are you circumsized

[Jennifer1]

I was just talking with a guy from here on MSN, and he told me something that i found hard to believe i was hoping that you americans here could confirm if you think its true or not

The conversation came to circumsision.

Matt says:
well the time I was born there was a thing in the US where they thought it was a health risk if you weren't

Matt says:
almost everyone in the USA gets circumsized

Matt says:
well In the USA if your not circumsized then most women don't like you

Matt says:
almost everyone is as far as I know

Tell me is this true? DO you really mutilate your little baby boys like that, makes me cringe and i dont even have a penis to have it mutilated.

[Petrus]

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!

[JayFromFLA]

If you're asking if more people are, than not, then yes. I think about 80% of American men are circumsized.

Someone correct me, if I am wrong.

[DoctorSurferDude]

That sounds about right Jay.....

I guess that's the END of this topic. Yay http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[nudist C]

No I'm am not circumsized my parent did not belive in it and my boys are not.My wife like me the way I'm.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:

I guess that's the END of this topic. Yay http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

*sigh* Wishful thinking, Doc, wishful thinking... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jennifer1]

oh thats sick, seriously, chopping off such a sensitive part of the body, causing the baby so much pain.

[clothesareuseless]

What they said is basically true, though the percentage has declined considerably since the late 60's when I was born and was left intact because I was very premature.

While in High school, (O levels), out of 200 boys in my class, 3 of us weren't circumcised.

Women in the US are very ignorant of the differences and consider being uncut grounds to end a relationship. Or they want you to get circumcised before they will consummate the relationship.

[malestorm11]

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.

[need2Bnude]

Maybe we should do a poll, or is it necessary http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/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?

[FireProf]

Originally posted by malestorm11:
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.


Here we go again!!!! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FireProf has left the building!!! Well at least this topic! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[cirram]

Here in Canada they stopped circumsizing in the late 70s early 80s. Now they only do it for religion or medical needs.

[Mosquito_Bait]

I vaguely recall that only one boy in my junior high school gym class was not circumcised. I remember a friend pointing at him in the locker room and explaining, "He was born in Spain."

[sw1sweendog]

jennifer,as a woman, how do you know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the body.my guess is that only a man,who had one growing up,and got it cut later in life could explain that one.as far as im concerned the balls hurt the most when hit http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[HereticChick]

It is the parent's choice; no one makes them do it. But Jewish people have been doing it for YEARS and they are still cool with it. So it can't be entirely that bad if an entire race of people have done it since the days of Moses. Be easy.

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

[Sailor]

HereticChick said:

"I think if you want to have your son circumsized, then you should be the one to hold him down and you should have to watch."
-------------

I have been present during a number of religious Jewish circumcisions, and the parents and grandparents were there, it is even part of the ceremony for the father to tell the man who is doing the operation that he gives him permission to do it on his behalf. And then he stands right there with him. The baby generally hardly makes a peep, or cries for maybe a minute. Maybe part of this issue is that apparaently, by the horror stories that I have read in various threads in this website, there are doctors out there who are doing the operation incompetently. The men who make it their specialty and are trained specifically for this, don't seem to make such a disasterous event out of it.

HereticChick, have you ever watched a circumcism being done? Is it based on that experience that you know that you consider it a terrible thing to watch?

[vintagecarguy]

Thank you HereticChick;
the world could use more caring people like you.

[HereticChick]

QUOTE]HereticChick, have you ever watched a circumcism being done? Is it based on that experience that you know that you consider it a terrible thing to watch?[/QUOTE]

I'm a mother and yes I've seen it done. To intentionally hurt my child is reprehensible. Especially if it's for only cosmetic reasons. I don't want to hear the crap about fewer infections and keeping it clean...those are cop-outs. It's not necessary and a majority of the worlds male population does NOT have it done. It's not that I'm squeamish, I worked in a hospital ER andn I've seen some things you would never wish to see. As far as religious reasons go, I think those are crap also. It's time society evolved beyond such rituals and dogma.

[nudeaussie]

As an Australian nudist, i'm not circumcised and most wome have told me that they like a foreskin on a guy because it adds more to play with and they look good.

[Petrus]

It is not unknown for infections to occur as the result of a circumcision. Not long ago I read a report that a boy had been brought up as a girl after it had been necessary to amputate his gangrenous penis. If parents were really worried about the remote risk of future infections, it would make more sense to have babies’ appendices removed, as on rare occasions people die from complications arising from appendicitis.

[RalphVa]

Infections are also possible with uncircumsized penises in adult life. I was a medic in Vietnam. One of our patients came in with really green crud underneath his foreskin. Doc's prescription was to circumsize him (sent him to hospital for this). Otherwise, it was almost impossible to get it cleaned out and well.

For myself, I was supposedly circumsized but have enough foreskin to roll it over the glans in relaxed state. It'll easily roll back for cleaning and air if the penis enlarges much at all.

When I got drafted, my foreskin was still tight. After going home and having lots of sex during those leaves, the foreskin became more flexible.

[David77]

<center>WASH IT - DON'T CHOP IT</center>

[Jennifer1]

Originally posted by sw2sweendog:
jennifer,as a woman, how do you know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the body.my guess is that only a man,who had one growing up,and got it cut later in life could explain that one.as far as im concerned the balls hurt the most when hit http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
After posting this topic i googled cirumsision and found these anti web sites that said this, which i believe is true since there is alot of nerves in it.

Its barbaric, i mean female cirumsion is Illegal in the US is it not? Why allow the male version to keep going.

Its sick, just because the baby is young and wont conciously remember it doesnt give you the right to do it to them, they should have the choice since it don't grow back.

[NudistGuy47]

I was present for both the ritual circumcisions of my sons and neither cried. To me it is about carrying on the covenant with G_d and not about torture.

As to non-religuous circumcision, I believe it should be left to the boy to choose when he can understand the benefits or detriments to the operation.

[naturalmanwa]

I am not circumcised because the doctor in the small town where I was born didn't believe in it(at least that's what I was told). My son is not either, and we have never had any medical problems. A little soap and water goes a long way.

[nakedmason]

I'm a pediatrician. Circumcision is no more mutilation than piercing a baby's ears, or for that matter, allowing a teenager to pierce anything. I perform the procedure on about 1/2 of my patients with the other 1/2 choosing not to do it. It is a regional and religious issue. As for pain, standard of care dictates that doctors use anesthesia during the procedure. Unless we are going to outlaw ALL body modifications for children under the age of 18 (which defines a legal adult in the US) then circumcisions should continue as they have for many hundreds of years.
...just an uncivilized opinion from a American barbarian

[azgreen]

Whenever you hear a circumcised male says, "I am happy with being circumcised," dismiss it, along with such comments as "I have the best wife in the whole world" and "Nebraska is the best place to live" or "I am lucky to be a Polish-American." All meaningless. All mindless rationalization. It should never be the pretext for have wholesale circumcisions imposed on the helpless, defenseless and voiceless. Fundamentally, males should have the right to decide for themselves. Otherwise what is gone is forever gone.
Circumcision should be looked at for what it is: a blatant amputation of a purposeful, living, functional structure of the human body. If we respect anything, we should embrace the universal human right to sovereignty over our own bodies. It is not a body for parents to impose their cultural, religious or peculiar caprices and fancies. All that nonsense "that it's cleaner," "the kid won't get teased" or they'll have .001 percent chance of a disease versus .1 percent of the cut male are all so laughable and tragic. Truth is circumcision rates are coming down to only about 50 percent in the U.S. and even lower in the American West. They tyranny of cultural practices is gradually losing its grip. I like what the noted anthropolist Desmond Morris (author of te Naked Ape") wrote in his book, "Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior. (page 229):
"...the only widespread forms of permanent body mutilation that still survive, apart from sailors' tatoos, are the piercing of ears for earrings and the cutting off of the foreskin in the ritual of circumcision. Tribal mutilations, such as lip-plugging, tooth-filling, ear-stretching and the removal of parts of the female genitals, have failed to find favor in the modern world. Circumcision is, in fact, the only really severe form of primitive mutilation to have resisted the modern trend toward abhorrence of body violation. If, as used to be the case, it was performed at puberty, instead of at infancy, that too would no doubt have vanished long ago, swept away by the outrage of the initiates. But the protest of babies are more easily ignored, and with the false accolade of medical hygiene to help it on its way, the genital deforming of young males continues unabated."
Wake up, folks. A foreskin is a structure that belongs where nature/God put it. The vast majority of us who have one appreciate what we have. Our son is grateful we had the good sense to leave him intact and that we respected his wholeness.

[Unwired]

I agree with azgreen's statements, in particular the dismissibility of being "happy" with one's own status as cut or uncut, lacking any basis for comparison between the two. I have no opinion on myself being circumcised as opposed to being uncircumcised; it was done to me shortly after birth and don't know of being any other way. That being said, while I would prefer that I had been left intact and been allowed to make the decision for myself, it's not exactly something I lose sleep over, again for the reason stated above: I have no knowledge of being uncircumcised.

However, based on what I have read, the health and hygiene-related rationalizations for automatic circumcision are highly unconvincing, and I appreciate the passionate arguments made by HereticChick and others who are against it. If I ever have a son, he will be able to rest easy knowing (or not knowing http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) what was not done to him without his consent.



Unwired, not uncut, but unfazed nonetheless

[nudist_in_Tn]

yes

[luvnaturism]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
Circumcision is as barbaric as female circumcision.

Obviously you're uninformed as to what "female circumcision" entails. You might want to consider some research.

[Jennifer1]

Isnt nudism about being natural, its not natural to remove the foreskin for no reason, i mean its not like an apendix that needs to be removed when it becomes (what ever it becomes when you need to remove it), so how can nudist parents do it to there children do they not truly believe in being natural is it all just a big act?

Obviously you're uninformed as to what "female circumcision" entails. You might want to consider some research.
i aint done no research and i dont plan to on it but im under the impression that its the removal of part or all of the clit (thats what i remember it from visiting the glasgow museum of religious art a couple of weeeks ago). that sounds pretty barberic, which maybe is much worse than taking off a peice of a guys man hood, but still its barbaric.

[TANZ]

Who cares.
Just enjoy what you have,enjoy the sun on it,and relax.No worries mate.

Naturally Kiwi http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Buzzer]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifTANZ:
Right, mate!

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by Jennifer1:
Isnt nudism about being natural, its not natural to remove the foreskin for no reason
In the U.S. this has been very common practice for quite a long while. It is only recently that this has even been a topic that anyone real cares about. For most people, they couldn't care less.

[Jennifer1]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jennifer1:
Isnt nudism about being natural, its not natural to remove the foreskin for no reason
In the U.S. this has been very common practice for quite a long while. It is only recently that this has even been a topic that anyone real cares about. For most people, they couldn't care less. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This whole thing just doesnt exist in the UK, i mean we only have like 250,000 Jews at max and ive never met one (recon they live mainly around the south of england), the idea of cutting off your kids foreskin wouldn't be accepted.

[HereticChick]

Obviously you're uninformed as to what "female circumcision" entails. You might want to consider some research.

Oh yes, I am quite informed about it and what it entails. I wouldn't even torture you with the details, it's so horrific.

[HereticChick]

This whole thing just doesnt exist in the UK, i mean we only have like 250,000 Jews at max and ive never met one (recon they live mainly around the south of england), the idea of cutting off your kids foreskin wouldn't be accepted.

Some people consider parts of Europe and the UK more socially advanced than the US. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Rabid_Clam]

I fail to see any laudible arguement supporting female circumcision but as to males there is benefit to be had if done correctly. i am circumcised and actually am glad for it. As a young child I had problems so I can remember the event of it being done to me. Was painful for a bit but again, am glad for it to have been done. It was done well also where not too much skin was removed so my penis will erect well and with slack skin still available.

So when will this topic ever end? Seems it comes up again and again and again...

[David77]

When I was age 21, the doctor said that circumcision would be good for me, as it would let my "trapped" penis fall down. I did not find that I was in any way "trapped", but I consented to circumcision.

From first hand experience I can report that it is very painful, as the incision aches tremendously. An ointment must be applied to the cut and a bandage applied to the swollen, red ugly cut. Walking and getting a nights sleep was difficult because of the pain and rawness. I was in anguish for having this painful proceedure done.
Those who are circumcised have no first hand knowledge of how greatly sensitive the head of the flacid penis is on an uncircumcised person - circumcision reduces a males sensitivity.

Please don't try to destroy Mothers Nature's gift of a forskin to all males.

[Ben_m]

At the risk of perpetuating what a few will probably see as a worn out topic, I'm going to basically agree with Unwired, specifically:

- I lack any first-hand basis for comparison between the two as it was done to me shortly after birth

- I would have preferred to have been left in tact, but the decision wasn't left to me to make

- I don't lose sleep over it, what was done was done

- If I ever have a son (very unlikely, apparently, I only know how to have daughters), he will be left alone


Incidentally, in my little neck of the woods, so many males are circumcised that I didn't even know what it looked like/meant exactly not to be until becoming a naturist a few years ago and hiking with a guy that wasn't. I didn't mention to him that he was offering me, at my semi-advanced age (well into my 30's), a long overdue 'education' http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[usuallylurk]

Everyone seems to miss the number one non-religious reason that circumcision is still performed in North America =

"Junior should look like Daddy."

In the 40s-50s-60s, circumcision was done because it was "the thing to do". When I was a youngster, everyone went to the hospital to have their tonsils out because "it was the thing to do". Today, there seems to be an obsession with putting drainage tubes into little kids' ears.

This operation has seemed to supplant circumcision and tonsillectomy as the trendy medical procedure on your kids.

Our daughter was born in 1977. We did not know whether we were going to have a girl or boy but we were asked - if it's a boy, do you want to have him ... to which we gave an emphatic NO! Most people in the United States and Canada have access to showers and baths.

[Toffer]

Answer from me is yes I am and Im cool with being that way. But ive read some of the other posts and I see other people saying this or that but for me, im fine with it. But if i was not, id be fine with it too. All my friends are except one but no one says anything about it. Im fine! Its fine! Thanks.
-Chris

[PaulC]

I feel very lucky that I was allowed to keep my foreskin even though I usually was the only boy in my gym class to be uncut. Nature/God designed us this way so why should we change our bodies?

[Fresh Air]

As far as religious reasons go, I think those are crap also. It's time society evolved beyond such rituals and dogma.

HereticChick,
I think that may be a little judgemental of religious people. Culture is VERY important to some people. And many religous people feel oppositely; that the greatest evolution of the mind is done by going towards religion. Religion is not just about rituals and dogma.

Those who are circumcised have no first hand knowledge of how greatly sensitive the head of the flacid penis is on an uncircumcised person - circumcision reduces a males sensitivity.

David77,
There is a big difference with the skin structure and sensation nerves of the penis when comparing a newborn to an adult.

Some views:
Is there a risk with circumsicion? Yes, but it's not a big risk at all.

Is there a risk with no circumsicion? Yes, but it's also not a big risk at all (very small actually) except in certain genetic populations.

The incidence of the choice of circumsicion in america has declined. Even so, people still perform them for their boys. It's a family choice and parents are often present. Traditionally, newborns are not "cut" they don't have to be. Older kids go to the operating room and are anesthesised. It is not very traumatic at all and the "sensitive" parts are kept. The operation is for medical reasons the vast majority of the time. Thank goodness for the option, huh?

It's not the only quirk of our society. If you haven't noticed, people go under the knife for many reasons. Try to find a nude beach without a set of plastic breasts. That is MUCH more dangerous and MUCH more painful, yet people do it anyhow...and why?

Also, for some strange reason, people in modern cultures cut their hair. Hair provides protection too. Yet men shave and trim. Women shave their legs and underarms. Why? Should we not allow a God made natural state? If a hair is growing from a womans chin or out a mans nose we bow to the biases of society and remove it, forgetting that God doesn't care if we leave it there because it's part of his creation.

I don't think I'm an advocate for or against it. I see a natural state as a good option, yet I don't feel circumsision is harmful enough to ban. People should live free in free contries. Maybe once the abortion issue is settled, then we can start worrying about a tiny peice of skin taken off of another baby.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter...

...and I'm wondering why I wrote so much on the topic, hehe.

Fresh Air

[HereticChick]

As far as religious reasons go, I think those are crap also. It's time society evolved beyond such rituals and dogma.

HereticChick,
I think that may be a little judgemental of religious people. Culture is VERY important to some people. And many religous people feel oppositely; that the greatest evolution of the mind is done by going towards religion. Religion is not just about rituals and dogma.


Personally, I feel that religious culture has done more harm than good in all countries, not just the US. So if I'm judgemental, then so be it. I won't apologize for my opinions. It's religious culture that has a direct effect on the laws in this nation which holds sway over not only my body, but the bodies of every woman in this country. It is religious culture that brought about the genocide of an entire race of people in this country. It is religious culture that keeps women continuously subjugated to men. Judgemental may be a little "nice" for a description. Bitter might actually be a better descriptor for my mood.


I don't think I'm an advocate for or against it. I see a natural state as a good option, yet I don't feel circumsision is harmful enough to ban. People should live free in free contries. Maybe once the abortion issue is settled, then we can start worrying about a tiny peice of skin taken off of another baby.

It's only tiny if it's not YOUR skin, I'm sure. And the amputation of a vital part of your body would aggravate you, I'm sure. How about we start cutting off just the tips of mens noses when they're born? It's just a tiny piece of skin, right? How about both earlobes, that way we can make sure no man wears earrings again. I think you belittle the situation. It's an unnecessary procedure that cause unnecessary pain to an innocent child. It should be up to the child if he wants to engage in "body modification".

[BlobbyBob]

I'm not cut and glad, I wouldn't mutilate a child based on my own beliefs or for a bogus medical reason when thay child had no say in it, and I wouldn't have liked it done to me. Fortunately I live in the UK so it isn't as common here anyway.

I'm not religious but even if I was I wouldn't force any part of my own religion on a child who may decide to follow different beliefs, and if anyone truly loved their child they would not have them cut for a stupid old religious reason anyway.

If a religion said you had to remove a leg would that be done?

[Hooked]

Why was this topic resurrected (pun intended)?

[DoctorSurferDude]

Those who are circumcised have no first hand knowledge of how greatly sensitive the head of the flacid penis is on an uncircumcised person - circumcision reduces a males sensitivity.

So...would it be fair to assume that uncircumcised men last longer in bed, even though they can't enjoy it as much?

maybe not fair.

Old Topic....

