I hid. I felt unfocused and just very troubled even mid-speech. My mind worked quickly to anticipate ridicule of any sort and I felt a bit light all over... This isn't an exaggeration by any means. I think my embarrassment was a very real and established presence to me. Even if the reasons for it ran entirely contrary to yours. What do you say to that? The point I bring, is that both are capable of psychologically harming. Even the very presence of circumcision, the atmosphere of a culture with it can promote insecurities, anxieties, just general confusion over what should be or not in an individuals mindset of where they themself fit... There's many ways for a person to be troubled by it. Is mine somehow any less valid than your reasons? Again though, I would stress that you had a choice, and are now happy... This is good. I am not yet. I don't have that sense of peace.

I think that lots of men in the world who might rather be circumcised, don't do it either because of embarrassment or because of not knowing how to find a place to get it done. Many countries actively discourage it, so places to get it done are hard to find. Which is a victory of sorts for those who think men should have to go through life with their foreskins. It seems that many people can't see how men can stand to go through life without their foreskins. Myself, I don't see how men can stand to go through life with them.

Again, this is something we against don't really intend for. Well, not ALL of us. If some unwisely state that a man should be forced to exist with his foreskin, then I would consider them an idiot. They are a bad example for the rest of us. But often, the bad apples are paid more attention to than the rest because of how outrageous some of the things that they may say are. They grope for attention. Hmmph, someone else here thought I was a loon earlier. I was a bit angered and frustrated then, not now. I am much calmer. We only (I would hope.) discourage doing it to infants and children who are simply too young. Because it violates their right to choose. A right they should have as you did. I can understand your preference, I respect it, but if you think your own experiences are an acceptable reason to circumcise a child, I will probably always be in direct opposition of that. I hope you can understand a little better now.

Why might they want to get it done? More that any other factor, I think the huge majority of men (and women) in the world think that penises are more beautiful when they are uncovered than when covered. And permanently uncovered rather than part-time uncovered might hold appeal for many more men worldwide if circumcision were held to be a positive rather than a negative.

Well, there are Asian areas and even Europe... I could be wrong, but I believe the statistics say that many of those people are probably intact. Besides this, remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you personally like having a permanently exposed penis, then fine. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I'm only saying, not to impose your own aesthetic sense on the helpless. Or deprive them of their preference. You know how that feels don't you to some extent? I don't imagine ANYONE likes it. But you had everything in your arsenal to change it. Those that are cut and dislike it, don't really... Just some compromises. They can never go all of the way, sadly. Not yet. I am hoping you can see this plainly for what it is. I see it as thus: Infantile/child = negative, late teens or adulthood = positive. Because that is what they wanted after all...

As for what's being proposed, that circumcision be banned for males under 18 -- there are 2 major obstacles in the way. The Jews and the Muslims, neither of whom are going to go along with that any time soon, no matter how many laws are passed.

Much the same as it is not currently possible to regain everything lost back if one wants it... Namely my situation. An impossibility. But I just don't understand the hypocrisy of it all: We indiscriminately ban and oppose FGM (and I would point out, there ARE in FACT some far less severe female circs. Merely cutting the labia and clitoral hood, NOT excising the clitoris.) in all it's forms, even for religious reasons. Yet this? A boy is apparently fair game... *Sigh* :disappointed: This is both a double standard and exhibits hypocrisy, like I said... This is easy to see. Even if you are for it I would guess. But yes, you're probably right. They'll be more stubborn than is warranted. What about if it were banned only for people that do not practice those beliefs then? Or wait... I guess you could run around flailing your arms screaming foul play at how unfair it is THEY get to cut their children. I cannot believe humans sometimes. I'll leave it here.

As for 12-year-olds discussing things -- especially sexual things -- with their parents, seemingly we're of a different age. When I was 12, it was unheard of. It just wasn't done. When my kids were 12, it was very much frowned upon and discouraged. Such things were kept secret from your kids for as long as possible, until you were forced into discussing them because of "events".

Well, however misguided their decision to circumcise me was, I suppose I just had good parents... They were able to speak openly about it, still changed nothing in how wrong it felt to me even having to bring it up. It just varies... Again, unfortunate luck of the draw. Or in my case, a bit better. I learned mostly from observing assorted critters too regardless. I was very interested in animals as a child.