[l2ltlarry]

I know those who hold primary influence on this forum at ClothesFree nowadays don't appreciate my input. Since DoctorSurferDude (with help from FireProf) who said he wasn't trying to shut down the Penn and Teller discussion on this subject pretty much stopped my and everybody else's replies to that thread, I haven't posted again at ClothesFree. I suppose that makes Doc and Fire(I don't know if Prof holds this opinion as well as Fire), and Hooked and Unwired and many others of like persuasion, happy. When that unmentionable teenager left CFF, she said you all seem to be a mutual appreciation society. I'd always heard it as mutual admiration society, but I like her way of saying it better. (Maybe you don't mutually appreciate each other, but you definitely are not kindly toward dissent and alternate ways of thinking--like mine.) When it comes to genitals and their discussion here, the primary influencers immediately begin with "Familiar", "Repetitive", "Dead Horse", "Old Topic", "Candidate for FAQ?", "I guess that's the END of this topic. Yay ", "Here we go again!!!! FireProf has left the building!!! Well at least this topic!". If repetitive and familiar were the criteria for closing a topic or moving it to FAQ, almost everything here would be there. What kind of forum would this be then?

I DO NOT like Stymie, Stifle, and Squelch; if this isn't Stymie, Stifle, and Squelch, I don't know what you'd call it.

Why do you all think this topic got up to 40-some replies so fast? Because the "great unwashed" out here are interested in genitals, i.e. human anatomy, which to me is beautiful and wonderful. I'm sorry if this fact offends those who feature themselves or are "keepers of the flame" here.

The RainyDayNew thread a few days ago said, "The genitals are the most interesting part of the human body". Cyndiann and her posters had an excellent discussion about this, also a few days ago, I can't remember the title, but to me -- and I know you all don't care -- it hit the nail on the same head I'm hitting it on here tonight.

[Jeff Brooks]

Because of an injury/infection I was circumcised as an adult. No big deal. I kind of like it. When it was done it was necessary. As far as relations I dont see any difference at all.

JB

[Danee]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those who are circumcised have no first hand knowledge of how greatly sensitive the head of the flacid penis is on an uncircumcised person - circumcision reduces a males sensitivity.

So...would it be fair to assume that uncircumcised men last longer in bed, even though they can't enjoy it as much?

maybe not fair.

Old Topic.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot speak with full knowledge as I have never had a partner who was not circumsized but would not just the opposite be true? I have a gf whose bf isn't and she says theres no difference. Just wondered...

[Mosquito_Bait]

Originally posted by Ben_m:
...

- I lack any first-hand basis for comparison between the two as it was done to me shortly after birth

- I would have preferred to have been left in tact, but the decision wasn't left to me to make

- I don't lose sleep over it, what was done was done

- If I ever have a son ..., he will be left alone

...


Well stated!

[David77]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Those who are circumcised have no first hand knowledge of how greatly sensitive the head of the flacid penis is on an uncircumcised person - circumcision reduces a males sensitivity.

So...would it be fair to assume that uncircumcised men last longer in bed, even though they can't enjoy it as much? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I could not venture even to guess. I know of no scientific studies that have been made that answers this question. Maybe Masters and Johnson made some scientific studies giving some sort of answers.

It can be noted that the quote, above, refers to the sensitivity of the head of the flacid penis. The head of a flacid penis, when the forskin is first pulled back, is <u>almost</u> shocking upon touching it, because of the great sensitivity.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:

I DO NOT like Stymie, Stifle, and Squelch; if this isn't Stymie, Stifle, and Squelch, I don't know what you'd call it.


You know...

...the whole thing about freedom of speech is that it cuts both ways. If you feel that you have a truly compelling and persuasive argument stating exactly what (let's face it, mostly male) genitalia-centric discussions have to do with the pursuit of naturism, then please, be my guest. I for one am not going to stop you. I'm not a moderator nor do I want that responsibility. But those of us who disagree with that viewpoint are also within our rights to say whether we feel that a particular topic is soporific and redundant, is actually a distraction from naturism, or in some cases borders on sexual fetishization. And I would be willing to bet that a sizeable portion of the "great unwashed" feels the same way. So if you think you can persuade people, and if you think that you can achieve a quorum of people who aren't sick of hearing about male genitalia, then go for it. But to whine that "I can't talk about this because the big bad Doc, Unwired and FireProf won't let me...", well, that's kind of lame, dude.



Unwired

[pek1]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as religious reasons go, I think those are crap also. It's time society evolved beyond such rituals and dogma.

HereticChick,
I think that may be a little judgemental of religious people. Culture is VERY important to some people. And many religous people feel oppositely; that the greatest evolution of the mind is done by going towards religion. Religion is not just about rituals and dogma.


Personally, I feel that religious culture has done more harm than good in all countries, not just the US. So if I'm judgemental, then so be it. I won't apologize for my opinions. It's religious culture that has a direct effect on the laws in this nation which holds sway over not only my body, but the bodies of every woman in this country. It is religious culture that brought about the genocide of an entire race of people in this country. It is religious culture that keeps women continuously subjugated to men. Judgemental may be a little "nice" for a description. Bitter might actually be a better descriptor for my mood.


I don't think I'm an advocate for or against it. I see a natural state as a good option, yet I don't feel circumsision is harmful enough to ban. People should live free in free contries. Maybe once the abortion issue is settled, then we can start worrying about a tiny peice of skin taken off of another baby.

It's only tiny if it's not YOUR skin, I'm sure. And the amputation of a vital part of your body would aggravate you, I'm sure. How about we start cutting off just the tips of mens noses when they're born? It's just a tiny piece of skin, right? How about both earlobes, that way we can make sure no man wears earrings again. I think you belittle the situation. It's an unnecessary procedure that cause unnecessary pain to an innocent child. It should be up to the child if he wants to engage in "body modification". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HereticChick,

As a Christian...I agree with what you've said about this. And, no, I am NOT part of the "Christian Right" because I either vote a straight Democratic ticket or Libertarian. And, yes, I am sick of Christians telling me what to do, too! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


Pete

[Fresh Air]

Personally, I feel that religious culture has done more harm than good in all countries

HereticChick,
Yeah, I would actually agree with that. I'm not a fan of religious cultures that promote their own causes politically. To differentiate, I tend to refer to that as religious politics. Regerdless, a culture is made up of people, individuals. It's not the other way around, cultures don't dictate what an individual is. To clarify, I think that many individuals find their beliefs within their cultures to be very important to them. Important enough to circumsize (harm) their boys for example. While it is true that some of the greatest tragedys in human history have taken place in the name of God, it is not true that this "God" would be find pleasure in these sins of men. Men are evil and we do evil things to gain power, whether they do them in the name of God or not, they do these acts for themselves.

It's only tiny if it's not YOUR skin, I'm sure.

I've had moles removed and lost other tiny parts of skin (including at birth). It's something to consider, but not something to march about. In the asian culture, many children are, at birth, subjected to surgery to "correct" their eyes. It makes the fold of the eyes less "asian" and more "astetically american". Nobody is complaining about that yet. Is that necessary? No. Is it painful? Yeah, probobly. Is it a big deal in my oppinion? Not really, once again, I think there are bigger issues to tackle before tackling these. Like someone else said, it's also common to pierce the ears of infants. That's painful. We put kids in braces to make their teeth pretty. That's painful too. Then, again, there is that whole plastic surgery market. Totally unecessary, but popular nevertheless. Life is full of pain and suffering though, banning circumsicion is not going to change that.

Leaving things upto the child is not always the american way. People tend to feel the freedoms of a parent superceed the freedom of a child. So far, according to the constitution, I tend to agree with that. Again, abortion I think is the biggest example of this. 1/4 of all conceptions in the US are purposefully aborted. Necessary? No. Painful? Yes. But then again, maybe it's just a tiny thing and no big deal. I just personally don't see it as being as tiny as a little peice of skin off of a penis.

I DO NOT like Stymie, Stifle, and Squelch

I2Itlarry,
Wish I had read that post, cause I don't have a clue what you got in trouble for talking aobut. I just know that cancelled topics are usually either not innocent or not sociable.

Fresh Air

[dancin\'bare]

I am-as you can tell from my pic's on my homepage-but what is done is done,and that is all I have to say.

[GhostFreeHiker]

If this is all that we have to worry about...Life Is Good!

[l2ltlarry]

My point is, Unwired, some of you target some topics with the obvious purpose of stopping discussion on them.

Question:
"...what is a "true nudist"?

Answer by the unmentionable teenager:
"A true nudist is someone who only does what I (the majority) think that a true nudist should do. This also applies to other 'true' things (christian, democrat, salespersons, etc)."


Pretty much everything cuts both ways as you state. You say that my "compelling and persuasive argument" should be able to persuade people so that I succeed at achieving a quorum on my view of what a "true nudist" is. And as I see it, you are going to do everything you can to "discourage" discussion of anything outside your view of what a "true nudist" is.

When you succeed in persuading the "primary influencers" of today's American society so that you achieve a quorum on your view of nudism (or anybody's pro-nudism view of nudism) of their accepting your ideas about nudism, let me know. That's probably not going to happen in our lifetimes. Neither will my persuading you — and those who believe as you do — of my view probably happen in our lifetimes.

I agree with you that reasoned argument or debate is a good thing. What I object to is resorting to put-downs as a substitute for reasoned argument.


Fresh Air, you can read the other post in "Miscellaneous: (offtopic?) Penn & Teller tackle circumcision, aren't afraid to show examples".

[nudetone]

I am circumcised and do not have an opinion about it.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by nudetone:
I am circumcised and do not have an opinion about it.

LOL Too bad we don't have more like you.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
...as I see it, you are going to do everything you can to "discourage" discussion of anything outside your view of what a "true nudist" is.


Well larry, all I can say is that democracy aint always pretty. In fact, as Conor B once said, it's messy. Not all are going to fare equally well in the marketplace of ideas.

With all due respect, it's sounding a lot like its you who in fact does not wish to hear from people with dissenting viewpoints. The fact of the matter is that some people will agree with you that discussions specifically about genitalia are pertinent to a forum dedicated to nudism and nude recreation. Some people will disagree. Some people will disagree quite strongly, and will make their opinions known. Should they refrain from doing so? If so, why?

What I am specifically taking issue with is your attempt to lay the responsibility for your unwillingness to post on someone else. I just checked the Penn & Teller thread to which you're referring; it's not closed to further replies. You're obviously a current and active member of this forum, so what's stopping you from continuing the topic further? Is it that you're anticipating negative responses from those who hold "primary influence" here? If discussing genitalia in a nudist forum is important enough to you, then why let anyone stop you?

If you believe that certain topics do not belong in the FAQ section, explain why! Persuade us! But please don't attempt to blame your unwillingness to do so on people who hold opinions that differ from yours.



Un

[Tampanude]

Why does this topic seem so vitally important to discuss? If it functions as intended, who cares wether it wears a turtleneck or not?



"I only swing when I run"

[azgreen]

What so many cannot, or will not, grasp here is the basic and fundamental issue of body rights -- the universal right to sovereignty over one's own body? All you who somehow pliantly and freely accept your circumcision without question may do so, but please, you don't speak for all of us -- and that's the rub. More than a few of us resent -- no, object to --- circumcision imposed on us, even if the decisions were made by loving, well-meaning parents. Fact is, that was then and this is now. Now we know more, now we understand the foreskin as a complex structure that is NOT trivial nor something to be discarded. Now we also have a more mature understanding of medical ethics, individual human rights and the intricacies and roles of body parts.
Glorify, if you wish, in your permanently skinned penis. It is left out to dry -- no longer an internal, covered, moist structure. We who have done the stretching and have full forekins now know what we were missing. There is great triumph in being whole. We strongly believe each male should have the right to be all he can be and have. The original foreskin cannot be really completely replaced, but restoration is worth the trouble. So if you want to go gently in rationalizing your circumcision was best for you, do so, but you absolutely do not speak for males in general. Please parents of future sons, leave your sons' foreskins intact. Chances are it will be the right decision and one step toward a more civilized, enlightened world.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by azgreen:
What so many cannot, or will not, grasp here is the basic and fundamental issue of body rights -- the universal right to sovereignty over one's own body? .

It's really an issue between you and your parents. Parents have rights over their children's bodies. This is really a minor matter.

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by azgreen:
What so many cannot, or will not, grasp here is the basic and fundamental issue of body rights -- the universal right to sovereignty over one's own body?
Doesn't work that way. When you are a child, your parents have control over what happens to you. They retain this right until they do something that is perceived to be wrong and then the government takes control.

Even after you reach 21 years of age, you still don't gain full rights to your own body because of various laws. Get a terminal and painful or lingering disease and you will find out that you can't just check out.

[vintagecarguy]

thank you azgreen.
your words ring true.

[l2ltlarry]

Meg asks, in "Miscellaneous: What is the minimum you have to bare?", "How naked is nude? What have you got to take off... what do you have to show... to be able to call yourself a nudist?"

Naturist Mark, a person whom I have high regard for on many topics, answers, "I do a lot of freehiking during warm weather. Am I nude? I always have footwear on, a hat, and a small or large backpack (depending on whether it is an all day or just an out-and-back hike). "As a practical matter, I think that if your genital region is uncovered, you are nude. You can argue whether that counts as 'fully nude', but ask any prude and they'll agree that it is nude enough to condemn you for. So, shirt and no pants = nude. Shorts and no shirt = not nude."

I could not be more surprised to find out that some of you — who gladly define "true nudism" for all — want to stop any and all discussion of the part of the human body that, as Mark says, counts as ‘fully nude'. This seems to me to be bafflingly contradictory.

Surely you notice that people stopped posting to Penn and Teller after getting the negative put- downs. One does not have to physically beat someone up to stop them from doing something. Silencing discussion is much more subtle than that. I, and probably others, hesitated to even reply to this topic, being familiar with the predictable responses we would get. I kept asking myself, "Why would I want to bother those nice people at ClothesFree with what I think about nudism?" So must I shut up now? I will never in my lifetime convince you and you will never convince me.

You call me a whiner and lame. And you insinuate that I'm a sexual fetishist. I think labeling with whiner and lame is a put-down; it does nothing positive, it's purely negative. To label me a sexual fetishist because I think the entire unclothed human body is fascinating, wonderful, and beautiful is unfair. I hold the views held on ClothesFree's homepage, if one reads from top to bottom. I've reiterated those views before in other posts. If you charge me with sexual fetishism, then don't you have to charge ClothesFree with the same moral failing also?

Anyway, I think I'm just wasting your time, CFF's readers' time, and my time.

[l2ltlarry]

Unwired, as to persuasion and democracy,

"Well larry, all I can say is that democracy aint always pretty. In fact, as Conor B once said, it's messy. Not all are going to fare equally well in the marketplace of ideas",

following is part of an op-ed article in the New York Times on June 4th,


"Is Persuasion Dead?
By MATT MILLER
"Speaking just between us - between one who writes columns and those who read them - I've had this nagging question about the whole enterprise we're engaged in.

"Is persuasion dead? And if so, does it matter?

"The significance of this query goes beyond the feelings of futility I'll suffer if it turns out I've wasted my life on work that is useless. This is bigger than one writer's insecurities. Is it possible in America today to convince anyone of anything he doesn't already believe? If so, are there enough places where this mingling of minds occurs to sustain a democracy?

"The signs are not good."

[Unwired]

I and a number of other people here have strongly held opinions on what has to do and what has nothing whatsoever to do with naturism. They apparently differ from yours, and you seem to find this terribly oppressive. I can't help you with that. Either your position is defensible or it isn't. In general, people who oppose your particular POV aren't going to go out of their way to assist you in making your case. It's an adversarial system, and you can choose to either deal with it or not.

What I can and will help you with is getting your facts straight. At no time in my post did I accuse you specifically of engaging in the fetishization of human genitalia. I apologize if that wasn't clear. I was trying to indicate three characteristics (redundancy, distractibility and fetishization) of which one or more may be shared by certain topics. I did accuse you of whining, and frankly, based on your subsequent replies, you haven't really given me any reason to retract that. Sorry if that offends you, but you seem to be more intent on complaining about being silenced than putting forth a persuasive argument supporting your viewpoint. And I also stick by the statement that the act of trying to put this on other people is what's lame, just as the act of labelling people "contradictory" for disagreeing with you is lame. I'm personally getting pretty fed up with being called inconsistent because I enjoy nudism yet I don't feel the need to discuss everything regarding my visible parts in a discussion forum that is not specifically devoted to them.



Unwired

[Floggeriffic]

Well...I don't know where to begin. Everyone has there opinion, I know, but if we are to decide for society what is right and what is wrong, I think that this topic should be way down on the list. How about we go stop cannibals from eating each other, countries from killing each other, child labor, end hunger and all that jazz.

But since that's the topic, I was circumsized and despite the opinions of some as to whether I can countedly say this, I'm glad I was. Here's why;

I have about 6 uncut friends that I know of. Every one of them has told me that they are scared to show a girl they're penis with the light on at first, that they are ashamed of how it looks sometimes, and that some girls are grossed out by it. I will be the first to judge these girls as shallow, however that does not stop me from wanting to have sex occassionally. Whether it is clean, dirty, makes you look bigger or smaller, has a purpose or not, I am glad that my penis looks exactly the way it does and in fact wouldn't mind if it was cut a bit more straight (mines a little crooked) :P

Opinionatedly Yours,

Floggeriffic

P.S. before anyone assumes, all of my friends are in they're late 20s and still kinda embarrased about their foreskins, not that they don't play it off like they embrace it. I think they try to act like it's some kind of "Samson's hair" or something..giving them special powers of persuasion in the dark over women...

[David77]

I do not want to get into the middle of this "debate", but I feel compelled to comment on two points.

The following quote is speaking about strongly held opinions ----

They apparently differ from yours, and you seem to find this terribly oppressive.
Opinions differing from others should be welcomed.

Either your position is defensible or it isn't.... It's an adversarial system, and you can choose to either deal with it or not.

Must we think of our forum to be an "adversarial system", defending our positions, or making our "position defensible". That puts us on the defensive, and is not a positive position to find ourselves in on this board.

Maybe a persons position has some good qualities as well as some qualities that are not attractive. But in any event, a (socratic style?) questioning as well as tolerant consideration from various viewpoints seem a much more constructive communication of both ideas and feelings amoung us, than a stance that is adversarial and defensive.

Sometimes persons must take a strong adversarial role, as well as a defensive stance that may even lead to some national conflict or action, but in the long run, I do not think that that is a constructive way to communicate among friends, as tolerant, respectful understanding and consideration of other viewpoints is needed.

[Unwired]

David77,

Thank you for your post. When I speak of having a "defensible" position I'm simply speaking of the ability to actually put forth a cohesive argument in favor of your position, and being prepared to back up your argument when questioned about it. I actually think that's a healthy thing and a necessary thing, but it certainly wasn't meant to engender "putting people on the defensive" in the sense that we've all come to know.

(I would point out that I think some people should be put on the defensive, particularly those who make fatuous and unsubstantiated statements that are derogatory in nature, but they're outside the scope of this discussion. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )



Unwired

[naturalmanwa]

I am rather surprised this subject has went to 4 pages. I can't understand someone being ashamed of being uncircumcised or afraid to show it to members of the opposite sex. My son is not "cut" and he has to fight the women off. My grandfather came from europe in the last century and was not circumcised and had no trouble with women at all. I have been to nudist locations over the years and the fact that I am not circumcised has not mattered. I feel if it is necessary for medical reasons it should be done, otherwise leave it alone!

[slo]

I'm with naturalmanwa, being or not being circumsized is a non-issue. Myself, I would be leery of any other naturist/nudist that is preoccupied with my penis's orientation. I look to the character of the whole individual, not the size, shape, body parts, etc. Oh! I am very leery of a nudist wearing a gun holster with six shooters.

SLO and happily circumsized. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Nicknamed]

Posted June 12, 2005 03:34 PM quote:
Originally posted by nudetone:
I am circumcised and do not have an opinion about it.


LOL Too bad we don't have more like you.
Well, I'm circumsised and never really thought much about either. Until now. I'm contemplating nude recreation, and I guess I'm now naturally courious how many guys are and how many aren't. Seems like as far as I recall, more were than not when I was growing up in gym class ('60s and '70s). I just recall that I noticed some were definitely different from mine, both in size and shape (many were odd/funny looking to me- the uncircumsized. Now I'm thinking that I got changed from the natural appearance I would/should have had at birth. I guess I'm going to be a little more apprehensive in a "public" setting being nude; both in size and the fact that I've been changed.

[fre2bnude]

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.

I know this one is dragging on a long time but I've only just seen it and had to put my bit in too.
I can't see any point in having something like that removed for the sake of it without any medical reason, what's the point of putting a baby through pain and possible complications for no sensible reason. I have mine and I love it, it causes me no problem and it's slack enough to comfortably roll back as I wish, in fact I'd go further and say it's given me a lot of enjoyment over the many years and I wouldn't want to be without it.

[kelly99]

Yes but for medical reasons, as an adult. Having been both circ'ed and not, I'd rather the former.

[Danee]

Natural, I don't think it matters if a boy or guy is circumsized or not as to the attraction of my gender. I have never been with someone who was not as I said earlier, but even tho I have had thoughts of what it is like from time to time, I certainly don't look at a male who is not, and drool. Your statement makes is sound like a boy or guy who ISNT is much more sexually attractive to us. It's the same.
-Danee

Originally posted by naturalmanwa:
I am rather surprised this subject has went to 4 pages. I can't understand someone being ashamed of being uncircumcised or afraid to show it to members of the opposite sex. My son is not "cut" and he has to fight the women off. My grandfather came from europe in the last century and was not circumcised and had no trouble with women at all. I have been to nudist locations over the years and the fact that I am not circumcised has not mattered. I feel if it is necessary for medical reasons it should be done, otherwise leave it alone!

[naturalmanwa]

I think you misunderstand my statement, Danee. I am merely saying that I have never been concerned over it as I had no control over my own body as a baby, and I don't agree with it unless for medical reasons. I as a christian feel that I have nothing to be ashamed of the way I was created and don't feel it proper to say anything offensive about others who are different for whatever reason ( weight, birth defects, etc.). Your preferences as far as men goes are your own.

[mhs83]

Yes, I am. Since it's the only thing I've ever known I don't have any problem with it. For all I know, I was born this way. Hey, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me. While I have no recollection of any pain during the procedure, I do have vivid memories of being 5 years old and crying when I was immunized. Does that make my parents sadists? Unless we set up a parallel universe where I can live a life with foreskin and without being immunized, I will never know if either one protected me from illness.

What about tattoos? Aren't they an alteration of the body we were born with? Not to mention body piercings. How many of those in the anti-circumcision camp have those? Worse yet, how many of them have had their infant or toddlers' ears pierced? Talk about risk of infection.

I don't know a single circumcised male who has ever complained of being brutalized. Bottom line is that I don't care who is or who isn't circumcised. But I do take exception to any implication that my parents "mutilated" me. I'll be the judge of that, and I say that they didn't.

[vintagecarguy]

hi mhs83;
Im circed and I was brutalized.there,now ya know a cut guy whos mad as h*ll about it.
tattoos,piercings?fine for adults,not babies.
my girlfriend has pierced nipples and a tattoo,i dont,freedom of choice for adults.
I have vivid memories of realizing I had a scar on my penis at about age 4 or 5.scars meant I had been hurt,I cried throughout my teen years as the extent of the damage became more and more obvious as I matured.
if you dont feel mutilated,fine you are not.
I am mutilated.no amount of others who are cut and like it will ever be able to change the fact that my genitalia doesnt work properly.

drop the knife and back away from the baby.

[P.J.]

Yes I'm circumcized.

Personally, I think that the advantages of circumcision outweigh the advantages of being uncircumcised.

However, I'll be the first to admit that I'm glad that I was too young to know what was going on when I was circumcized!

With that said, I refuse to debate on this matter, but I did read an interesting article in the recent edition of "How to Do Everything Right Volume 2" which I'll share:

"Uncircumcised men may be up to eight times more susceptible to the AIDS virus during heterosexual intercourse then men who are circumcised. Theories: The intact foreskin may provide the warm, moist enviroment that the AIDS virus needs in order to survive...the foreskin may be traumatized during intercourse, enabling the virus to enter the body...the foreskin may contain cells that have receptors for the AIDS virus."

For those who want to check this out, if you get your hands on "How To Do Everything Right Volume 2," turn to page 54 and read AIDS Defense.

[vintagecarguy]

regarding aids,various studies have shown increased risk for cut and others increased risk for uncut.its a toss up with the current data.
just remember,the USA has the highest cut rate of the western world and the highest aids rate of the industrialised western world.
lets not cut parts off our children when prevention is something best done with safe or safer behavior,not irreversiable surgery on nonconsenting infants.we dont cut breasts off to prevent breast cancer.lets not cut penises either.

[Bob S.]

"I guess I'm going to be a little more apprehensive in a "public" setting being nude; both in size and the fact that I've been changed."

Nicknamed, I have noticed that most of the nudists out there are circed. Sure, you'll meet men who are also uncirced, but really, it is not really anyone takes into consideration.

The most intersting thing is that for all we talk about here in the forums about penises, beit shaven, erect, circed, pierced, tattooed, etc. very little attention is paid in the real world of nudists.

Don't worry about how you will be treated. No one will even notice your penis anymore than yhey will notice your thumbs.

Bob S.

[vintagecarguy]

The most intersting thing is that for all we talk about here in the forums about penises, beit shaven, erect, circed, pierced, tattooed, etc. very little attention is paid in the real world of nudists.

very true Bob S.

he need not worry about acceptance.

[l2ltlarry]

When I was growing up, I wasn't. In fact, I had never seen anyone who was until I was 10 years old. As far as I know, almost 100 percent of the males I grew up with were not, based on my showering and swimming with many friends and acquaintances at camps plus using the restrooms at school.

When I was 10, I was using a urinal beside a classmate, a doctor's son, when I noticed that his penis was "skinned back" and it looked like it would stay that way. I thought that was pretty neat. I started doing some research and by age 11, I learned that he was circumcised. Then at 12, I saw another friend who was. I was convinced. For some years, I had enjoyed the look and feel of having what I called the "head" of my penis uncovered and wished it would stay that way. I made the decision that someday I would get circumcised and make being "skinned back" permanent. I had it done about a year after I was married, so I've had experience with my wife (and she with me) both ways.

As for the "sensitivity" issue that seems to be considered so important here, I've always felt that circumcision enhanced the enjoyment of both myself and my wife. There was certainly no diminishing of pleasure. And I could enjoy the look and the feel that I desired.

Isn't it possible that men (and their women) for thousands of years have thought this same way, accounting for the popularity of circumcision in so many cultures for so long a time?

[mrbee]

Originally posted by l2ltlarry:
I did this about a year after I was married,


I think that is a very interesting point you make - The key element, however, is that in your situation the choice was yours to make as an adult - it was not made for you as an infant.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that the option should not be available for adults much like any form of 'cosmetic' surgery. It is the widespread use of it on infants that appears to be the issue.

Cheers, Mrbee

[vintagecarguy]

I think that is a very interesting point you make - The key element, however, is that in your situation the choice was yours to make as an adult - it was not made for you as an infant.

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that the option should not be available for adults much like any form of 'cosmetic' surgery. It is the widespread use of it on infants that appears to be the issue.

thanks Mrbee,
thats exactly it.

p.s.
your ever changing avatars are cool.

[azgreen]

Several of you have underscored the most fundamental issue here: The male himself, and only the male himself, should make the choice of being cut or uncut. It's all about genital integrity and sovereignty over one's own body.
As someone cut at birth, now married 32 years and who went through foreskin restoration almost 10 years ago, I can say very positively that having foreskin is far better on many levels, especially sensation and a sense of wholeness. The glans, which nature made an internal organ, takes on a whole different look and feel when it is protected and kept moist.
All you "glad" you were cut at birth don't begin to speak for all males, so many of whom have prefered to have been left complete, whole and fully functioning. That's why parents should respect the body integrity of their sons and leave the decision to them, because very, very overwhelmingly they will choose wholeness

[mhs83]

I figure I've got enough things to resent my parents for, this isn't a big enough deal. If I had been born an otherwise healthy conjoined twin and the separation surgery had low risks I would like to think that my parents would go ahead with it and not say, "Gee, do you really think we should do this? Shouldn't we wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?" As far as noticing any sort of scar when I was five, I didn't go around looking at other peoples' penises so how would I have known I was "scarred?" I saw my brother in the bathtub and he was in the same condition as I was so I thought everyone looked that way. I was well into my 20's before I even knew what the alternative was.

Parents have their childrens' port wine stains and benign hemangiomas operated on all the time and they're not accused of butchery. Anyone who wants to hate their parents for "disfiguring" them can take it up with their therapist. I'm cool with it.

[John Spooner]

I was cut as a baby (ric) and am very pleased with my cut status.
Most of us are cut here in Oz and to most of us the subject is of little to no concern.
Regards. John S.

[NakedGary]

[quote]“Most of us are cut here in Oz and to most of us the subject is of little to no concern."

John S.,

Quite the opposite is true of your assumption John, and yes to most Australians the subject is of little to no concern as most all are not cut or circumcised.
.

Most Australian males 87-90% are intact [uncircumcised], and Australia falls within the worlds statistics that 85% of males are left intact, uncut, natural, and un-altered.

Personal observation in nude recreation, and working and living in Australia in several states and territories [Mostly in South Australia, [including Adelaide] central, and Northern Territories, and in shared housing with the military and civilian contractors, and the following government statistics and link below confirms your assumption is incorrect.


Australian Circumcision Rates (http://www.circs.org/reviews/rates/australia.html)

.

[vintagecarguy]

If I had been born an otherwise healthy conjoined twin and the separation surgery had low risks I would like to think that my parents would go ahead with it and not say, "Gee, do you really think we should do this? Shouldn't we wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves?"

this shows the ignorance we are always having to fight..the foreskin is NOT a birth defect!

as for hating my parents..I dont,they didnt know any better,not like todays parents who have NO EXCUSE.
I didnt need to see other penises to know I was scarred...I was able to see the ugly jagged scar on my own.Its rather obvious.I was never an ignorantly blissfull child.I didnt wear blinders.
As for a therapist,perhaps only to deal with insensitive types who insist that since they are o.k. with it that the crime of cutting kids should continue.

[fiercerd]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Spooner. South Oz.:
Most of us are cut here in Oz

I agree with John, in adult aussie men, certainly over the age of 30, circumcision was the norm. Definately this has changed in recent years for a variety of ethical, social and medical reasons, but amongst my age cohort, a foreskin is particularly rare.

[azgreen]

Nicely stated, Naked Gary and Vitagecarguy,
It may be easy for us to give our parents a bye ("it wasn't their fault, they didn't know better" and "that was a different time"), but there is also something called parental instincts and a desire to protect one's child from harm. Though I was cut in 1946 at birth, my basic instinct told me in 1975 that circumcising our new son was just too weird and plain wrong. We resisted peer pressure and left him intact -- for which he thanks us. Just because some now prefer not to second-guess their circmcisions and accept their situation as ideal, it's a long stretch to say it is the best decision for their sons. You wouldn't do that for tatoos or some other bizarre things. A foreskin is living flesh, and circumcision destroys its -- permanently.

[slo]

With all due respect to all the previous respondents, I believe this is a mute subject. You are either circumsized or you aren't. Being circumsized at birth I can't relate or even imagine what being uncircumsized would entail or the sensory equivelent might be. I read and also hear arguments either way. 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.

SLO and happily living with my parents decision in this matter.

[azgreen]

SLO, with all due respect, we can and do influence what parents will do in the future by building our case today. It is not a moot point. This IS an issue of social justice, and it is well worth making our best effort for genital integrity and wholeness because people actually do make decisions based on what they learn along the way. Otherwise some day they may lamely say, "Well, if only I had known...." So people are learning and being sensitized to the issue. As someone once said, "Civilization is just a slow process of learning to be kind."

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by slo:
With all due respect to all the previous respondents, I believe this is a mute subject. You are either circumsized or you aren't. Being circumsized at birth I can't relate or even imagine what being uncircumsized would entail or the sensory equivelent might be. I read and also hear arguments either way. 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.

SLO and happily living with my parents decision in this matter.

Excellent post SLO.

[fre2bnude]

Infections are also possible with uncircumsized penises in adult life.

Yes, this is very true. When I was in my early teens and my foreskin was a lot tighter Many years ago) I developed an infection which was made obvious by itching and soreness. The doctor explained that I should roll the skin back and wash underneath, a bit difficult as it was so tight. This is something my parents had NEVER explained to me as a kid! Anyway after that I kept it clean and have not had a problem since. As David77 said - WASH IT DON'T CHOP IT - I certainly advocate that. After all it's a fun thing to wash and it is after all "mans favourite toy" Now the skin is nice and slack and rolls back easily, in fact I often leave it back with the head exposed to keep it aired even when dressed, so I really have the choice of appearing cut or uncut. Does anyone else do this?

[Sauna]

I'm not and I have no reason to be cicumsized

[melissastarr]

I'm not and I have no reason to be either.

(Sorry- I couldn't resist commenting on this thread!)

Melissa

[Al Bundy]

Yep, I am and I thank my parents for it. Being the lazy guy I am, it seems to me it would be extra work for maintaining good hygiene. I recall quite a few of my fellow servicemen having the procedure performed while in the service. I guess the military doctors were recommending it at the time. This was in the 60's so I am sure the subject has been reviewed since then.

Following that line of thought, why not have your ears cut off so you don't have to clean them either.

[leon 11]

no im not dont think about it no more
because always had it ,
and dosen't take much time tocare for.
i feel if its not broken no need to fix it.

[NakedGary]

Al Bundy

How misinformed, I hope you have maintained the extra hygiene, effort, and protection required to overcome the loss of natural protection, hygiene, health, and pleasure the foreskin and/or clitoral hood provides.

Penile Hygiene (http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Spa/4371/penilehygiene.html)

.

[nudedudedenver]

I have to say I am cut, but wish I still had a foreskin. I think it is only natural and has to increase pleasure. I remember when I first saw an uncut penis and I totally had "penis" envy. Increased infections is still debatable. It's simply a matter of hygeine, and most parents from past generations weren't good about explaining anything when it comes to "that" area. If we were not meant to have foreskin, then why haven't humans evolved to a penis without foreskin?

On another note, what's the deal with restoration AZGREEN? Did you have surgery, or by other means such as stretching?

Keep it nude,
NudeDudeDenver

[NakedGary]

This is a repost for "clannad" who started a duplicate and redundant cross post Topic/Thread ["circumcised???"] in answering or posting to this thread. [The redundant topic/thread was deleted]

clannad
New Member

Posted June 29, 2005 05:33 PM

yep. But, I really wish that I wasnt (just to know what the choice that wasnt mine to make) felt like

[azgreen]

"On another note, what's the deal with restoration AZGREEN? Did you have surgery, or by other means such as stretching?"
----------------------
I spent a lot of years speaking out against circumcision and obtained a copy of Jim Bigelow's "The Joy of Uncircumcision." I had read it and finally said I needed to walk the walk. So glad I did. I began using the T-taping method of stretching, saw good, fast and definitive results and kept it up until I had full skin coverage. I felt whole again. I had a sense I had corrected a wrong -- defied the mindless circumcisers.
I have accomplished a whole lot in my 59 years, many achievements, awards and mountain top experiences, but this ranks near the top of the list, odd as that might seem those who think they are happier without a foreskin -- or who don't know what they are missing. azgreen

[slo]

Originally posted by azgreen:
SLO, with all due respect, we can and do influence what parents will do in the future by building our case today. It is not a moot point. This IS an issue of social justice, and it is well worth making our best effort for genital integrity and wholeness because people actually do make decisions based on what they learn along the way. Otherwise some day they may lamely say, "Well, if only I had known...." So people are learning and being sensitized to the issue. As someone once said, "Civilization is just a slow process of learning to be kind."

Azgreen:
I have read your subsequent bebuttals to this topic and really do sense a disturbing amount of "mois" in your sentiments. The existence or non-existence of a foreskin should not and is not a measure of a man. It is a parents decision that is made at a critical point of time. Your sentiments are yours and really should be kept in that context. My wife and I made a decision at a critical point in our sons life and he is as much a man as an uncircumsized male. As I tried to state earlier, it is just not a subject that warrants that much debate.

SLO and looking at my manhood and not comparing it to other males. Wife and I are still happy campers with it.

[DoctorSurferDude]

That's fantastic I suppose.

BUT....

Is this a nudist forum or a penis forum?

(I wondered, and a Googled. And guess what, there is actually a "Circumsision Forum" and I'm quite convinced that this topic would fit in a lot better there)

[nudedudedenver]

Yea, there seems to be quite a bit of forums on this site that do not include nudism. Religion, politics, sex, sports, everything! Oh my gawd nudists are actually talking about other things besides being nude; wierd.