One point is, we should not have to hide our bodies because Adam and Eve did not have to hide theirs. I think the "Adam and Eve" probably was more likely "Adams and Eves", a society of males and females. I've said before that I don't like hiding. I think the Bible indicates that God never liked hiding either. My theory on where foreskins fit into God's design for Adam or the Adams, is, they didn't. I can't believe God would create the beauty of the human penis, then cover it up. Just my speculation. There have been several discussions about where circumcision came from and why. The explanation I find most plausible is that men did not have foreskins in their original version. Foreskins came about, along with other changes, after "the Fall", for reasons unknown. There is, as said before, some evidence that men were circumcising themselves for a very long time before religion(s) began. The word that's translated "foreskin" in the Hebrew scriptures is "orlah", which also means, "barrier" or "obstruction". God seemingly was never a fan of coverings or barriers, consequently Clothesfree's use of God and Adam and Eve in its argument favoring nudism. It makes sense to me that since men were removing their barriers or obstructions long before God institutionalized circumcision, one reason for God's religious commandment was to return men to his original state or design.

Not meaning to be offensive. Just offering an alternative explanation. Just my opinion, as everybody knows.

That is a very creative way of looking at it from a religious standpoint, but with many things religious... It does depend entirely on how you personally deign to interpret it. I don't think of the foreskin as an impurity or something unholy... Even if, why does literally every other living creature on the planet god made have such a thing as a foreskin or penile sheath? Unless they're all aliens brought forth by satan. Or intelligent enough to have been affected by sin or the fall. Consider our relations to them... We are almost straight to the letter exactly the same in structure for the important stuff that matters. We have eyes, lungs, a heart, limbs, muscles, reproductive organs, even our own brain, etc... All of these you could find in any living mammal. Serving their purpose to keep the creature alive. I don't think man really is so special... The only true separation I think we have is our capacity for abstract thought and behavior. That is all. We even communicate the same ways as animals do when you consider it... Our spoken words are nothing more than sounds we attach meaning to. But that applies to visual signs and cues that we make too. Other species do that. I guess it just comes down to how people might be uncomfortable with thinking of themselves in such an insignificant way. Doesn't bother me, though. There are many things someone could say... And there are quite a lot of others someone else could. Who can say if that's really the reason for the foreskin? Do the religious texts bother to say anything else at all about other animals? Again... Choice.

Eagle59 said:

What is done is done and what is not done can be changed if you want.

That's just the thing. As a sentient human being, I shouldn't have had this forced onto me.

[walter05]

L2LTLARRY;
I have never said that any parents should be denied to circumcise their children. I am asking if the a 12, 13, or 17 year old should be permitted to have a circumcision done without parental permission?

Please reread my posts on the subject. I believe it should be up to the parents and never without parental consent.

Please reread my quote in your post here:

"One more question however, do you think that 12, 13, or even 17 year olds are mature enough to make such a dramatic decision as to have his foreskin removed without parental permission? The law does not and neither do I."

You attempt to use scripture to prove that it was not the creator's goal to have foreskins on human penises. If not, why are they there?
The fact that they are there indicates that they are there.

The creator commanded certain that certain males be circumcised. It is possible that those not commanded to be circumcised are not fulfilling the will of the creator for doing it when not told to do so.

It is not a correct use of scripture to support widespread circumcision. It does not.

[bobk]

I read this thread until discussion of the 'scriptures' started, at which point I got bored. My thinking is that there is no reason to remove foreskin except as religious tradition or peer pressure. The almost hysterical compulsion for cleanliness in this age offers ample opportunity to clean it, so there is little risk of infection.

[l2ltlarry]

By walter05:
Please reread my posts on the subject. I believe it should be up to the parents and never without parental consent.
I agree, to a point. My position is that parents retain the right to choose. But you are not going to stop any boy who chooses to do it to himself, parental consent be darned. I don't think kids are very much afraid of authority figures. I don't think parents telling a kid not to get circumcised without their consent would stop it. It wouldn't have stopped me, had I known at 12-years-old what I know now. Maybe I was different from kids nowadays? Or maybe not.


By walter05:
You attempt to use scripture to prove that it was not the creator's goal to have foreskins on human penises. If not, why are they there?
The fact that they are there indicates that they are there.

The creator commanded certain that certain males be circumcised. It is possible that those not commanded to be circumcised are not fulfilling the will of the creator for doing it when not told to do so.

It is not a correct use of scripture to support widespread circumcision. It does not.

First off, I believe in logic above all. And reason and common sense. I believe we have brains with intelligence and the creator expects us to use them. Your scripture and my scripture are not the same, just as what I derive from the scriptures that I do investigate usually differ vastly from nearly everyone else who read the same scriptures. Nearly everybody I've been in churches with take what they read from the Bible mostly at face value. My approach to the Bible is to try to figure out what God might possibly be trying to get at -- when logic, reason, and common sense are allowed into the equation. (And, to everyone: the Clothesfree homepage, I presume with Corky's approval, does use "the Bible", "God", and "Adam and Eve" in arguing for clothesfreedom.)