Keep it nude,
NudeDudeDenver

[azgreen]

Slo said: "I made a decision at a critical point in our sons life and he is as much a man as an uncircumsized male. As I tried to state earlier, it is just not a subject that warrants that much debate."
---
If it does merit a debate, then why are you in the thick of it? Over the years, circumcision has been a very hot topic in INA forums, and it comes back again and again. Why? Because it matters to enough people to comment. Trivialize the topic and the foreskin all you want, but the incredible number of websites dealing with circumcision speak volumes of the controversy in this issue. And it is foremost a controversy because males who were cut wished they hadn't been. After all the debate is over, we submit that human beings possess a universal right to sovereignty over one's own body and keeping those structures put there in the first place.
No one here has said that a cut male is less a male any more than a car without a fender is less a car.But it is a matter of human rights and medical ethics, and it is worth speaking up for defenseless males yet to be born.

[vintagecarguy]

some day history will look at the cutting of babies like most of todays world views foot binding.

[NakedGary]

DoctorSurferDude, and Forums users, and members.

Yes Penis tops the list of the most frequent and most posts in this form with over 1,700 posts, and 85 pages of Posts. Per say, there is no Penis Forum on INAclothesfree.com Forums section.

Penis: 85 Pages aprox. Posts 1,700
Erection: 60 1,200
Shaving: 37 740
Circumcision 17 340
Piercing 15 300

etc. etc. the list go on and on. All can be found quickly by the Search function by relevance or Date.

The topics which won't go away or the most frequent are slowly being closed for further posting and new posts and topic threads are being referred to the FAQ forum or category if a question or answer cannot be found in the Pages and hundreds of posts or by search, then it will be addressed in the FAQ section.

The forums are comprised of 16 forums or categories dealing with Nudist, Naturist, and Club/Resort location.
Four General forums, 1 technical, 2 any subject/topics, and 1 Naturist/Nudist FAQ
Four INA Internal forums for administration, Moderators, and Area rep's.

Shaving and Circumcision are next on the list of frequent posts & Topic/Threads that will be closed to further posting, and referred to FAQ section, if New Questions and Answers cannot be found in search or the hundreds of posts on the subject.

All the users and members can benefit and find posts on most any subjects over a period of years by learning to use the "Search function of this Forum and program software. Several areas and improvements are being considered, and posted in the INA News and suggestion category or Forum. Some of those being considered for the future are Search for members by location, age, etc. Your comments and suggestions are welcome.

Moderator "NakedGary"

[Gary Naturist]

Shaving and Circumcision are next on the list of frequent posts & Topic/Threads that will be closed to further posting, and referred to FAQ section, if New Questions and Answers cannot be found in search or the hundreds of posts on the subject.

Once again INA is acting as censor and is continuing to slide down the slippery slope.

In my opinion, censorship is only warranted if otherwise someone would be seriously harmed (e.g. kids).

Gary

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
DoctorSurferDude, and Forums users, and members.

Yes Penis tops the list of the most frequent and most posts in this form with over 1,700 posts, and 85 pages of Posts. Per say, there is no Penis Forum on INAclothesfree.com Forums section.

Penis: 85 Pages aprox. Posts 1,700
Erection: 60 1,200
Shaving: 37 740
Circumcision 17 340
Piercing 15 300


Does penis top the list?

god: 176 pages 3520 posts
christian: 112 2240
religion: 86 1720
bible: 79 1580
jesus: 47 940
sin: 32 640

[Unwired]

Whoever said that cockroaches would be the only survivors of a nuclear holocaust was wrong; as long as packets of humanity remain in the world, with functioning computers and interconnections, there will still be the following:

"So...uh, once the radiation level goes down and it's safe to go outside...uh, what happens if my uncircumcised penis gets an erection at a nude beach?"



UW

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by Daveinct:
Does penis top the list?

god: 176 pages 3520 posts
christian: 112 2240
religion: 86 1720
bible: 79 1580
jesus: 47 940
sin: 32 640
Following NakedGary's "logic", then indeed all of these topics should also be closed and moved to a FAQ. But none of them will. Why ? Because no matter how much the moderators will try to convince us/themselves otherwise, the choice of what they consider a "recurring topic" or a "topic that just won't die" has nothing to do with logic or with what is "appropriate" on a nudist forum, and everything to do with the personal likes/dislikes of the moderators and a few other regulars, who are quick to post their "old topic !" or "hasn't this been discussed before ?" remarks in threads that otherwise run very smoothly and generate a lots of interest.

Fine. This board is owned and operated by individuals who have every right to subjectively decide what they want/don't want to be discussed here. But it would be appreciated if they stopped insulting our intelligence by falsely pretending that their choices are based on some form of logic or objective criteria when clearly it is not.

[David77]

Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daveinct:
Does penis top the list?

god: 176 pages 3520 posts
christian: 112 2240
religion: 86 1720
bible: 79 1580
jesus: 47 940
sin: 32 640
Following NakedGary's "logic", then indeed all of these topics should also be closed and moved to a FAQ. But none of them will. Why ? Because no matter how much the moderators will try to convince us/themselves otherwise, the choice of what they consider a "recurring topic" or a "topic that just won't die" has nothing to do with logic or with what is "appropriate" on a nudist forum, and everything to do with the personal likes/dislikes of the moderators and a few other regulars, who are quick to post their "old topic !" or "hasn't this been discussed before ?" remarks in threads that otherwise run very smoothly and generate a lots of interest.

Fine. This board is owned and operated by individuals who have every right to subjectively decide what they want/don't want to be discussed here. But it would be appreciated if they stopped insulting our intelligence by falsely pretending that their choices are based on some form of logic or objective criteria when clearly it is not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Soleil Nu,
You have expressed my thoughts completely. I agree!

[Vin]

Soleil,

EXACTLY!! I thought the whole purpose of a message board was to... I don't know... exchange MESSAGES. I seriously doubt, NakedGary's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that we've managed to say all there is to say on every (or any) given topic. New people, or even old people, will always bring new ideas and perspectives for us to consider and discuss.

Unless INA has secretly taken Trailscout's suggestion to close the forums and is only letting them stay open long enough for us to research/write their FAQs.

[vintagecarguy]

I guess some choose censorship when they tire of a conversation.

[NakedGary]

[Originally Posted by "Gary Naturist"
Once again INA is acting as censor and is continuing to slide down the slippery slope.

In my opinion, censorship is only warranted if otherwise someone would be seriously harmed (e.g. kids).

The opinion of INA Administration, myself, and other moderators in closing very large and redundant topic/threads and refering to FAQ form section <span class="ev_code_BLUE">IS NOT CENSORSHIP.</span>

Originally posted by NakedGary:
[Originally Posted by "Gary Naturist"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once again INA is acting as censor and is continuing to slide down the slippery slope.

In my opinion, censorship is only warranted if otherwise someone would be seriously harmed (e.g. kids).

The opinion of INA Administration, myself, and other moderators in closing very large and redundant topic/threads and refering to FAQ form section <span class="ev_code_BLUE">IS NOT CENSORSHIP.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it's most definitely censorship. a FAQ is to give someone info without repeating oneself but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed at all.

[soundman]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NakedGary:
[Originally Posted by "Gary Naturist"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Once again INA is acting as censor and is continuing to slide down the slippery slope.

In my opinion, censorship is only warranted if otherwise someone would be seriously harmed (e.g. kids).

The opinion of INA Administration, myself, and other moderators in closing very large and redundant topic/threads and refering to FAQ form section <span class="ev_code_BLUE">IS NOT CENSORSHIP.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, it's most definitely censorship. a FAQ is to give someone info without repeating oneself but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>How many times does the same point need to be made over and over until it is considered harassment and a TOS violation and not censorship?

[NakedGary]

Thanks "Daveinct" for your statistics on the most posts, & pages for INA's 23 ClothesFree Forums TM on God, christian, religion, bible, jesus, and sin.

My quote in reference to <span class="ev_code_RED">"this forum"</span> and topic/thread subjects; Penis, Erection, Shaving, Circumcision, and Piercing still hold true for this forum.

[Originally posted by "Soleil Nu"]
But it would be appreciated if they stopped insulting our intelligence by falsely pretending that their choices are based on some form of logic or objective criteria when clearly it is not.

Agree "David77" the only poster who has brought up questionable logic is "Soleil Nu", then Posting: Following NakedGary's "logic", then indeed all of these topics should also be closed and moved to a FAQ.

That might by "Soleil's" opinion, logic, and suggestion, but it's not mine as "Nudity & Religion has its own Forum for the subjects, topics, and threads on God, christian, religion, bible, jesus, and sin.

This forums category "Miscellaneous"

http://www.bartsystems.com/URLImageArchive/INAMISCELLANEOUS.JPG

"are you circumcised" is 7 pages long with approximately 150 posts with few references dealing with any relation to nudity, naturism, or social nude recreation. It has now wandered off topic into censorship, personal opinions and views of forum users, members, posters, moderators, and how the form is organized and operates.

It's the moderators function to keep the order, organization, flow, and appropriateness of posts within the Terms of Service. When multiple, cross, and same subject topic/threads are across several forums, or in incorrect forums, or off topic they will be noted, corrected, and taken care of as the moderators and administration deem necessary and appropriate, for this family orientated Naturist and Nudist web site, and INAclothesfree.com, and its Forums.

If you have comments, suggestions, or subject Posts off topic/thread or category there are 23 different INA forums you can post to or initiate a new Topic/Thread in the appropriate forum and category.

From some of the posts users seem to think that closing a topic/thread in a single or multiple forms is doing away, deleting, or censoring. A closed forum topic/thread is still available, readable, accessible, quotable, and searchable, but new additions or posts are inhibited. Any user may initiate a new topic/thread on the same or similar subject, but they may be referred to the FAQ section, or a closed extended topic on the same subject, question or answer already posted. Nothing prevents anyone from initiating a new topic/thread on the subject, or continuing discussion on the subject.

This forums topic/thread is rated 4 stars, still active, and will remain so as long as the posts keep on topic, and relate to Naturism, Nudist, or nude recreation at nude social venues. After approximately 200 posts or 10 pages of posts on the subject or question "are you circumcised" the topic thread will be closed for further posting.

.

[l2ltlarry]

To me, closing topics such as this one, which generate this kind of interest, is a terrible idea. I think many websites would "kill", metaphorically speaking, for this kind of traffic on a few high-visibility topics. From a selling and marketing standpoint, closing such a topic makes no sense at all to me. I can't see the logic in it.

I buy (or get for free on the web) several daily newspapers. A few subjects or topics interest me, but the large majority go unread. If my daily papers took away the topics that draw me to them (the forum and letters to the editor are my favorites in all the newspapers), do you think I would "waste" as much time as I do on reading them. Many people, I know, don't like the editorial and opinion pieces, and get their papers to read something else. I happen to like them very, very much. Because I like learning things.

I read ClothesFree for the same reason, for the forums. Dry FAQ's do not interest me. When the forum topics that attract me here get whacked or limited, then I will find other places to "waste" the enormous amount of time that I "waste" here.

Last point, people don't just come here to get questions answered. We come here to interact with other like-minded people. I think when the interactions get hampered, the ardor of many for CFF may cool.

[David77]

What amazes me is that persons log onto a subject in the forums that they are tired of, and then complain about it being old stuff, and express displeasure that someone posted concerns or subjects that they don't like being brought up again by others.

These people who complain, criticize, grumble about "that again!" should not have logged onto that subject in the first place, but should have passed it over and gone on to something else of interest in the forums. It seems unreasonable behavior to log on to a subject that does not interst you, and then complain about it.

I suspect that most of us skip over those subjects that don't interest us. I skip over the constant posts in reference to Adam and Eve, but I am not complaining that others want to discuss, over and over again, the so called "first couple", the apple and the talking snake.

Bottom line is - if you don't like the subject, don't read it, and don't complain because you don't like it after you willfully read it.

David, you make way too much sense! LOL!

Originally posted by David77:
What amazes me is that persons log onto a subject in the forums that they are tired of, and then complain about it being old stuff, and express displeasure that someone posted concerns or subjects that they don't like being brought up again by others.

These people who complain, criticize, grumble about "that again!" should not have logged onto that subject in the first place, but should have passed it over and gone on to something else of interest in the forums. It seems unreasonable behavior to log on to a subject that does not interst you, and then complain about it.

I suspect that most of us skip over those subjects that don't interest us. I skip over the constant posts in reference to Adam and Eve, but I am not complaining that others want to discuss, over and over again, the so called "first couple", the apple and the talking snake.

Bottom line is - if you don't like the subject, don't read it, and don't complain because you don't like it after you willfully read it.

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by NakedGary:
Thanks "Daveinct" for your statistics on the most posts, & pages for INA's 23 ClothesFree Forums TM on God, christian, religion, bible, jesus, and sin.

My quote in reference to <span class="ev_code_RED">"this forum"</span> and topic/thread subjects; Penis, Erection, Shaving, Circumcision, and Piercing still hold true for this forum.

The figures you posted were for all 23 forums, not just "this forum".

In "this forum" yes, 'penis' does return the highest number of pages, 21 (not the 85 that you listed) with 'god' close behind at 19.

Taken together, the 5 keywords you used return a total of 55 pages in this forum ("miscellaneous").

The top 5 of the 6 I used return a total of 58 pages in this forum ("miscellaneous").

Dave

[MJ_KC]

Originally posted by David77:
Bottom line is - if you don't like the subject, don't read it, and don't complain because you don't like it after you willfully read it.
Well said. People need to read this and remember it.

Closing discussions that are of interest to people makes little sense. That means that only topics of minimal interest are acceptable.

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
Closing discussions that are of interest to people makes little sense.
IMO, it actually makes no sense at all.
It's like saying: "Geez, this TV show has generated incredible ratings this season. Let's cancel it !"

[NakedGary]

[Originally posted by "NakedGary"
From some of the posts users seem to think that closing a topic/thread in a single or multiple forms is doing away, deleting, or censoring. A closed forum topic/thread is still available, readable, accessible, quotable, and searchable, but new additions or posts are inhibited. Any user may initiate a new topic/thread on the same or similar subject, but they may be referred to the FAQ section, or a closed extended topic on the same subject, question or answer already posted. Nothing prevents anyone from initiating a new topic/thread on the subject, or continuing discussion on the subject.

Another reason extended topic/threads are closed [Not canceled, or done away with] is for management of the size of topic/threads across several Forums at the same time, cross, and duplicate posts, and for the ease of finding previous questions, answers, and discussion already posted. How many search through 350 posts and 10's of pages say on erections in several forms areas? Not many, they just start a new topic/thread, when they could find what they want in 10 seconds by using the "Search function of this forum. New users might not be aware of three years of posts on erections and can be given links, to unmanageable topic/threads across several forums by explaining the search function, giving links to already posted Q & A's or by referring to FAQ Forum.

Another reason some topic/threads are closed or transferred to appropriate Forums is that they have nothing to do with the prerequisites of the Forum [Dealing with some aspect of Nude social Recreation, Naturists or Nudists]

I know of few if any extended topic/threads that are canceled, deleted, or done away with without good reason.

Additional internal reasons of topic/thread closures: [And rare but occasional deletion with out notice to the poster or Forum users]

Management

Organization

Redundancy

Duplication

Bandwidth considerations

Terms of Service

Appropriateness

Risk management

Privacy

Security

Program Limitations

**************************************

* No pun intended, this topic/thread "are you circumcised" would probably not be a discussion or question, and probably self answered if you were physically at a social nude venue around others in nude recreation.

.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/06/MNGANDJFVK1.DTL

Here's an interesting article for all you people on both sides of this endless argument,

[vintagecarguy]

Here's an interesting article for all you people on both sides of this endless argument,


no argument if it's an adult getting cut,thats their choice.just don't amputate parts off babies.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by vintagecarguy:
Here's an interesting article for all you people on both sides of this endless argument,


no argument if it's an adult getting cut,thats their choice.just don't amputate parts off babies.

Parents make ALL kinds of decisions for children. Most of them are much more important than this one.

[vintagecarguy]

Parents make ALL kinds of decisions for children. Most of them are much more important than this one.

well it was the WRONG,VERY WRONG,HORRIBLY WRONG decision for me.I've detailed the problems,very physical problems caused by infant mutilation to myself too many times on this message board.Infant cutting stole what should have been a wonderfull gift between myself and my girlfriend.

it was the wrong decision for this boy in the picture...he was normal,that is until an infant circ. resulted in severe brain damage.
He will forever be marked with a scar that shows his parents ignorance,his doctors ignorance and this societys lack of caring.

[SirCumSized]

I am a firm believer in circumcision for enhanced sex and pure aesthetic reasons. I believe most women, if honoust in answering, prefer the look of a fully circumcised penis.

[SirCumSized]

Women's Preferences for Penile Circumcision In Sexual Partners
Marvel L. Williamson, Ph.D., R.N.
Assistant Professor, College of Nursing
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
Paul S. Williamson, M.D.
Associate Professor, College of Medicine
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA

Abstract:
Regardless of pediatricians' attempts to negate routine newborn circumcision,
U.S. circumcision rates remain constant. This study hypothesized that, because
circumcision is usually a maternal choice and the circumcised penises are
perceived by young women as more attractive, most women prefer circumcision for
sexual reasons.