Your argument that foreskins must have been part of the original design or otherwise they wouldn't be there is the argument most everyone uses. They're natural, people say, so we shouldn't change what's natural.

We have clothes that we are required to wear. They were not part of the original design. Clothes came after the Fall. Nudism argues that we should not have to wear clothes; we should be able to live as we did pre-Fall. Hiding started with the Fall. Hiding was not part of the original design. Many things changed after the Fall. Why would it not be logical to believe that unhidden penises were pre-Fall and hidden penises were post-Fall? And unhiding them again closely tracks nudism which promotes unhiding the entire human body.

Your argument that God limited circumcision to a select people and denied it to everyone else doesn't pass my logic test. Circumcision was happening long before Genesis 17. And my scripture says it's a free choice. That is, don't command it and don't condemn it.

[l2ltlarry]

Someone28, I'm not ignoring your detailed response, which I appreciate. I'm trying to figure out how to respond and will post later.

[Someone28]

Someone28, I'm not ignoring your detailed response, which I appreciate. I'm trying to figure out how to respond and will post later.

That's fine. Take whatever time you will. There's no rush.

EDIT: A small little note on the side.

I don't think parents telling a kid not to get circumcised without their consent would stop it.

I can personally attest to this, but in an indirect way. (Not concerning circumcision) I was a rather mischievous little thing when I was young. I hid and tried to do many things in secret away from the watchful eyes of my parents. When caught, I would just try to lie convincingly. Overall I simply felt safer that way ironically... Even if it isn't really the smartest thing for me to have done, with childish curiosity at stake and whatnot. But who can blame a child that doesn't want to get caught and reprimanded or worse yet punished, really?

[walter05]

l2ltlarry;

You said, "I agree, to a point. My position is that parents retain the right to choose. But you are not going to stop any boy who chooses to do it to himself, parental consent be darned. I don't think kids are very much afraid of authority figures. I don't think parents telling a kid not to get circumcised without their consent would stop it. It wouldn't have stopped me, had I known at 12-years-old what I know now. Maybe I was different from kids nowadays? Or maybe not."

I was never in fear of my parents. I had a basic trust and understanding. I did my share of mischief as someone28 said when I was a teen ager. I just find the decision to cut off a piece of one's penis to be very drastic. I can't imagine having done that without their consent.

If a 12 or 13 year old is willing to cut off a piece of his penis without his parent's knowledge, that is so drastic it demonstrates to me that there must have been a lot of communication issues.

You also said, "Your scripture and my scripture are not the same, just as what I derive from the scriptures that I do investigate
usually differ vastly from nearly everyone else who read the same scriptures. "

If you have your own version of scripture, there is no way to compare. However, you can't use your own personal version to justify anything and then argue with others.

[l2ltlarry]

Notice I said "...what I derive...." Not my own personal version. I like to do "What if?" thinking and come to my own conclusions. As for your version and my version being different, I'm not Jewish.

An old preacher used to really hammer on people with this saying from the New Testament part of the Bible: "the scripture is of no private interpretation." And my response always was, "There's no other kind but private." His position was "Let me and those of us who know do your thinking for you." I like to "question everything" and figure it out for myself. I have confidence that I can come to as good a conclusion as anyone who wants to do my thinking for me.

I'm suggesting possible alternative ways that things might be or were. Obviously it's only my opinion (or speculation or guesses).

[l2ltlarry]

By walter05:
If a 12 or 13 year old is willing to cut off a piece of his penis without his parent's knowledge, that is so drastic it demonstrates to me that there must have been a lot of communication issues.
I remain baffled by your position. Your religion routinely cuts off pieces of babies and adult's penises. Yet if I do the same thing, it's "drastic".

That doesn't jibe.

As for "communication issues", Nope. At that point in my life, my and my parents communication was very "normal" whatever normal is. We didn't have any issues. Like Matt in Nip/Tuck, it never crossed my mind that I should tell them I was going to try to circumcise myself. I think that would be the norm for kids.

Again, I do not look at circumcision as drastic. Or detrimental, or mutilating, or ugly, or barbaric, or devastating, or harmful, or ghastly, or disfiguring. Or even excessively painful. I have always looked at it -- at least from about 11-years-old onward -- as a great blessing. As a body beautification technique. As highly desirable.

I grew up going to church and hearing sermons and studying the Bible. It was very common to hear about and study about circumcision. When the Bible says "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord", I just didn't find that drastic.