Of 145 new mothers of sons responding to this survey, 71-83% preferred
circumcised penises for each sexual activity listed.
Visual appeal and sexual hygiene were predominate reasons for favoring
circumcised sexual partners. Even among women having sexual experience only with
uncircumcised partners, only half preferred uncircumcised penises for sexual
partners. Eighty-nine percent of the sample had had their sons circumcised. This
study furthers debate over whether circumcision decisions should be based solely
on medical considerations limited to the newborn period.
In spite of recent attempt by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other
organizations to persuade the public to abandon the practice of routine newborn
circumcision, new parents have continued to request the procedure at the same
high rates. In the United States, approximately 75-90% of newborn males are
circumcised, compared to only 10% of Europeans and 20% of males in general
worldwide.
One survey of 200 women, concerning their maternal attitudes to circumcision,
revealed that mothers were not giving medically valid reasons for having their
sons circumcised, and the authors concluded that health care providers needed to
do a better job of educating parents about the medical risks and benefits of the
procedure.
Even after other researchers launched extensive programs to inform prospective
parents about the lack of "absolute medical indication" for circumcision, no
significant change in the rate of newborn circumcisions could be observed in
targeted samples. Parents within the United States who do not have their sons
circumcised report the main reason is cultural. That is, most are a part of a
subgroup, often Hispanic, that traditionally does not circumcise.
Only 10% of the subjects who choose to leave their sons uncircumcised cite being
convinced on the basis of reading or on physician's advice.
It has been demonstrated that mothers more than fathers usually decide whether
to have their sons circumcised. Although informed consent for circumcision now
includes information on how easy it can be to give proper penile hygiene to an
uncircumcised baby, mothers persist in their desire to have their male infants
circumcised. This trend is particularly noteworthy within the current financial
context in which many third party payers deny coverage for newborn
circumcisions.
Review of the Literature and Conceptual Framework
Controversy characterized the history of circumcision.
Circumcision has existed since the Stone Age for unknown reasons. In earliest
written records documenting its use, religious beliefs required that the male
foreskin be removed as an outward display of faith and membership in the group.
In some cultures, circumcision signified a boy's entrance into manhood. In
whatever setting, the uncircumcised were looked down upon for being pagan or
unmasculine.
Later, the European elite class made circumcision exclusive privilege in the
Victorian era. This notion persisted even into the early twentieth century as
evidence that a man had been born into a situation where the luxury of a
circumcision could be afforded.
Circumcision has not solely been a status symbol, however. Within certain
circumstances it was a necessity. Entire armies found themselves immobilized by
balanitis, a painful inflammation under the foreskin due primarily to lack of
access to bathing facilities. Societies that live in arid, sandy environments
where water is precious learned long ago about the merits of circumcision.
Even today, hygiene can be so difficult within some segments of the health care
system, such as in institutions for the elderly or the mentally handicapped
where patients may resist personal hygiene care, that circumcision eventually
has to be performed to prevent infections or other complications of the
foreskin.
Inadequate penile hygiene, which is more likely in uncircumcised men, is
resurfacing again as a predictor of carcinoma of the penis. After the
proclamation by the American Academy of Pediatrics against circumcision, studies
have since begun reporting a relationship between uncircumcision and the
incidence of urinary tract infection in male children.
Other complications, especially balanitis, bring about significantly more
medical visits for uncircumcised boys than for penile problems in circumcised
boys. Good hygiene, which itself can be difficult for even the best intentioned
parents, does not entirely eliminate these problems.
It is argued, therefore, that pediatricians have an incomplete perspective in
the current debate over whether circumcision for newborns is necessary.
Furthermore, medical indications and contradictions aside, insight into the
cultural and sexual rationale for why the American public and American women in
particular prefer circumcision is missing. Social reasons for circumcision, when
conceded at all, are dismissed by medical personnel as being unjustifiable
existing "scientific" proof.
In addition, arguments that cite historical fallacies about circumcision fail
tests of logic when posing as premises for concluding that circumcision for any
reason is wrong.
The debate on medical grounds seems to miss a major portion of the reasoning,
though. In the face of the current campaign against circumcision, why is it
still requested at such high rates? What motivations do American women have for
wanting American males to be circumcised?
In a study by Bean and Egelhoff of 277 new mothers of sons, 78% reported
favoring circumcision even before becoming pregnant and having to make a
conscious choice affecting a son, and 91% ultimately decided to have their
newborn son circumcised. Even those woman whose husbands were uncircumcised
overwhelmingly opted for circumcision for their boys.
The reason must seem important enough to woman for them to withstand pressure
from physicians and others who oppose circumcision. Brown & Brown go as far as
to say that "the circumcision decision of the United States is emerging as a
cultural ritual rather than the result of medical misunderstanding among
parents".
One idea that has been overlooked is that the penis is a sexual instrument, not
just a passageway for urination. For example, circumcision at puberty in
nonliterate cultures is in some ways a sexual recognition of the emerging man.
The permanent,full exposure of the glans of the penis renders it a sexual tool.
Most all research conducted previously on the reasons newborn males are circumcised
fails to include a reference to the perceived sexual appeal of a circumcised
penis over an uncircumcised one for women.
Typical lists of reasons from which the subjects could choose offered only:
hygiene, religion, father's or sibling's circumcision status, and other
"traditional" explanations. At the most, an "Other" category included in some
surveys caught untold thoughts on the perceived advantage of circumcision.
Without the inclusion of sexual attitudes toward penis type on such a list,
respondents would typically hesitate to spontaneously present sexual rationale
favoring circumcision, particularly in reference to a newborn penis.
Admitting to sexual desires and preferences is difficult enough for subjects
even in straightforward studies. Without the researcher conceding the
possibility, it is not likely a mother would volunteer information about her
hopes for her son's future sexual attractiveness.
It was not until a study on cultural values associated with the decision to
circumcise, in which Harris used unstructured interviews, that the sexual
overtones of newborn circumcision were explicitly reported. One of her findings
was that a circumcised penis has a certain "cosmetic appeal," that in America
the exposed glans is more pleasing aesthetically.
She concluded that circumcision could be an acceptable practice based on
cultural values, and that the health care delivery system could be a more
"perceptive cultural broker" with regard to honoring a society's view of beauty.

In asking various groups about why circumcision may be indicated, a few surveys
have included a response category labeled "cultural," which may have been
construed by some subjects to include sexual attitudes.
One such study found that significantly more obstetricians than pediatricians
believed that the culture was a valid reason for neonatal circumcision.
What the concept of culture means, though, is that to many Americans
circumcision seems to be normal because that is what they are accustomed to
seeing. This could certainly be true, in that what people are used to is what
they prefer.
This cultural perspective brings circumcision into a new arena, one in which the
rigidity by some health professionals fosters alienation and resistance. Some go
so far as to say that opting for circumcision indicates an emotional response
that is not based on rational decision making.
A study of female preference for certain male body parts showed that 89% of
woman students at a southern college preferred pictures of circumcised penises
over uncircumcised ones.
This is as close as the literature comes to facing the persistent preference by
American women for circumcision, as best displayed by new mothers of male
infants. To date, no study has explored the possible sexual motivations behind
circumcision, however.
It was the purpose of this investigation, therefore, to determine if women,
particularly mothers who recently made a decision about circumcision of their
newborn sons, do indeed prefer circumcised sexual partners, and if so, for what
reasons. This study hypothesized that most American woman prefer circumcised
penises in their sexual relations, a factor unrelated to the purported lack of
medical indications for the procedure.
Methods
Women 18 years of age and older who delivered full-term healthy sons within the
previous month at a major midwest medical center comprised the targeted sample.
Candidates for the study were chosen during a 6-month period based upon their
willingness to participate in an earlier study that dealt with who and what
influenced their decisions to circumcise or not circumcise their babies. The
sample had been randomly selected and 85% made up the group to whom
questionnaires were mailed for this study.
Of the 269 women who received the questionnaire, 148 returned their forms
yielding a response rate of 55%. Three were unusable, yielding a final sample of
145. Due to the explicit sexual nature of the questions, this rate compares
favorably to the other research studies investigating such personal sexual
issues.
Because there had been no previous data collection tool seeking this type of
information, it is necessary to first confirm the content validity through it's
review by several experts. The survey instrument was tested on a pilot group of
women who gave subsequent feedback about its clarity and the completeness of the
response options available from which to choose. By comparing the outcome of
this questionnaire to certain items on the previously conducted study on the
group of 269, it was also possible to establish the reliability of the
individual subject's responses over a period of time.
The survey was highly personal, asking the women about their own sexual
experiences with men and about their preferences for circumcised or
uncircumcised penises for various sexual activities. No reference was made to
the women's decision to circumcise their own sons or not.
This survey dealt entirely with adult sexual experiences and preferences in
order to distinguish the two issues and allow for correlational tests between
their choices as parents and their attitudes as sexual adult women.
Each subject had received a thorough review of circumcision at the hospital when
deciding about their son's candidacy for the procedure. Each was also shown
drawings of both uncircumcised and circumcised penises. It was assumed,
therefore, that the subjects knew what circumcision meant and what types of
penises their sexual partners had. Lay terminology was used in each question.
Prior to implementation of the study, all procedures and tools received approval
by a human research subjects' rights board. Confidentiality was guaranteed to
the subjects and was maintained throughout the study.
Results
Most of the newborn sons of mothers in the sample had been circumcised (89%).
This percent is similar to the circumcision rate prevailing in the geographic
area at the time of data collection.
Of the women in the sample, 83.7% were married, 12.8% were single, and 3.5% were
separated, divorced, or widowed.
By race, 97.9% were Caucasian, 1.4% were black, and 0.7% were Hispanic. Another
characteristic consistent with the midwest population generally was religion:
46.1% were Protestant, 21.3% were Catholic, 29.1% claimed no religion, 0.7% were
Jewish, and the remaining 2.8% listed other religions.
The group was well educated. All but 12.7% had finished high school and 25.3%
had at least some higher education. Fourteen percent had finished college. There
was a weak correlation between higher education and the choice to circumcise the
newborn (rpb =3D 0.27).
In response to the question "With which penis types have you had sexual
experience?", 16.5% revealed that they had had sexual contract with both
circumcised and uncircumcised men. Only 5.5% had sexual experience exclusively
with uncircumcised sexual partners, and the remainder of the sample was sexually
experienced only with circumcised men.
The responses to "If you could choose anyone for your ideal male sex partner,
which circumcision type would you prefer he have for the following activities?"
as shown in Table 1. There was a strong correlation between the circumcision
status of her newborn son and a woman's ideal male partner's status for the
purpose of intercourse (phi =3D 0.86)m, and a moderate correlation for visual
appeal (phi =3D 0.50).
To investigate any possible relationship between the circumcision status of
one's father or brothers and the preferred type of ideal sexual partner,
correlational tests were made on those subjects who knew whether these family
members were circumcised. No similarities were found that could be attributed to
childhood exposed to penises of either type (phi =3D 0.12 for fathers and 0.06
for brothers).
It was interesting to note that 22% of the sample did not know whether their
fathers were circumcised and of those who had brothers, 9% did not know whether
they were circumcised.
TABLE ONE
Activity Penis Type
Circumcised (%) Uncircumcised (%) Either (%)
Sexual Intercourse
71 6 23
Looking at to Achieve sexual arousal
76 4 20
Giving manual

penile stimulation
75 5 20
Giving Fellatio
83 2 15
It could be surmised that some women prefer circumcised penises because that
their sole experience in sexual contacts.
However, of the group with dual experience (N =3D 24), two-thirds favored
circumcision exclusively and a significantly greater proportion preferred
circumcised partners for all the sexual activities listed in Table 1 (p < 0.01).

Among those women who had sexual experience only with uncircumcised partners (N
=3D 8), their past was more clearly correlated to their preferences. For each of
the sexual activities presented, approximately half of this sub-group desired an
uncircumcised penis and the other half said that penis type did not matter.
Evidently, almost any sexual exposure to a circumcised swayed women to sexually
prefer circumcision. That is only 1% of the entire sample consistently preferred
uncircumcised partners for all sexual activities, and those subjects came
entirely from the group which had had sexual experience only with uncircumcised
penises.
When asked "Why do you prefer one penis type over another for sex?", subjects
were instructed to mark all options that applied to them.
Among those preferring a circumcised penis, the reasons they indicated appeared
in the following ranked order from most frequent to least:
Stays cleaner (92 %)
Looks sexier (90%)
Feels nicer to touch (85%)
Seems more natural (77%)
Smells more pleasant (55%)
Stays softer (54%)
It was fascinating to find that so many women thought a circumcised penis seemed
more natural, probably meaning to them "familiar" within the American cultural
context.
Among those preferring an uncircumcised penis, most also stated that to them it
looked more natural, but no one in the entire study thought that an
uncircumcised penis looked sexier.
Overall, the factor correlating most strongly with whether the newborn son was
circumcised was the subject's favorite penis type for sexual intercourse. There
was little or no correlation between the newborn circumcision decision and
demographic factors including race, upbringing, or sexual experiences.
Conclusions
This study clearly support the hypothesis that American women prefer
circumcision for sexual reasons. The preference for circumcision does not
necessarily come out of ignorance nor from lack of exposure to uncircumcised
men.
Even when women grow up with uncircumcised fathers and brothers, or have
uncircumcised sexual partners, the majority of such a group still prefer
circumcised sexual partners.
Women state a preference for circumcised penises particularly for sexual
activities like fellatio, but also for intercourse, manual stimulation, and
visual appeal.
They say that this is primarily due to circumcised penises being cleaner and
looking sexier.
The cleanliness of circumcised penises within the sexual context means something
different from cleanliness as a hygiene factor to prevent balanitis and other
complications.
To a sexual partner, cleanliness is important because the penis tastes, smells,
and looks more appealing. Spontaneous sexual activity is more likely to be
enjoyable with a man who is circumcised, because bathing efforts last for longer
periods of time. For the uncircumcised, washing under the foreskin must be
attended to frequently to prevent the accumulation of any smegma, whereas in the
circumcised male, the constant exposure or the coronal ring and the glans to air
prevents the build up of odors and secretions.
Of almost equal importance to cleanliness of the penis for sexual activities is
the visual attractiveness of a circumcised penis. What is sexier about a
circumcised penis?
Perhaps visualizing the glans, the urinary meatus, and the corona without them
being hidden under a foreskin is arousing. After all, such is the appearance of
an erect penis, and sexual imagery of the erect penis involves exposure of the
glans.
While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised
penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. Furthermore, in some
uncircumcised men the foreskin can actually detract from the visual appeal of
the penis. American producer of erotic films and publishers of photographic
literature are careful, for example, on those rare occasions when uncircumcised
models or actors are used, to select penises with foreskins that are smooth and
free from extra wrinkled skin. Particularly to the unaccustomed eye, a puckered
or wrinkled foreskin can lack sexual appeal.
These findings suggest that the decision to have a new-born son circumcised may
not be significantly affected by increasing the already rigorous efforts to
explain the supposed lack of medical indications. While many mothers may not
consciously view their sons as sexual beings, many may opt for circumcision with
the belief that the son will be more sexually attractive to his future sexual
partners, based on how they themselves feel. Future research can address this
issue within a different cultural setting where most males are uncircumcised.
Newborn circumcision need no longer be performed without local anesthesia,
silencing the outcry against circumcision as a form of "barbarism". Removal of
the foreskin may be viewed as preventive care, not unlike procedures done in
other areas of health care (such as the extraction of asymptomatic wisdom
teeth).
The opponents of circumcision argue in return against the imposition of such a
decision without the affected newborn male's consent. In response, those
favoring circumcision point out that the many men who later want or need to be
circumcised face a major surgical procedure that would have presented only a
minor inconvenience if done as an infant.
Circumcision has, therefore, now become a much broader issue than one that can
be dismissed on such narrow grounds as those proposed by the American Academy of
Pediatrics. Not least among the considerations is the worth of sexual preference
for male circumcision within the American culture as a valid reason for
continuing the practice.
Back To Circumcision Online News
options

[Norbert]

I think it is correct to let the parents decide. I am glad my parents DID circumcise me for sure. I think an uncut penis looks like a dog's and MOST AMERICAN women do agree.

[HereticChick]

I think it is correct to let the parents decide. I am glad my parents DID circumcise me for sure. I think an uncut penis looks like a dog's and MOST AMERICAN women do agree.

I think an uncut penis looks vulnerable and naked. My husband is cut and even he wishes he hadn't been. I know he has less sensitivity due to the constant friction of clothes. Perhaps people need to look at the incidents of erectile disfucntion between those who are cut vs uncut. I wonder if there is a significant differance between the 2?

[Jennifer1]

wow this is still going...well personally the idea of a circumsized one is creepy.

Norbert when did you become the spokesman for most american women? Unless a survey goes out to every single woman in america there is no way to tell, all you can do is get a sample audiance which is usually just around 2000 women choosen at random oh and if you have never experience one how can you deicde which you like? Since most of you american guys have been mutalated most american women wouldn't have experienced the other verson, maybe thats why American women like European men so much.

[vintagecarguy]

it will never make sense to irreversably surgicaly alter a childs body for the reason that some of todays adult women sexually prefer a specific cosmetic alteration.


The baby in this picture has just undergone the most common surgical proceedure in the USA.The babies who appear to sleep through it have been proven to actually be in shock.Most of the babies who are abused in this maner have been shown to react more negatively to their immunizations later.No pain killer administered during will kill the agony that will continue on after.He will urinate putting salty urine in his wound.Doesnt sound comfortable to me.He may now develop meatal stenosis,a condition CAUSED by infant circ that may later require more painful surgical intervention.He may end up like me and unable to enjoy normal intimate relations with his girlfriend or wife.I assure you,my girlfriend would prefer I hadn't been subjected to the butchers knives.

[NakedGary]

[quote]I think an uncut penis looks vulnerable and naked.

HereticCheck did you mean to say the "cut" penis looks vulnerable and naked.?

[HereticChick]

Posted July 10, 2005 10:03 PM
[quote by "HereticChick]

quote:
I think an uncut penis looks vulnerable and naked.



HereticCheck did you mean to say the "cut" penis looks vulnerable and naked.?
Woops! Yes, you are correct http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I meant a cut penis looks vulneralbe.

[fre2bnude]

I think it is correct to let the parents decide. I am glad my parents DID circumcise me for sure. I think an uncut penis looks like a dog's and MOST AMERICAN women do agree.

Well, it's really amazing just how long this discussion is continuing, it must be pretty close to a lot of peoples hearts - both male and female, but then it does affect both parties. I'm not cut and I'm very happy to still have my skin and in no way does it look like a dogs. As I've said before it's slack enough to "wear" it rolled back or rolled forward as I wish, it's nice to have the choice. At the moment it's looking very brown from being out in the sun. How do you go on when circumcised being exposed to the sun, is it something to be careful of?

[KirkOntario]

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200507/CUL20050714a.shtml

A major study showing that circumcision dramatically lowers the chances of HIV transmission really resolves the issue in favour of circumcision, but as the article posted states, poltically correct extremists have taken over this issue.

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
A major study showing that circumcision dramatically lowers the chances of HIV transmission really resolves the issue in favour of circumcision, but as the article posted states, poltically correct extremists have taken over this issue.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all.

Before a kid becomes sexually active, the effect of him being cut/uncut on his chances of getting AIDS really is absolutely irrelevant now, is it not ?

When a kid becomes old enough to have sex, he's also old enough to talk with doctors, read every freaking "major study" out there, weight the pros and cons of circomcision and decide for himself whether he wants one or not.

But for Pete's sake, leave the newborns alone.