I have a very hard time figuring out where all of the people who've risen up against circumcision in this, the Internet age, are coming from. It seems like a pretty new and baffling phenomen to me.

[richo]

I have a very hard time figuring out where all of the people who've risen up against circumcision in this, the Internet age, are coming from. It seems like a pretty new and baffling phenomen to me.

It's actually pretty simple: you have a right to have your body as you want it. So does everyone else. Circumcising an infant violates that right. None of the justifications given - tradition, parental religion, aesthetics - are sufficient for violating that right.

That's it in a nutshell.

[azgreen]

121Larry wonders why and where we antii-circumcision folks are coming from.
From the depths of our guts, from instinct and common sense, from shear human compassion and the Golden Rule, it is a simple realization that circumcision is wrong. There's no reason to cut off living, healthy, sensitive, nerve-filled, purposeful structures from other humans, put there for a reason, without the consent of the owner.
That rule applies to everything else that has to do with the human body. Seems when many men today say, "No, that should not have been done to me," it trumps some lame notion that parents/guardians have the authority to do what they want to a minor. The foreskin is only an easy target because the cutting has been so pervasive through cultural folkways. But we know our cultures are burdens with horrific practices that had to end if civilization was to advance. Circumcision is crude and barbaric. Its defendants and apologists don't get it if they don't understand human rights, self-determination and medical ethics.

[TLCTugger]

I can't believe God would create the beauty of the human penis, then cover it up. Just my speculation. There have been several discussions about where circumcision came from and why. The explanation I find most plausible is that men did not have foreskins in their original version. Foreskins came about, along with other changes, after "the Fall", for reasons unknown.

If you could have admitted this earlier we would have saved a lot of time. Who would bother trying to reason with you?

-Ron

[l2ltlarry]

Parents have been making decisions for their babies and children for as long as there have been parents, babies, and children. Trying to change this, which is what has always been, by force of law cannot work. For better or worse, the Jews (at least some of them) and even moreso, the Muslims are not going to allow governments into their houses to tell them how to raise their children. Especially regarding circumcision, a practice they've maintained for thousands or hundreds of years. I don't want to demean or sell Muslims short, but it seems to me a Muslim might sooner cut your head off that to allow you to tell him how he's going to raise his children.

In your progressing down the road to world-wide circumcision prevention, this is a fact you are going to have to deal with. And if laws are passed which ban circumcision but make exceptions for the circumcising religions, then it seems obvious that this would violate the First Amendment.

I don't see how you accomplish giving human rights to babies to the extent which you propose. Getting there from here,I think, will present insurmountable challenges. At least insurmountable in the next hundred or several hundred years.

And the Golden Rule. Remember the Golden Rule was given by a man who had been circumcised when he was 8 days old, and as far as I can remember, he never opposed circumcision. Based on his statement that got him killed ("I and the father are one") and that God (the father) gave the command for circumcision, you could make the stretch argument, using this equals that, that the one who gave the Golden Rule commanded circumcision.

"It is a simple realization that circumcision is wrong" is not so simple given that the Golden Rule "guy" didn't think that. And unlike you, I don't have that same simple realization that it's wrong. Quite the opposite.

You are trying to create human rights which do not currently exist by saying "That rule applies...." The new human rights can exist in your gut but they have to exist in established law before they mean anything other than to you and others who agree with you. I think (again just my guess and opinion) that the best you and your fellow believers can hope for is to use your best powers of persuasion to get as many people as you can to stop circumcising their children. Because accomplishing your goals by law is not going to work anytime soon and maybe never.

Based on the principle that if you push people in in one place they tend to pop out someplace else (i.e., if the people at the top make a rule, the people at the bottom try to find ways to get around it), parents did not have to have the children who now hate them and take them to courts of law. Is it not possible that the campaign to hate and sue will cause future parents to revisit whether they want to have male children? It would just be acting in their own self-interest, would it not? They could say, I'm not taking the chance. If the baby we're going to have is a boy, we'll abort it. Once again, human perverseness, or unintended consequences.

Our parents did not have to have us. That seems simple enough that it might be a fact.

[l2ltlarry]

By TLCTugger:
If you could have admitted this earlier we would have saved a lot of time. Who would bother trying to reason with you?
Some Jewish scholars also believe that original males were not created with foreskins. Of course I don't know that and they don't know that. I gave my thought process for why I thought it could have been. Some people here say they believe the foreskin evolved. If it evolved, it didn't exist to start with, so my thinking is not much different than theirs.

[Someone28]

I don't know why this is so complicated.

It is never so complicated with milder forms of female circumcision. It all gets jacked outright no matter how small. So much hypocrisy. I just hate the human race more and more.

Unintended consequences. Exactly. This is pretty much what is happening today. With how people raise their kids. That's a part of where we are born into all this controversy. Even if what you say is valid, I consider that consequence is consequence... I doubt that line of thought about how precarious it all is will silence those who turn out to be upset. It is a risk parents take... It won't backfire in every case, but it can backfire. They should know and acknowledge this if they decide to circumcise. (Or also if they leave intact, but again, the only real concern here is choice.) If someone does not want to have a male child just because they cannot circumcise it I would actually be relieved... I don't think it deserves people like that. Changing societal perception will probably be enough for now.

Are you still thinking? I'm waiting for whatever you have to say.

[richo]

Parents have been making decisions for their babies and children for as long as there have been parents, babies, and children. Trying to change this, which is what has always been, by force of law cannot work.
Actually, that's exactly what's happening. Try withholding vital medical care from your children for religious reasons and see what happens. Try "disciplining" your children with violence and see what happens. Try marrying your son or daughter off at a young age and see what happens. Society is waking up to the fact that parents do not always do what is in the best interests of their children, and that children *do* have rights regardless of what their parents think.

Our parents did not have to have us. That seems simple enough that it might be a fact.
That does not, in return, imply that we are owned by our parents or owe anything more than a debt of gratitude (if that); to my knowledge, no child ever asked to be conceived. Modern society does not condone slavery or human ownership in any way, shape or form - and that includes between parents and children. Parents have the right to make certain decisions for children, but they also have the obligation to see to the well-being of the child; if society decides parents are not upholding that obligation, it removes the parents from the equation.

The concept of the absolute rights of parents to govern their children has gone by the wayside, and activities like circumcision - which bear no benefit to the child but do cause distress and permament damage - are being outlawed or restricted. Circumcision is, merely, one of the more recent additions to scrutiny.

[walter05]

By walter05:

I remain baffled by your position. Your religion routinely cuts off pieces of babies and adult's penises. Yet if I do the same thing, it's "drastic".

That doesn't jibe.

As for "communication issues", Nope. At that point in my life, my and my parents communication was very "normal" whatever normal is. We didn't have any issues. Like Matt in Nip/Tuck, it never crossed my mind that I should tell them I was going to try to circumcise myself. I think that would be the norm for kids.

Again, I do not look at circumcision as drastic. Or detrimental, or mutilating, or ugly, or barbaric, or devastating, or harmful, or ghastly, or disfiguring. Or even excessively painful. I have always looked at it -- at least from about 11-years-old onward -- as a great blessing. As a body beautification technique. As highly desirable.

I grew up going to church and hearing sermons and studying the Bible. It was very common to hear about and study about circumcision. When the Bible says "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord", I just didn't find that drastic.

I have a very hard time figuring out where all of the people who've risen up against circumcision in this, the Internet age, are coming from. It seems like a pretty new and baffling phenomen to me.

It is true that a baby would have the circumcision due to the parents making the decision. However, circumcision is considered a potentially life threatening and serious operation.

Circumcision is a major operation. It should be with the consent of the parents. I actually think minors should also get permission for piercings and tattoos.

I will not argue scripture with someone who has his own private version.

[bobk]

For greater certainty, no.

[MeBNude]

By TLCTugger:

Some Jewish scholars also believe that original males were not created with foreskins. Of course I don't know that and they don't know that. I gave my thought process for why I thought it could have been. Some people here say they believe the foreskin evolved. If it evolved, it didn't exist to start with, so my thinking is not much different than theirs.

"Evolved?" Now I find this a curious thought. All male mammals have foreskins, but humans did not? Does this mean that all mammals evolved, too? Mind you, I've not seen the male genitals of all mammals, but things like dogs, horses, elephants... those come to mind as I came up with this question.:p

[TLCTugger]

All male mammals have foreskins, but humans did not?

No, all mammals have foreskins.

things like dogs, horses, elephants... come to mind

All with foreskins, yes.

[Knarfje]

I was never, and never will be circumsized, without any medical reason!

[smktsd]

I am not, and will never be. I simply cant see the desire to mutilate the natural beauty of the human body, let alone without a choice on the part of the "surgical recipient". I can say for sure that *most* guys I grew up with were circumcised, and in my high school the ratio was probably 70%-30%.

As I understand it, infant circumcision in the US is on a decline, and I think thats a good thing!

[Moontan]

Yes I am, but not by my choice.