[vintagecarguy]

A major study showing that circumcision dramatically lowers the chances of HIV transmission really resolves the issue in favour of circumcision, but as the article posted states, poltically correct extremists have taken over this issue

excuse me??

might I say..fecal matter of male bovines!!!!!!!

one does not amputate normal healthy tissue off an infant to stop transmission of an ADULT BEHAVIOR related disease that might not even exist anymore by the time the child,victim,matures.
Let ADULTS choose to amputate their OWN normal foreskin if they wish to engage in unsafe sexual behavior.
Claiming this reduction in the transmission of aids settles it is like saying cutting the breast of baby girls would 100 percent prevent fatal breast cancer so its settled,cut off them ticking time bombs known as breast!
spare me!spare the babies.
stop cutting kids for adult fetishes!

[Trailscout]

Sunburned glans can occur in fair-skinned individuals. I have type III skin (tans easily, but can still burn).

I wish I had foreskin for additional protection, but I don't, so I am reasonably cautious to prevent sunburn to the glans and have not had any problems. There's enough pigment in the glans to allow me to enjoy morning and late afternoon sun, (avoiding midday exposure).

[NakedGary]

HIV infection is less in Uncut Intact males:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

[HereticChick]

NakedGary
Posted July 14, 2005 10:13 PM
HIV infection is less in Uncut Intact males:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/


I read the articles on circumstitions. I was amazed at how poorly they conducted their statistical gathering. It didn't make sense at all. I still think you shouldn't cut based on someones sexual practices or future sexual practices.

[Naturist Zoar]

An older female co-worker and I were talking in the office one afternoon, when she started lamenting about her decision to have her son circumcised 18 years ago. I responded that at that time, you and your husband probably made that decision thinking it was in the best interest of "Johnny". Then she asked me about my status.
I was taken for a loop and felt off guard and gave an ambiguous response.
I regret I did not state the fact then. She was later transferred to another office and I never
fessed up.
I've always felt comfortable in discussing circumcision with the guys but discussion with an older woman is a different story.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">NakedGary
Posted July 14, 2005 10:13 PM
HIV infection is less in Uncut Intact males:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/


I read the articles on circumstitions. I was amazed at how poorly they conducted their statistical gathering. It didn't make sense at all. I still think you shouldn't cut based on someones sexual practices or future sexual practices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't think most people won't grow up to have sex? Unfortunately the latest data out of South AFrica shows a one out of three children is having sex at age 10. We aren't talking sex at the age of consent so why talk circumcision at the age of consent? Don't kids have the right to be protected from dying?

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=1157

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
You don't think most people won't grow up to have sex? Unfortunately the latest data out of South AFrica shows a one out of three children is having sex at age 10. We aren't talking sex at the age of consent so why talk circumcision at the age of consent? Don't kids have the right to be protected from dying?
Kirk, you provided a link to one study that allegedly proves that circumcision lowers the risks of HIV infection. Gary provided links to several studies to the contrary. Yet you continue to talk as if it was a proven fact that circumcision lowers the risks of HIV infection, blatantly ignoring the references given.

You only retain evidence that supports your personal beliefs, and simply reject the rest. You simply believe what you want to believe, and are not interested in searching for the truth.

In light of this, there is no way to have any kind of rational debate with you.

P.S. Breast cancer kills a lot more women than HIV. So, logicaly, you must be in agreement with vintagecarguy's suggestion of systematicaly amputating the mamal glands of new born girls to protect them in the future from this terrible disease, right ?

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">NakedGary
Posted July 14, 2005 10:13 PM
HIV infection is less in Uncut Intact males:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_myths.html

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/


I read the articles on circumstitions. I was amazed at how poorly they conducted their statistical gathering. It didn't make sense at all. I still think you shouldn't cut based on someones sexual practices or future sexual practices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't think most people won't grow up to have sex? Unfortunately the latest data out of South AFrica shows a one out of three children is having sex at age 10. We aren't talking sex at the age of consent so why talk circumcision at the age of consent? Don't kids have the right to be protected from dying?

http://lonestartimes.com/index.php?p=1157 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude! You're talking about AFRICA....very little education, no technology, lots of superstition.....AFRICA. These are the same people who think it's ok to mutilate little girls by cutting off their clitoris and labia minora....AFRICA. They live in huts, herd cattle, don't have bug spray, medical help, TV, telephones....yada yada yada. They are aboriginal peoples that have little or no contact with the "civilised" world. If you're talking about kids having sex at age 10 in Africa it's because they're being RAPED. And you're worried about them getting AIDS? RAPED by ADULTS! RAPE (http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafrica/articles/art_5525.html)

[vintagecarguy]

it appears that some folks can't or won't accept that studies in Africa do not mean we should mutilate all of the children of North America.
A simple look a the aids rates for northern hemisphere industrialised nations shows that the USA,which has the highest mutilation rate,also has the HIGHEST aids rate among similar socioeconomic nations.

circumcison is a fetish of some adults and should not be inflicted on infants.
Quote
"Don't kids have the right to be protected from dying?"

Yes,children do have the right to protected from dying and a couple of children DIE from complications related to infant circumcision every year!

[Fresh Air]

Perhaps people need to look at the incidents of erectile disfucntion between those who are cut vs uncut. I wonder if there is a significant differance between the 2?

There isn't really a difference. When speaking of impotence, the cause is usually vascular like in CAD or neurogenic as in diabetes. The other causes are usually psychiatric in origin. If we are refering to premature ejaculation, then maybe less sensitivity would be a good thing.

I'm sure a survey would show that most men are happy with their penises and use them or play with them just as much, cut or uncut.

Dan

[Fresh Air]

one does not amputate normal healthy tissue off an infant to stop transmission of an ADULT BEHAVIOR related disease that might not even exist anymore by the time the child,victim,matures.
Let ADULTS choose to amputate their OWN normal foreskin if they wish to engage in unsafe sexual behavior.
Claiming this reduction in the transmission of aids settles it is like saying cutting the breast of baby girls would 100 percent prevent fatal breast cancer so its settled,cut off them ticking time bombs known as breast!

HIV will still be here when we're all dead. I don't believe a cure is in site any time soon. Unless true manogomy takes flight. Which bring us to the issue of STD transmission.

I personally think this is an irrelivent reason to circumsize anyone. But just thought an explaination was in order. Females are more likely to get most STDs compared to males. It has to do with the amount of "moist" tissue and tissue thickness. Compared to males, it is unfortunate but true that the female genitals are like a perti dish for STDs. The only difference between a cut and uncut male is that small square inch of tissue that makes things a little easier to catch and grow due to it's more moist and less thick skinned nature. Either state is still better off than the female.

I see circumcision as cosmetic. So I think a better comparison is breast implants. Who would want that and why?

....well, some people I guess...and for various reasons I'm assuming.

Dan

[Fresh Air]

http://www.mainstreetstudios.net/package/gallery/baby-in-basket-crying.jpg
Do not place babies on soft warm blankets, it hurts them, they'll cry.

http://graphics.iparenting.com/clipart/newfamily/E009675L.JPG
Do not bath your babies, it hurts them, they'll cry.

http://lennon.pub.csufresno.edu/~mcaklh/Jesus%20&%20baby%20crying.jpg
Do not let Jesus hold your baby, it hurts them, they'll cry.

Ok, jokes aside. I'm certain a circumsicion hurts. I even think that parents who choose that option know it does. I still see it as a personal choice for ones own children.

We live in a cosmetic world. Like I've said before, some asian children have "painful" surgeries on their eyes, to make their eyelids look more like everyone elses. Some preborn infants get to experience abortion first hand. Some babies are born with what we label as "birth defects" and go through many painful surgeries to make them like everyone else.

Until uncircumcized is like everyone else, people will still likely continue choosing the cut option. I think it's fine either way.

Dan

[NakedGary]

Fresh Air

Get informed, In a adult male it's equivalent to the size of a 3" x 5" index card and that's [15] fifteen square inches, and normally up to over 50% and sometimes 80% loss of penile skin system, which causes erectile tightness, pain, bending, curvature, and loss sexual function, natural antibodies against infection, Plus nerves, blood system veins, and several of the most sensitive part of the penis sensatory and protection systems.

Just type in "circumcision" in the words search window and you will find hundreds of links to inform you on the facts, loss, and functions one looses mostly without consent through the unkindest of cuts or mutilation called circumcision, or penile reduction. Do you really think the foreskin was put there without purpose or function?

One of hundreds of links:

Penile Reduction [Circumcision] Losses (http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html)

.

[Fresh Air]

NakedGary,

There are many ways one can choose to inform themselves. I still feel somewhat informed on the issue, even if you disagree. I'm sorry I generalized with the figure of speech about the size of the skin. It's actually even smaller on a baby though.

One thing I have found with internet research is that it is usually biased to one side or the other. It's pretty hard to find a site that gives an nonjudgmental view on most bipolar of issues.

The site you listed has a few errors itself when it comes to describing the methods and procedure of circumcision. I didn't read much further. Perhaps I'm biased for judging biasedness. Regardless, I've had the opportunity to assist in a few circumcisions. They were all due to pathologic states secondary to an uncircumcised penis. The good news was it's not as bad as it seems. The bad news is it's not as bad as it seems (people are likely to continue doing it).

Sadly, there are side effects with both choices. I guess I don't place the penis on my priority list of worthy causes. I figure it is still working cut or uncut, because we're still reproducing in either state. Half of us will become impotent and we'll all die, likely in a state that doesn't matter at that time either.

I prefer causes like breast augmentation that prevents mothers from breast feeding their children, which has been shown to be of benefit in many ways. Things like STD prevention, which is deffinately a way to help prevent reproductive malfunction not to mention cancers. I worry about circumcision about as much as I worry about chronicaly bad hair cuts, tattoos, unnecessary scars and body piercing.

Things like preventing smoking or drinking can do more for saving nerves and lives, and that would make a real difference.

I firmly agree with you that the foreskin has a purpose and that it is intended to be there. I just don't feel that it's absence is the greatest tragedy of this century.

Dan

[azgreen]

Dan, sadly and unfortunately, you overlook the important and fundamental issue of a human being have the universal rightful say of what happens to his own body -- what he can keep and what gets lops off. Parents have ethical limits of what they can have imposed on a child's body and many of us believe penile reduction surgery, aka circumcision, falls into that realm. Intact males I know, including my 30-year-old son, thank their parents for respecting their bodies and letting them remain whole.

[DoctorSurferDude]

They cut off my umbilical cord.....I wanted that....I want it back.

[miracleman]

Doctorsurferdude do you think they could reattach it for you? Still, finding it may be difficult!Then...how could you walk? Maybe wrap it around yourself? Does that mean you may have started a whole new disscussion? To cut...or not cut...the cord? Cant say ive ever noticed a uncut cord member at my club!!!

[Fresh Air]

The right to choose is a complex issue. I hope this also applies to the asian eyelids and elective abortions. In general a parent makes choices for an infant and usually has some say in there lives till they turn 18.

I would put it in the realm of choice though. Unfortunately, while spiritually I'm pro-life, politically I'm pro-choice. So, I guess I'm for a parents right to choose.

Sad Statistic:
1/2 of all pregnancies in the US are unwanted.
1/2 of these unwanted pregnancies are aborted.
That means...
1/4 of all pregnancies are electively aborted.

This I feel is presently a greater social issue than circumcision. I suppose we each must choose our own battles though.

Dan

[Jennifer1]

Sad Statistic:
1/2 of all pregnancies in the US are unwanted.
1/2 of these unwanted pregnancies are aborted.
That means...
1/4 of all pregnancies are electively aborted.

Yeah maybe if more men would stick around after they knock the girl up this figure would be lower.

[jon71]

More comprehensive sex education and increased availibity of contraception would greatly decrease unwanted pregnancies as well. In same places birth control pills are sold over the counter, why not the U.S.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
More comprehensive sex education and increased availibity of contraception would greatly decrease unwanted pregnancies as well. In same places birth control pills are sold over the counter, why not the U.S.

Is 'information' the answer? Doubt it. We live in the most sexually informed, in fact overwhelmed society in history, yet the rate of unwanted pregnancy has skyrocketed along with abortion rates when we have more information, more and better forms of birth control available and more access to those forms of birth control than ever before.

The birth rate among teenagers is about four
times the rate it was in 1950. In 1960 only 5 percent of the births in our country were to
unmarried women. In 1992 births to unmarried women were over 30 percent of the total. Keep
in mind that abortion was less common in 1950, since it was not legal. Today, among
teenagers there is about one abortion for every two live births. (Center for Disease Control)

Sex education, and increased availablity of contracepton the traditional liberal mantras as a cure-all is not the answer.

[jon71]

We have extremely little real sex education today and it's going downhill. Cinemax and playboy are not educational. Sensationalism and tittilation over sex are not the same thing as education. That has increased greatly but genuine knowledge has not. Also sex, std's, and pregnancy were a lot more common in the old days than people want to think but they were dealt with by denial and shotgun weddings. Now it's not as hidden.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
We have extremely little real sex education today and it's going downhill. Cinemax and playboy are not educational. Sensationalism and tittilation over sex are not the same thing as education. That has increased greatly but genuine knowledge has not. Also sex, std's, and pregnancy were a lot more common in the old days than people want to think but they were dealt with by denial and shotgun weddings. Now it's not as hidden.

In the 1950s it was very hard to get information and often difficult to get birth control. There's a wealth of it out there: 100's of internet websites with real information, Dr. Ruth, very explicit discussions of sexuality in newspapers magazines, television. There is no comparison. Sex education is taught in the schools in a most explicit manner yet abortions increase, unwanted pregnancies increase, STD's increase.
There is no comparison between now and the 1950s yet calls more information, more access go on. Clearly this strategy does not work.

[jon71]

In America sex education is almost unheard of. I would guess (I'm not old enough) that we have less now than in the 50's. We are stuck with the "abstinence only" travesty now. It is full of outright lies and propaganda. It contains nothing that could be called educational. Yes it does exist in libraries and the internet but it may be hard to find. On one end of the spectrum you have porn and it's merchants pushing sex in that manner and the other extreme has fundamentalists and their lies. Finding the truth in between could be difficult.

p.s. this could be a difference between Canada and the U.S. I get the impression that on this matter you all are far superior to us. For all the things the U.S. leads in we are not even close on this one.

[pek1]

I'm cut and wish I wasn't, but there's nothing about it I can do now. I've tried the pulling method, that takes waaayyy toooooo long!

[Trailscout]

Pete,

A lot of us feel as you do. The only practical thing to do is let our sons remain intact and teach them to keep the area under their foreskin clean.

Sexual disease will infect promiscuous circumcised boys to nearly the same degree as uncircumcized.

Our children and teens need supervision, a lot more of it than modern parents seem willing to give, but that's what it has always taken to keep them from having sex, in addition to teaching them Christian values.

A foreskin is a useful organ, but for those who don't have it, we will just have to make the best of things.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
More comprehensive sex education and increased availibity of contraception would greatly decrease unwanted pregnancies as well. In same places birth control pills are sold over the counter, why not the U.S.

Is 'information' the answer? Doubt it. We live in the most sexually informed, in fact overwhelmed society in history, yet the rate of unwanted pregnancy has skyrocketed along with abortion rates when we have more information, more and better forms of birth control available and more access to those forms of birth control than ever before.

The birth rate among teenagers is about four
times the rate it was in 1950. In 1960 only 5 percent of the births in our country were to
unmarried women. In 1992 births to unmarried women were over 30 percent of the total. Keep
in mind that abortion was less common in 1950, since it was not legal. Today, among
teenagers there is about one abortion for every two live births. (Center for Disease Control)

Sex education, and increased availablity of contracepton the traditional liberal mantras as a cure-all is not the answer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you'd like some real statistics? Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2001, a total of 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 2000, for which the same 49 areas reported 857,475 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).
Check out the CDC's statisticsTHE REAL DEAL (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm)

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by HereticChickPerhaps you'd like some real statistics? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2001, a total of 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 2000, for which the same 49 areas reported 857,475 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).
Check out the CDC's statisticsTHE REAL DEAL (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your site says the number 'increased gradually". It doubled (!!) in the period of greatest loosening of the reigns of information, and access to birth control. In 1970 there were less than 200,000 abortions. That number climbed to over a million in 1977 and is still over 800,000.

[jon71]

Prior to 1973 most abortions were illegal. As such actual numbers are impossible to come by. Different groups make different estimates, usually biased on both sides. The actual rate is unknown. Even after 1973 some disputes remain.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
In America sex education is almost unheard of.


Almost unheard of? The New York City department of education for example has HiV/Aids and family health and sexuality as part of its Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum.


<A HREF="http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/TeachLearn/OfficeCurriculumProfessionalDevelopment/HealthEducation/Resources/default.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nycenet.edu/Offices/TeachLearn/OfficeCurricu...esources/default.htm

As for the net there one easy good search using the term 'about sex' brought me several factual non-pornographic sites right away.

<A HREF="http://www.sxetc.org/index.php" TARGET=_blank>http://www.sxetc.org/index.php

http://www.scarleteen.com/

</A>

</A>

So the question still remains. Why with all the information, freeing up of the laws, and easy access to birth control do we have not less but more teen pregnancies and abortions than we did 50 years ago?

[l2ltlarry]

azgreen, you keep asserting that there is a universal human right for babies to exercise sovereignty over their bodies. I don't know where that is codified as law. Do you? I'm pretty sure it's not part of U.S. law.


quote:
"Dan, sadly and unfortunately, you overlook the important and fundamental issue of a human being have the universal rightful say of what happens to his own body -- what he can keep and what gets lops off. Parents have ethical limits of what they can have imposed on a child's body and many of us believe penile reduction surgery, aka circumcision, falls into that realm."


You may believe that but U.S. law doesn't agree with you at this time.

Seems that you are trying to overcome thousands of years of history across many cultures in your campaign to create this "universal human right for a baby to say what happens to its body".


quote:
"And it is foremost a controversy because males who were cut wished they hadn't been. After all the debate is over, we submit that human beings possess a universal right to sovereignty over one's own body and keeping those structures put there in the first place.
No one here has said that a cut male is less a male any more than a car without a fender is less a car. But it is a matter of human rights and medical ethics, and it is worth speaking up for defenseless males yet to be born."