[baboon]

deleted in protest

[chadnude]

Yep, its obvious but i never talk bout it with anyone cept other nudists. Never really come up in converation as such

[FireProf]

Yep, its obvious but i never talk bout it with anyone cept other nudists. Never really come up in converation as such

.....and why should it matter? Almost ALL circumcisions are done while the male is an infant and the infant has no control over what his parents decision is on the procedure.

So now we have "nudists/naturists" discussing the relevance, need, cleanliness and aesthetic appeal of something ALL had no control over.

Does it really matter?

[Lord Drakkus]

So now we have "nudists/naturists" discussing the relevance, need, cleanliness and aesthetic appeal of something ALL had no control over.

Does it really matter?

What's said here is likely to influence the choices of some of the new parents reading this thread who were "on the fence" as to whether or not to circumcise their newborn son. So yes, it does matter.

I do know she wont give oral sex to a flacid guy with a foreskin, he has to wait untill he is erect. and drawn back.

That just means your sister is biased. Although I can't imagine giving oral sex to ANY flaccid penis... Where's the fun in that?

[wee triangle]

I'm glad I'm uncut, I'm convinced it's the more natural way to be. I also think it looks better too (as the picture of the day shows).

One female comment i've seen compared circumcision to unwrapping presents before you are given them.

[FireProf]

[QUOTE=Lord Drakkus;240579]What's said here is likely to influence the choices of some of the new parents reading this thread who were "on the fence" as to whether or not to circumcise their newborn son. So yes, it does matter.



So you need 104 pages of this stuff to give your opinion!? Or are both sides just trying to beat their opinions into the undecided!!?

:D

[pelagius]

[QUOTE=FireProf;240577 Almost ALL circumcisions are done while the male is an infant ... QUOTE]

This is not quite true in the UK, where infant circ is (outside Judaism and Islam) quite rare. Circumcisions are regularly performed here on adults (18+), often for medical reasons, but increasingly for personal choice. This includes simple preference for the look, although many nudists I know feel (as do I)that the bare glans means total nudity. It is mainly for this reason that, after many years of having my foreskin rolled back, I have decided to get circumcised.

So here there is more consent.

[Petrus]

This includes simple preference for the look, although many nudists I know feel (as do I)that the bare glans means total nudity. It is mainly for this reason that, after many years of having my foreskin rolled back, I have decided to get circumcised.
.

That is completely beyond my comprehension!

[jason_boomer23]

i had top get it donr for medical reasons in my early 20's, the foreskin was to snug to retract, so cleaning and sex were uncomfortable.

having it done was sore because of my age, no-one wants stitches on their penid, but after a couple of weeks it was back to normal

i personally prefer the look of it, but some of the sensitivity has been lost due to constant friction with underwear

would i prefer to still have my foreskin? yes, but its better now then the way before

[azgreen]

A female Jewish filmmaker did a film on circumcision, but a very lame writer for Salon, named Joy Press, attempted to write about the project. She simply didn't get what the fuss was about. Horrible job. Pathetic. Fortunately most of the 563 comments that followed her article set her straight and passionately laid out the case as to why routine infant circumcision is unacceptable in a humane and civilized world. Make sure to check out the comments that follow:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/04/30/circumcision/index.html

[Azmexmale50]

Hello,Interesting Thread here.Seems to me but this is my opinion only.I think it should be a matter of choice to the individual whether he should keep his foreskin or not.Males are Born with foreskin for a reason I would say.Im not Circumsized which I'm Glad I'm not.

[Aaron]

What's up everyone! I am Aaron from the Nudes in the News. I have seen this topic for years in these forums. I am uncircumsized and have been living healthy and happy this way for 29yrs now. I really don't see one single vital reason why men should be circumsized. The biggest reason that has always been talked about is that it is unhealthy. All that means to me is that one must wash it each day. Is that really all that hard of a chore. come on now folks.....

[Dave5]

Aaron,

Good comments.

I'm not circumsized and wash every day. That doesn't mean it takes me an extra 45 minutes in the shower to do so, maybe 10 - 15 seconds. Also, I assume guys who are circumsized also wash their penis so in the end there is no difference in the cleanup department between circumsized and uncircumsized.

I say if you're happy circumsized or uncircumsized that was is the big issue.