I have never seen a poll that showed more than a third of males wishing they hadn't been circumcised. And until this anti-circumcision campaign gained the momentum it currently has, I think circumcision, rightly or wrongly, was looked upon as something to be desired and something to be very pleased with.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChickPerhaps you'd like some real statistics? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Overall, the annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States increased gradually from 1973 until it peaked in 1990, and it generally declined thereafter (Figure 1). In 2001, a total of 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC by 49 reporting areas. This represents a 0.5% decrease from 2000, for which the same 49 areas reported 857,475 legal induced abortions (Tables 1 and 2).
Check out the CDC's statisticsTHE REAL DEAL (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your site says the number 'increased gradually". It doubled (!!) in the period of greatest loosening of the reigns of information, and access to birth control. In 1970 there were less than 200,000 abortions. That number climbed to over a million in 1977 and is still over 800,000. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you suppose the increase is due, in part to an increase in population? Also, I'm glad to see you took out the words "partisan".

[NakedGary]

This topic/thread was once a "circumcision" theread which has wandered off to a "abortion" thread.

Start a abortion topic/thread, or return to the original topic/thread "are you circumcised?"

[fre2bnude]

So...would it be fair to assume that uncircumcised men last longer in bed, even though they can't enjoy it as much?


I could not venture even to guess. I know of no scientific studies that have been made that answers this question. Maybe Masters and Johnson made some scientific studies giving some sort of answers.

It can be noted that the quote, above, refers to the sensitivity of the head of the flacid penis. The head of a flacid penis, when the forskin is first pulled back, is almost shocking upon touching it, because of the great sensitivity.

Not with mine!!

[HereticChick]

Regardless of all the statistics and stories that I've read. The number one reason I wouldn't circumcize my child is because I would be allowing him to be caused needless pain. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't remember it. It doesn't matter that it MAY or MAY not prevent him from getting certain conditions/diseases. It would rip my heart out to allow someone to cause my child pain for cosmetic reasons. Likewise, I wouldn't have my daughters ears pierced when they were infants. I've seen enough screaming infants in the malls having their ears pierced. Their screams of pain and terror rip through my heart as though they were my children. I have 2 girls. They didn't pierce their ears until they asked to have it done and could understand that it would truly hurt. One was 12 the other about 10. For any mother, I think this would be reason enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[MellowSojourner]

i am circumcised, and am glad of it. I think foreskin is unattractive and unsanitary, but that is just my opinion as a guy who is cut.

Originally posted by HereticChick:
Regardless of all the statistics and stories that I've read. The number one reason I wouldn't circumcize my child is because I would be allowing him to be caused needless pain. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't remember it. It doesn't matter that it MAY or MAY not prevent him from getting certain conditions/diseases. It would rip my heart out to allow someone to cause my child pain for cosmetic reasons. Likewise, I wouldn't have my daughters ears pierced when they were infants. I've seen enough screaming infants in the malls having their ears pierced. Their screams of pain and terror rip through my heart as though they were my children. I have 2 girls. They didn't pierce their ears until they asked to have it done and could understand that it would truly hurt. One was 12 the other about 10. For any mother, I think this would be reason enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Good for you! I feel the same way.

[Mo]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
Regardless of all the statistics and stories that I've read. The number one reason I wouldn't circumcize my child is because I would be allowing him to be caused needless pain. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't remember it. It doesn't matter that it MAY or MAY not prevent him from getting certain conditions/diseases. It would rip my heart out to allow someone to cause my child pain for cosmetic reasons. Likewise, I wouldn't have my daughters ears pierced when they were infants. I've seen enough screaming infants in the malls having their ears pierced. Their screams of pain and terror rip through my heart as though they were my children. I have 2 girls. They didn't pierce their ears until they asked to have it done and could understand that it would truly hurt. One was 12 the other about 10. For any mother, I think this would be reason enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My father, who hails from Europe, had it done when he was 14. He still had it done to me when I was born. I guess he felt the benefits far outweighed the temporary discomfort. I have no regrets. I in turn had it done to my son when he was born.

It has nothing to do with "cosmetic" reasons, at least for me. Partly it's the medical reasons (and I have known a couple of folks who have had some nasty infections, whether by neglect or otherwise). And partly it's because that's the way I am, and it has worked out for me, so why shouldn't my son be the same way?

[Mo]

Wow, it's a parent's choice? Are children property for parents to do whatever the want with them? Why can't it be the child's choice?

Going back to an onld post...

I always find this arguement weak. There are people all over the world with awful lives who wish they had never been born. Yet they didn't really have a choice about that either.

Only in the US are parental rights so dilluted by government that such statements about "ownership" can be made with such abandon.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
Regardless of all the statistics and stories that I've read. The number one reason I wouldn't circumcize my child is because I would be allowing him to be caused needless pain. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't remember it. It doesn't matter that it MAY or MAY not prevent him from getting certain conditions/diseases. It would rip my heart out to allow someone to cause my child pain for cosmetic reasons. Likewise, I wouldn't have my daughters ears pierced when they were infants. I've seen enough screaming infants in the malls having their ears pierced. Their screams of pain and terror rip through my heart as though they were my children. I have 2 girls. They didn't pierce their ears until they asked to have it done and could understand that it would truly hurt. One was 12 the other about 10. For any mother, I think this would be reason enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My father, who hails from Europe, had it done when he was 14. He still had it done to me when I was born. I guess he felt the benefits far outweighed the temporary discomfort. I have no regrets. I in turn had it done to my son when he was born.

It has nothing to do with "cosmetic" reasons, at least for me. Partly it's the medical reasons (and I have known a couple of folks who have had some nasty infections, whether by neglect or otherwise). And partly it's because that's the way I am, and it has worked out for me, so why shouldn't my son be the same way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if your son developed a nasty infection due to circumcision and was horribly maimed because of it? Do you think you'd feel the same way? A complication rate of 2-10% might sound minor, unless it's YOUR child or YOUR penis. Why would you risk it? It's possible for a child to actually LOSE his penis due to complications. Would YOU risk losing YOUR penis for a surgery that isn't necessary????

BTW - my sig means "If we had known, if we had only known"...pretty appropriate for this thread.

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by Mo:
My father, who hails from Europe, had it done when he was 14. He still had it done to me when I was born. I guess he felt the benefits far outweighed the temporary discomfort. I have no regrets. I in turn had it done to my son when he was born.
You father had something that he denied you, and you denied your son: a choice.

[Midnite Rider]

I suppose I should throw in my 2 cents worth (or 3 cents in Canadian funds - damn exchange rate).

Am I circumsized? No and I wouldn't have it any other way.

From what I recall, circumcision has been justified through the years as a preventative measure for everything from a variety of sexually transmitted diseases (including HIV), to cancer, to whatever else was relevant at the time. I don't believe that the statistics back up these claims though. If you're worried about cleanliness the answer is simple, soap and water. Not a problem.

Aside from the supposed medical reason(s), so much of this seems to be aesthetics and the "that's the way we've always done it" syndrome. Daddy wants Junior to look just like him so the cycle is never really broken.

The bottom line is that I think it's an unnecessary procedure and it's up to parents to make sure they have all of the facts before making a decision that's going to affect their child for the rest of his life.

[vintagecarguy]

Aside from the supposed medical reason(s), so much of this seems to be aesthetics and the "that's the way we've always done it" syndrome. Daddy wants Junior to look just like him so the cycle is never really broken.

thanks midnite,
thats very true.

[fre2bnude]

Matt says:
well In the USA if your not circumsized then most women don't like you

Back to the beginning.
The quote above: Is that true? If it is true, why? Is it the look or the feel? I can't see that it would make any difference apart from the looks, and we've only really had a few womens views on this.

[l2ltlarry]

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

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

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

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

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Matt says:
well In the USA if your not circumsized then most women don't like you

Back to the beginning.
The quote above: Is that true? If it is true, why? Is it the look or the feel? I can't see that it would make any difference apart from the looks, and we've only really had a few womens views on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it matters what it looks like flaccid. All I'm concerned with, is do you KNOW how to use it during sex! http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Is that a gun in or your pocket or are you just glad to see me? Oooo la la!

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Matt says:
well In the USA if your not circumsized then most women don't like you

Back to the beginning.
The quote above: Is that true? If it is true, why? Is it the look or the feel? I can't see that it would make any difference apart from the looks, and we've only really had a few womens views on this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately it's true too often and it's because of the look. The stupid part is that it's only because they aren't used to seeing whole and complete penises. They'd rather see the scarred up ones. This is simple to overcome. The more time goes on the higher the chance they've seen uncut ones and the more likely they will see it a different in a negative way.

[mj]

I am cut, but not by my choice....my parents were doing what they thought best for me, I cannot fault them for doing so. When my wife was in the hospital I happened to walk by a room where a baby boy was being cut.....those were not cries of joy.....I tore up the papers authorizing circum. I did not want to cause him any pain, turned out to be a girl. We did, however, have their ears pierced when they were still in a stroller. Now, they, like me, love the needle.....

[younghippy]

I am proudly a cut man. This decision was not my own, but love the decision that was made. I am proud that I am like my father, and feel there is no reason to consider any other way.

As for pain... I was fondly no more than a few days old, and seem to not recall any pain down there. Maybe my memory hazy of those wild days.

Be proud of what you are. Don't hold hostility towards those that not only made your decisions, but did everything for you while in the most tender ages. Respect your body any way it is.

[fre2bnude]

I don't think it matters what it looks like flaccid. All I'm concerned with, is do you KNOW how to use it during sex! Is that a gun in or your pocket or are you just glad to see me? Oooo la la!

Yes HereticChick that's the point I'm trying to make. When the things in use and erect the foreskin rolls back and looks very much like a cicumcised one anyway, I'm still glad I've got mine but if I hadn't I'd still be pleased with it, after 61 years I'm well used to it and how it works, with or without attachments!!

[Tara]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
Regardless of all the statistics and stories that I've read. The number one reason I wouldn't circumcize my child is because I would be allowing him to be caused needless pain. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't remember it. It doesn't matter that it MAY or MAY not prevent him from getting certain conditions/diseases. It would rip my heart out to allow someone to cause my child pain for cosmetic reasons. Likewise, I wouldn't have my daughters ears pierced when they were infants. I've seen enough screaming infants in the malls having their ears pierced. Their screams of pain and terror rip through my heart as though they were my children. I have 2 girls. They didn't pierce their ears until they asked to have it done and could understand that it would truly hurt. One was 12 the other about 10. For any mother, I think this would be reason enough. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My father, who hails from Europe, had it done when he was 14. He still had it done to me when I was born. I guess he felt the benefits far outweighed the temporary discomfort. I have no regrets. I in turn had it done to my son when he was born.

It has nothing to do with "cosmetic" reasons, at least for me. Partly it's the medical reasons (and I have known a couple of folks who have had some nasty infections, whether by neglect or otherwise). And partly it's because that's the way I am, and it has worked out for me, so why shouldn't my son be the same way? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if your son developed a nasty infection due to circumcision and was horribly maimed because of it? Do you think you'd feel the same way? A complication rate of 2-10% might sound minor, unless it's YOUR child or YOUR penis. Why would you risk it? It's possible for a child to actually LOSE his penis due to complications. Would YOU risk losing YOUR penis for a surgery that isn't necessary????

BTW - my sig means "If we had known, if we had only known"...pretty appropriate for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well said... it certainly is not worth the risk. If I ever have a baby boy I am leaving him exactly the way nature intended.

[John Spooner]

Dear Younghippy.
Exactly what I say also, with you all the way.
That makes 5 of us in the "pleased to be cut club", so far there are yourself, LA Naked man, Nudeart, Nudeatheart and myself. Anyone else?
Regards. John S.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by fre2bnude:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't think it matters what it looks like flaccid. All I'm concerned with, is do you KNOW how to use it during sex! Is that a gun in or your pocket or are you just glad to see me? Oooo la la!

Yes HereticChick that's the point I'm trying to make. When the things in use and erect the foreskin rolls back and looks very much like a cicumcised one anyway, I'm still glad I've got mine but if I hadn't I'd still be pleased with it, after 61 years I'm well used to it and how it works, with or without attachments!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any women in here with pierced ears as infant proud of your pierced ears? Seems like a silly thing to be proud of.

[the NAKED eye]

Me too! But as I am cut and pierced does that count for the club? Being circumcised (not my choice) and pierced (my choice) is great. The lack of foreskin and the 9mm Prince Albert ring in my penis is a perfect combination; I wouldn't be with or without them respectively!
the NAKED eye
Originally posted by John Spooner. South Oz.:
Dear Younghippy.
Exactly what I say also, with you all the way.
That makes 5 of us in the "pleased to be cut club", so far there are yourself, LA Naked man, Nudeart, Nudeatheart and myself. Anyone else?
Regards. John S.

[Snoboy]

I, too, am circumcized and happy with it. Mine was done when I was five and it was a bit scary because I thought it had been all cut off when I saw the red stuff all over...but I guess it was some form of germ barrior used at the time. I had my son circumcized as well.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Snoboy:
I, too, am circumcized and happy with it. Mine was done when I was five and it was a bit scary because I thought it had been all cut off when I saw the red stuff all over...but I guess it was some form of germ barrior used at the time. I had my son circumcized as well.

Can I ask Why was it done at 5? My nephew was originally left intact. New age flaky mom's idea. They ended up having to have him done as the foreskin was not retracting properly and risked getting infected.

[vintagecarguy]

autopsy report of boy who DIED fron genital mutilation.
THE DADE COUNTRY MEDICAL EXAMINER DEPARTMENT, Miami, Florida
Name....MANKER,.Demetrius.....June.23,1993....11:0 0am.........Case No. 93-1711

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:

**The body is that of a 25-1/2 inch, 15 pound, very pale appearing Negro male appearing consistent with the stated age of 6 months. ... No anomalies are evident.

**When initially viewed, a large amount of congealed blood covers the head of the penis. Removal of this disclosed a circumcision site that appears unremarkable along the dorsal surface of the penis. Ventrally, however, a gaping defect of approximately 12 x 14 millimeters is evident with a large amount of extravasated blood in the subcutaneous tissues extending along the shaft of the penis nearly to the scrotal sac.

...

*


CAUSE OF DEATH: Exsanguination DUE TO: Penile Circumcision

*

*

*


[signed]
Charles V. Wetli, M.D.
Deputy Chief Medical Examiner

[Fresh Air]

Yeah maybe if more men would stick around after they knock the girl up this figure would be lower.


True, my feeling are that the dynamic of sexuality in modern cultures such as here in the US are the root of the problem. Meaning, it's not a problem of the act of sex, it is a social problem that exists irrelivent of sex, but manifests itself in the reproductive arena.

Dan

[Fresh Air]

CAUSE OF DEATH: Exsanguination DUE TO: Penile Circumcision


Sounds like a clotting disorder to me.

My view is still that people should have the right to "grow" their children as they see fit. Neither choice on this matter deserves outside influence to dictate a parental choice. It's nice to have oppinions and influence, but ultimately the choice is that of the parent and should remain so.

Dan

[vintagecarguy]

even after seeing an autopsy report one person thinks.....
"My view is still that people should have the
right to "grow" their children as they see fit. Neither choice on this matter deserves outside influence to dictate a parental choice. It's nice to have oppinions and influence, but ultimately the choice is that of the parent and should remain so."

strangely enough we can't choose to kill our chidren after birth,even if the lttle bugger drives ya nuts.
a parent cant have their kids ears cut off,time to protect the genitals.

heres anotrher dead kid

JUDGEMENT OF INQUIRY
INTO THE DEATH OF
McWILLIS[,] RYLEIGH ROMAN BRYAN

I, T.E. Chico Newell, a Coroner in the Province of British Columbia, have inquired into the death of the above named, which was waived to me on the 30th day of September, 2002, and as a result of such inquiry have determined the following facts:

Gender: male
Native: no
Age: 1 month, 1 day
Premise/Place of Death: B.C. Children's Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.
Estimated Date of Death: 22 August 2002
Estimated Time of Death: 0440 hours
Date and Time of Injury: 20 August 2002, 0825 hours
Township of Injury/Illness: Penticton, B.C.
Injury/Illness Premise: Hospital
Identification method: Visual (parents)
Body released to: Summerland Funeral home, Summerland, B.C.
Post mortem examination: Full
Conducted by: Dr. G.P. Taylor, Pathologist, B.C. Children's Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.
MEDICAL CAUSE OF DEATH

(1) Immediate cause of death: a) Multi-organ ischemia, due to or as a consequence of b) exsangination [loss of blood], due to or as a consequence of c) circumcision
(2) Other significant conditions contributing to death: Post-surgical exsanguination

Classification of the event: Accidental
Date signed: 19 January 2004
T.E. Chico Newell, Coroner

SUMMARY OF EVENTS Ryleigh Roman Bryan McWillis was a one-month-old infant who underwent a circumcision and subsequently suffered severe hemorrhage. His parents took him to Penticton Regional Hospital where he was treated in the intensive care nursery. He was transferred to BC Childr

[NakedGary]

[originally by KirkOntario"]
Can I ask Why was it done at 5? My nephew was originally left intact. New age flaky mom's idea. They ended up having to have him done as the foreskin was not retracting properly and risked getting infected.

The foreskin is attached or fused as part of the glands at birth, and does not separate on its own [unless circumcised] until up to years, and sometimes after puberty and until late teens. No one including the doctor, HMO, mother, father, or anyone should attempt to separate, force, or retract the foreskin unless there is medical acute necessity and emergency reason to do so. When the bearer of the foreskin can do so or retract the foreskin without pain or discomfort, then and only then is it necessary to inform the person to frequently wash or clean under the foreskin with water only during bathing or showers. Until natural separation or retraction of the foreskin by the bearer, the inter foreskin needs no maintenance, except external washing of the external foreskin and ball sack area. The internal foreskin, and organs, glands maintain a hygienic and protective area against contamination and infection naturally.

Leave the foreskin alone, its there for a purpose, and does a great job of maintaining itself until natural separation, and for life.

Circumcision is permanent penile mutilation & Reduction in:

Size, shape, protection, sensitivity, function, hygiene, exposure, pleasure, and organ maintenance.

Let the bearer and user of the foreskin decide if he wants permanent penile mutilation and reduction on his own.

85% of the world’s male population remain intact, functional, and trouble free for life naturally.

.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Can I ask Why was it done at 5? My nephew was originally left intact. New age flaky mom's idea. They ended up having to have him done as the foreskin was not retracting properly and risked getting infected.

I personally take offense to your comment of a "new age flaky mom's idea". You are really wearing on my nerves. Your opinions and statements continually irritate me, as well as others on this board.

So, rather than allow the boy (your nephew) to remain intact and work at stretching the foreskin back gently as most parents are instructed, they opt to have it cut. How ignorant is that? Cut first, regret later......