Dave

[Dave5]

Meant to say...

if you're happy circumsized or uncircumsized then what is the big issue

[azgreen]

Dave5, you asked, "Whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, what's the big difference?"
Clearly if you have read anything in the marathon thread on circumcision, you cannot miss what the big deal is: It's simple: The right to have make our own decisions about our own bodies. Sovereignty over all parts of it. The crappy issue is that more often than not, misinformed parents thoughtlessly decided themselves to have our foreskins hacked off to satisfy some flawed idea of theirs, failing to recognize that even the most loving parent should not be having healthy body parts chopped off.
The foreskin is an integral part of the working penis, providing sexual mechanics, lubrication, protection, satisfaction and wholeness. Don't sell the foreskin short. I restored mine as best as possible more than a decade ago, and I can tell you it is heckuva a lot better to have a foreskin than not.
If you say, "No big deal," you are ignoring the basic right to self-determination over one's own body and being safe in it. Like it or not, circumcision is nothing more than institutionalized sexual assault on the helpless.

[Dave5]

Azgreen,

All points well taken,

When I said that I was thinking more of one's current status vs if it should have been done at all. Are a lot of guys unhappy because they are circumsized? Maybe...I'm not that well informed in that area.

It was a subject of discussion in my own house. I'm not circumsized but my 3 sons are. I didn't want that and my wife did. Her reason...if they are ever in a locker room she'd not want them to feel out of place since most would be circumsized. A lame excuse at best but someone had to win and someone had to loose...I lost.

I agree the foreskin is there for a reason....now I also know why this topic never ends.

[Aaron]

Dave5-

On the subject of young public humiliation, I can definitely relat to that. I was very involved in Waterpolo, swimming, and wrestlimg during high school. I can vividly remember waitnig to use the showers til most were done and even then, i tried to keep the skin pulle dback in case anyone saw. Even tho I did that, most my friends knew and sometimes teased me. Even though, none of that actually affected my lifestyle in anyway. Most of my girlfreinds or girls that i have become sexually involved with have actually had a bit of fascination with it. (in a good way). As a general statement, If anyone is worried about their childs humiliation in teenage years, dont let that stop you from making your decision. It really is not that big of a deal.

[vintagecarguy]

Azgreen,
Her reason...if they are ever in a locker room she'd not want them to feel out of place since most would be circumsized. A lame excuse at best but someone had to win and someone had to loose...I lost.

I agree the foreskin is there for a reason....now I also know why this topic never ends.

In some parts of California now the circumcised boy will be the odd man out.

Fashion is never a good reason to cut the flesh of an individual who cannot consent to it.
No matter what, kids will torture kids,big ears,small ears,too tall,too short,fat,skinny...it's a never ending list.

oh,and you didn't loose...you have choice being intact...your sons are the ones who lost.I hope they don't suffer the hell I did as a teen from the butcher job done on me.
May they be content and happy but have the wisdom to protect any sons they have when they grow up.

just a little P.S.
And I ENVIED the 1 intact guy I knew in high school,he never woke up to bloody sheets.I teased him about his buggy eyes and loosing his hair young....never his good fortune of being left whole.And his wife likes him whole and regrets cutting her boys from a previous marriage.

[Dave5]

Not being circumcised was a big issue that kept me from nude recreation for many years, I knew I'd be the odd man out. Then I got to thinking at a nudist resort would anyone even notice? And if they did would anyone really care? In the end I figured it was my own insecurity with it and if that stopped me from going it wasn't much of a reason.

My first time when the pants finally came off I realized I worried way to much about it. Nobody screamed in horror at the sight of a foreskin and life went on.

Side note: I'm 52 from a small town in upstate NY. For many years the only GP around delivered all the babies and he didn't believe in circumcision. So in that small area the intact guys probable did outnumber the circumcised guys.

[Dave5]

Dave5-

On the subject of young public humiliation, I can definitely relat to that. I was very involved in Waterpolo, swimming, and wrestlimg during high school. I can vividly remember waitnig to use the showers til most were done and even then, i tried to keep the skin pulle dback in case anyone saw. Even tho I did that, most my friends knew and sometimes teased me. Even though, none of that actually affected my lifestyle in anyway. Most of my girlfreinds or girls that i have become sexually involved with have actually had a bit of fascination with it. (in a good way). As a general statement, If anyone is worried about their childs humiliation in teenage years, dont let that stop you from making your decision. It really is not that big of a deal.

Aaron , in looking back many years to that time in my life I realize if that wasn't the issue it would have been something else. Too fat, too skinney, too short , too tall, too many pimples, etc. Kids can be brutal.

I've seen you on some of the Clothesfree episodes and you are obviously quite comfortable with your body and not freaked or embarassed by having a foreskin. Your example helped nudge me out the door to try nude recreation and quit worring about my body appearance and the not being circumcised issue. My only regret is I didn't do it years ago...but better late then never.

[TLCTugger]

Are a lot of guys unhappy because they are circumcised?

YES. Hundreds of thousands of men are non-surgically restoring their foreskins to get back a measure of the lost sexual function.

In some parts of California now the circumcised boy will be the odd man out.

Over three-fourths of California's babies are being left intact. Oregon, Washington, and Nevada aren't far behind.

[NaturalSwede]

I'm 62 and in my day it was not done as much, so I am not circumcised. I've never had trouble pulling back the foreskin for cleaning and I usually keep it pulled back anyway. It is interesting that now the pediatricians are saying it really isn't necessary to do for health reasons. At some point the uncircumcised (in the non-Jewish population) will equal the circumcised in number.

[scottwilliamsonoc]

I am circumsized. I judging from all the visits to locker rooms, nude beach, etc.. I would say around 85 to 90% are in the US.

[Archaewok1]

Im circumsized. And even though it may have been painful as a child, I think I actually prefer being circumsized. I don't have to worry about extra cleaning or infections as much. And besides, I was like less than a week old or something when they circumsized me- I just went through the traumatic experience of birth, a tiny bit more pain that I won't remember years later probably won't matter much.

[MeBNude]

I don't have to worry about extra cleaning or infections as much.

O.K., here is an unexperienced female question prompted by Archae's comment... this is why I am glad that the male and female "issues" forums are open to all...

While I have seen medical literature that states that the uncircumcized have more issues with cleanliness and infection... is that the experience of the uncircumsized here? I would think that might be an issue for the very young male, while he is learning about cleaning himself. But later in life???

We females have our nooks and crannies that need cleaning and we have the same learning curve.

[baregreg]

We females have our nooks and crannies that need cleaning and we have the same learning curve.
Just a suggestion. You may be allergic to "Thomas' English Muffins".
and The nooks and crannies cleaning guide (http://www.improvingyourworld.com/home/the_nooks_and_crannies_cleaning_guide_002241.html) :D

[TLCTugger]

the uncircumcized have more issues with cleanliness and infection... is that the experience of the uncircumsized here?
The cleanliness thing is pure BS.

First of all, the AAP says this about cleaning infants: "LEAVE IT ALONE," as in wipe the end of the foreskin clean, and rinse, and end it. The foreskin protects the meatus from abrasion and keeps diaper mess out of the urinary tract. Some people get outdated advice about retracting to clean within the infant's or toddler's foreskin and this ABSOLUTELY ILL-ADVISED. ONLY THE OWNER should ever retract a foreskin (other than during consensual sex acts of course). Forcing a child's foreskin back INJURES the skin and glans, and creates the lesions that have led in the past to increased rates of infection for intact kids. Premature retraction also leads to stunted skin growth that leaves the adult with a short foreskin that may roll off the glans and expose it to drying and abrasion from clothing and air.

As for older kids and adults, there is zero chance that a male will need cajoling to roll the foreskin back in the shower and rinse with some wanking motions.

Any male who is fresh enough for a date (showered recently so the pits don't stink, the hair doesn't look matted, the face doesn't look greasy) will have a penis that smells as sweet as any female's genitals.

That said, if I'm remodeling a bathroom or something and have sex on a Friday and then work all weekend on the bathroom without showering until Monday, they would smell me coming at work Monday if I didn't wash the foreskin and glans with soap.

To conform to societal norms people need to wash, whether they're male or female, intact or circumcised.

[klprcl80]

Yes I am, although personally, cut or uncut does not bother me or my wife. :rolleyes:

[birdie]

I am not circumsized and it doesn't bother me. My wife neither.

[syltfan]

No, in germany men normally not circumsized.... it is all nature :)

[mlrm201]

I am Jewish, so I did not have a choice. And gladly, I do not remember it at all. I have nephews and grandnephews now, and I have been to their bris. They give some wine to the infant after it all over, but by the way the kid cries it is definitely not enough alcohol.

[vatisdat]

nope and that sounds a little depressing with the whole wine thing :(

[dan t]

My 6th grandchild was brought in to our world yesterday!
I tryed to talk my daughter out of having him cut but to day he will have to be done.
But at least he is in good health.

[vintagecarguy]

My 6th grandchild was brought in to our world yesterday!
I tryed to talk my daughter out of having him cut but to day he will have to be done.
But at least he is in good health.

I'm so sorry to read that but congratulations on the healthy birth and may he be sparred any of the side effects that trouble me or others.

I wish him peace and long life.

[x1wildone]

I am as I was created and the wife loves it, I would not have it any other way.

[leeph]

won't do it if i have a son