[Tara]

I too was offended by Kirk's "flakey new age" comment. For someone who is so quick to hit the Report Post button for anything that irritates him, he seems to have no sensitivity when it comes to belittling other people's ideas. I guess if you simply dismiss someone as a flake, it is easier than thinking http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
I personally take offense to your comment of a "new age flaky mom's idea". You are really wearing on my nerves. Your opinions and statements continually irritate me, as well as others on this board.

So, rather than allow the boy (your nephew) to remain intact and work at stretching the foreskin back gently as most parents are instructed, they opt to have it cut. How ignorant is that? Cut first, regret later......

The Doctor advised that it be done. She took that advice. And yes, she was flaky and New Age. Not all flaky people are New Age and not all New Age people are flaky. Did you want to discuss New Age thinking?

(I do not care when people belittle other people's ideas. That always happens in a debate. A debate is about ideas. If you cannot separate an attack on your ideas from an attack on yourself you shouldn't be in the discussion. When people who post start attacking the person by saying "people of the likes of John Smith" they are violating the TOS.Therefore I can imply New Age philosophy is flaky; if you don't like that defend it. If I call you flaky that is a personal attack and I don't do that. One is not the other in a debate.)

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
My nephew was originally left intact. New age flaky mom's idea.
Oh, great. Now, mothers that choose not to mutilate their children are called "flaky".

For crying out loud...

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HereticChick:
I personally take offense to your comment of a "new age flaky mom's idea". You are really wearing on my nerves. Your opinions and statements continually irritate me, as well as others on this board.

So, rather than allow the boy (your nephew) to remain intact and work at stretching the foreskin back gently as most parents are instructed, they opt to have it cut. How ignorant is that? Cut first, regret later......

The Doctor advised that it be done. She took that advice. And yes, she was flaky and New Age. Not all flaky people are New Age and not all New Age people are flaky. Did you want to discuss New Age thinking?

(I do not care when people belittle other people's ideas. That always happens in a debate. A debate is about ideas. If you cannot separate an attack on your ideas from an attack on yourself you shouldn't be in the discussion. When people who post start attacking the person by saying "people of the likes of John Smith" they are violating the TOS.Therefore I can imply New Age philosophy is flaky; if you don't like that defend it. If I call you flaky that is a personal attack and I don't do that. One is not the other in a debate.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not on this thread and not with you http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thank you.

[vintagecarguy]

well now the debate is on whats flakey....well,very good croisants are flaky.
How about this.......
What kind of sound do doctors who cut normal healthy foreskins off of infants make?(that is besides the kaa-ching! of their cash registers)

give up?

Quack,Quack

[Jennifer1]

Originally posted by Fresh Air:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">CAUSE OF DEATH: Exsanguination DUE TO: Penile Circumcision


Sounds like a clotting disorder to me.

My view is still that people should have the right to "grow" their children as they see fit. Neither choice on this matter deserves outside influence to dictate a parental choice. It's nice to have oppinions and influence, but ultimately the choice is that of the parent and should remain so.

Dan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you beleive that the parent has the right to "grow" there baby anyway they see fit really? So if they grow there children to teach them to murder people, incourgae them to rape or any other evil thing in this world that a evil parent could do. So would those above situations be ok with you? After all your all for letting the parent grow there kid the way they see fit, you made no exceptions so i would presume you would be ok with sick things like that just as long as the parents are doing it there way.

[Mo]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mo:
My father, who hails from Europe, had it done when he was 14. He still had it done to me when I was born. I guess he felt the benefits far outweighed the temporary discomfort. I have no regrets. I in turn had it done to my son when he was born.

It has nothing to do with "cosmetic" reasons, at least for me. Partly it's the medical reasons (and I have known a couple of folks who have had some nasty infections, whether by neglect or otherwise). And partly it's because that's the way I am, and it has worked out for me, so why shouldn't my son be the same way?

What if your son developed a nasty infection due to circumcision and was horribly maimed because of it? Do you think you'd feel the same way? A complication rate of 2-10% might sound minor, unless it's YOUR child or YOUR penis. Why would you risk it? It's possible for a child to actually LOSE his penis due to complications. Would YOU risk losing YOUR penis for a surgery that isn't necessary????

BTW - my sig means "If we had known, if we had only known"...pretty appropriate for this thread. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I looked up the quote before posting in case it came up. It's from the Peter Gabriel song.

In all my 35 years I have not met, in person, a single man or woman who has ever in their lives known of anyone who has had any complications from circumcision. However, I have heard of around three who have had horrible infections due to the foreskin. Whether these people were "hygenically aware" I cannot attest to. I'd even venture to say that they most likely were not. Now 3 out of all the people I've encountered isn't bad. But it's more than the 0 from the first case. I've also known several folks who've pierced all kinds of body parts, most without problems and some with. Now that I consider completely unecessary risk, and something I would never do.

I can't verify the upper range of your 2-10% risk statistic. I don't believe that 10 our of every hundred circumcisions has complications or we'd be hearing from more of the men on this forum and in the naturist community in general. My wife and I have been naturists for 11 years, and we've seen hundreds of circumcised penises (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mplurals.html). I doubt that only the "normal" ones show up considering all the other body anomalies people have.

However, I grew up in New York City during the 70's and 80's. The risk was much higher than 2-10% of getting assaulted every time I stepped out of my house, took the train, or wandered aimlessly on my bike into neighborhoods with people sitting on the porch of dilapidated homes with no windows and wooden boards for doors. There have been many things I've conciously done throughout my life that have been needlessly risky not only for my penis (go for a nude swim where you may encounter barracuda), but for my life. Does that make me a risk taker? I don't consider myself one. I certainly don't go mountain climbing or bungee jumping; I'm not into extreme sports. It's just life. It's a risk from the moment you are born until the moment you die, and I'd venture to say there are more needless risks you'll take throughout life than necessary ones.

And I know there are ignorant people out there who will circumcise their sons without even a thought as to why, and I'm glad there are people out there like you who are willing to debate the point in order to try to educate them. By the same token, there are those of you who cannot comprehend that anyone who has done their research, and knows the risks would still choose to go through with it, and that's where you interfere with parental rights. Educate, do not infringe. Teachers are more highly regarded by others than soap-box preachers. You're bound to find people who change their minds, some who don't but will go into their decision with eyes open and some so set in their ways that you will not reach at all. Similarly there will be people this post of mine will not reach at all. But in the end, it's a decision as a parent just as it is a decision to have a child to begin with.

[EDIT] Just a quick comment to Jennifer1 on her post above. While Dan's (Fresh Air) comment was very general, we're not all lawyers here. Let's not get silly and interpret things in ridiculous ways. We have a very serious problem here in the U.S. with eroding parental rights (mostly because parents aren't willing to take responsibility for properly raising their children, but that's a matter for another thread). Obviously raising your child to want to hurt others is wrong; I don't think you'll find a single person here advocating that. But there is a responsibility that is inherent in being a parent, and that responsibility is to raise your child to become a functional member of society. How you go about doing that should be your business and no one elses.

[Jennifer1]

Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

[Soleil Nu]

Originally posted by Mo:
In all my 35 years I have not met, in person, a single man or woman who has ever in their lives known of anyone who has had any complications from circumcision. However, I have heard of around three who have had horrible infections due to the foreskin.
And I, in all my 43 years of life, have never met, or heard of, a single case of uncircumcised man who's had any medical problem whatsoever related to that. And that includes pretty much everyone I know, since where I live, virtually no-one, of any age group, is circumsised.

See, you can always find someone who will have diametrically opposed personal experiences from someone else. I'm sure you could easily find someone who's smoked three packs a day from when they where twelve and lived to be ninety. That's the problem when relying on subjective instead of objective data.

The fact remains that, in the western world, circumcision is a useless medical procedure. Considering it is also irreversible, it should not be imposed on children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

It's not even a matter of being in favor of or opposed to circumcision, it's a matter of giving each individual a choice whether or not he wants to undergo an irreversible medical procedure.

[younghippy]

Originally posted by Jennifer1:
Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

Come on here people...

"robbing them of right to choose..." uh, well I'll be honest, and say I didnt make many choices for myself as a baby. I left that department to my folks for a few years, like we all did. I think it would be terribly selfish to blame my parents for there decisions when I was an infant. I mean if i was purposefully dropped on my head that would be another story....

"hurting them" again, I felt no pain. I was days old, pain was not much of a concept to me, or any infant. Giving children shots and vaccinations hurts, and is not there choice, but is not frowned upon. Let's alleviate children from all pain whatsoever, beneficial or not.

[Jennifer1]

What if they deciede that it was in your best interest to remove a finger, give you cosmetic surgery, chop off a limb, it wouldnt matter would it cause you would feel no pain, well you would be to young to remember the pain, cause you do feel it.

Its simple parent are there to protect you and make you safe, not do something that hurts you and leaves you without a part of your body, a part that only need be removed in a small number of people who have problems retracting it.

Sure i let my dad choose alot for me to, but there is a difference between what clothes and how my hair is cut to haveing a part of me chopped off for no reason.

This is all down to if you can live with yourself after mutalating your child, which alot of ameicans seem to beable to do. Its obviously a personal choice if you want to do that unneccessary cosmetic surgery to your child or let him grow up and if when he is older wants it done then let them go for it(cause they will remember the pain and wont be so hasty to do it to there own children in the future).

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
Not on this thread and not with you http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Thank you.
The pleasure is mine. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Fresh Air]

Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

I does come down to choice I guess. What is an isn't ethical sometimes varies with cultural norms and upbringing. The problem might be viewed as a freedom to choose. I can understand arguing that a child does not have a choice when so young. But does a group of people or a country also have the converse choice of preventing a parent from choosing what they feel is in the best interest for a child?

If the matter was as simple as what appears to be the obvious, then everyone would have choosen identically.

Dan

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Fresh Air:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

I does come down to choice I guess. What is an isn't ethical sometimes varies with cultural norms and upbringing. The problem might be viewed as a freedom to choose. I can understand arguing that a child does not have a choice when so young. But does a group of people or a country also have the converse choice of preventing a parent from choosing what they feel is in the best interest for a child?

If the matter was as simple as what appears to be the obvious, then everyone would have choosen identically.

Dan </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Dan, for the anti-circs freedom and cultural preference don't apply to the small things, only the big ones.

[Fresh Air]

even after seeing an autopsy report one person thinks.....
"My view is still that people should have the
right to "grow" their children as they see fit. Neither choice on this matter deserves outside influence to dictate a parental choice. It's nice to have oppinions and influence, but ultimately the choice is that of the parent and should remain so."

strangely enough we can't choose to kill our chidren after birth,even if the lttle bugger drives ya nuts.
a parent cant have their kids ears cut off,time to protect the genitals.

I agree that the stories are sad, but it is not a common cause of death. I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find all kinds of rare forms of death. I would guess that a vast many more babies die while getting bathed. Should we ban bathing babies too?

If circumsicion was as simple as plain old mutilation it would be illegal. It's not though. There are religious, cultural, and paternal influences on the choice (to name a few). The act of banning it would almost take an act of dictatorship, because it is not as simple as just banning abuse. Forcing someone to believe what one group of people believes is not what our country is about (for now). It is obviously upsetting to you that the act of circumsicion is allowed, but can you see how it would be equally upsetting to many if it was outlawed?

Dan

[Fresh Air]

Just to clarify, I am neither for nor against circumsicision. That said, here are a few articles from both sides of views or inbetween:


These two areticles are a bit biased each...Not as bad as some other information you may find out there though.

Complications of no circumsicion
Article (http://www.circs.org/library/herzog/)
Abstract:
We performed a retrospective survey to determine the frequency of problems of the foreskin among uncircumcised children. Among 545 boys aged 4 months to 12 years, there were 272 uncircumcised boys and 273 control patients who were circumcised at birth. The total frequency of complications was significantly higher In the uncircumcised group (14% vs 6%). Both balanitis (6% vs 3%) and irritation (4% vs 1%) were more frequent among the uncircumcised children, but the difference was not statistically significant. Problems with adhesions were uncommon (1.5%) and equal in both groups. Symptomatic phimosis was seen in eight patients. The frequency of medical visits for penile problems was significantly higher In the uncircumcised group (10% vs 5%). AIthough the overall frequency of complications was higher among the uncircumcised children, most of the problems were minor.

Complications of circumsicion
Article (http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/complications.htm)


Some Less Biased Articles:
Pamphlet 1 (http://uuhsc.utah.edu/pated/handouts/pdfs/handout977.pdf)

Pamphlet 2 (http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/health/hplm/handout_pdfs/circumcision.pdf)

Journal Article 1 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/1/S2/246)

Journal Article 2 (http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/74/5/368.pdf)

I tried to remain unbiased in my searches. Hope these are of interest.

Dan

[BroNudist]

[/QUOTE]
Tell me is this true? DO you really mutilate your little baby boys like that, makes me cringe and i dont even have a penis to have it mutilated.[/QUOTE]

Im circumsized...been that way since I was 11 yrs old. Many Malaysians are circumsized, but they're not done on when theyre babies. Its mostly done before the boys reach puberty, maybe around 10 to 12...and some when theyre teenagers. Most parents here would have their sons circumsized, mainly for hygienic purposes.

[vintagecarguy]

It is obviously upsetting to you that the act of circumsicion is allowed, but can you see how it would be equally upsetting to many if it was outlawed?


I guess you do not read old posts.I have posted over and over how infant genital mutilation has made it impossible for me to have normal sexual relations with my girlfriend.Not phsychological,but physical problems CAUSED by infant genital mutilation.It is VERY personal for me.I was robbed,my girlfriend was robbed.Rather than crawl in a hole and put a .44 slug in my brain I will fight to stop the stupid ignorant carnage from continuing in our neonatal wards.
There were people in China who insisted on foot binding.I am sure it was equally upsetting to some of the foot mutilators to be forced to stop.
Defend the rights of those who can not defend themselves.
stop cutting babies!

[vintagecarguy]

Dan, for the anti-circs freedom and cultural preference don't apply to the small things, only the big ones.


well....are you finally admiting mutilation is a big thing and freedom of the individual penis owner is what's the big issue?not adult beliefs.
No,I am sure thats not your intent.Rights of people to have their OWN bodies don't count.I've noticed an unpleasant habit of insisting that parents can mark their adult faith in an innocent childs flesh.I suppose next we'll see people advocating cosmetic surgery to enlarge various body parts.After all if their parents want it it must be right.Oh,wait,some parents sell their kids into sexual slavery and we put those parents in jail.Well some parents beat their kids insisting the Bible tells them they must,freedom of religion.Oh,wait,we arrest them too!Wow!We do have laws to protect children form well meaning but misguided parents.Guess a law stopping slicing normal healthy sexual organs off of babies isn't so crazy after all.In fact,it's logical.

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Fresh Air:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

I does come down to choice I guess. What is an isn't ethical sometimes varies with cultural norms and upbringing. The problem might be viewed as a freedom to choose. I can understand arguing that a child does not have a choice when so young. But does a group of people or a country also have the converse choice of preventing a parent from choosing what they feel is in the best interest for a child?

If the matter was as simple as what appears to be the obvious, then everyone would have choosen identically.

Dan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what if it was female mutilation? Do we cringe in horror because it looks worse, has higher complication rates, or is just horrific? Why is it a "worse" offense to mutilate little girls genitals, but it's OK to mutilate little boys? I suppose what I'm asking is, what's the difference? A smaller piece of skin on a little boy is no big deal? To me it's equal. Cut off the inner labia and clitoris of a girl then sew her labia up and leave an itty bitty hole. Removing the clitoris is equal (to me, anyway) to cutting off the head of the penis. It's all just disturbing to me. I've seen people mutilate their genitals on their own, except they call it body modification. That's fine with me, they're adults. But not with kids http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Tara]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Why should i not interpret it that way? Hes saying a parent should be aloud to cause harm to a baby boy(it is hurting them, and robbing them of the right to choose) because its the way they see fit to raise the child.

I does come down to choice I guess. What is an isn't ethical sometimes varies with cultural norms and upbringing. The problem might be viewed as a freedom to choose. I can understand arguing that a child does not have a choice when so young. But does a group of people or a country also have the converse choice of preventing a parent from choosing what they feel is in the best interest for a child?

If the matter was as simple as what appears to be the obvious, then everyone would have choosen identically.

Dan </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what if it was female mutilation? Do we cringe in horror because it looks worse, has higher complication rates, or is just horrific? Why is it a "worse" offense to mutilate little girls genitals, but it's OK to mutilate little boys? I suppose what I'm asking is, what's the difference? A smaller piece of skin on a little boy is no big deal? To me it's equal. Cut off the inner labia and clitoris of a girl then sew her labia up and leave an itty bitty hole. Removing the clitoris is equal (to me, anyway) to cutting off the head of the penis. It's all just disturbing to me. I've seen people mutilate their genitals on their own, except they call it body modification. That's fine with me, they're adults. But not with kids http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried to compare male and female circ intelligently on a recent page in the other thread "un-circumcising..." and it didn't do much good. Especially with Kirk insisting that removing a clitoris would be equal to removing an entire penis (???) so they don't deserve to be compared. DUH! What was I thinking http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Fresh Air]

But what if it was female mutilation? Do we cringe in horror because it looks worse, has higher complication rates, or is just horrific? Why is it a "worse" offense to mutilate little girls genitals, but it's OK to mutilate little boys? I suppose what I'm asking is, what's the difference? A smaller piece of skin on a little boy is no big deal? To me it's equal. Cut off the inner labia and clitoris of a girl then sew her labia up and leave an itty bitty hole. Removing the clitoris is equal (to me, anyway) to cutting off the head of the penis. It's all just disturbing to me. I've seen people mutilate their genitals on their own, except they call it body modification. That's fine with me, they're adults. But not with kids Frowner


I agree that a clitorectomy would be equivelent to removal of the glands of the male penis. As far as plastic surgery of the labia. It is not as common, but is done sometimes. It's usually done secondary to masculinization though. I guess I sort of feel the same way. If the parents feel that by doing this act they are benefiting their child for the future, then I am not opposed to their freedom to choose. There is risk, but in general it makes no significant difference in the long run.

Dan

[Fresh Air]

genital mutilation has made it impossible for me to have normal sexual relations with my girlfriend.Not phsychological,but physical problems CAUSED by infant genital mutilation.

I'm sorry, I haven't read that before. It makes your view point on the matter much more understandable.

Dan

[HereticChick]

Originally posted by Fresh Air: I agree that a clitorectomy would be equivelent to removal of the glands of the male penis. As far as plastic surgery of the labia. It is not as common, but is done sometimes. It's usually done secondary to masculinization though. I guess I sort of feel the same way. If the parents feel that by doing this act they are benefiting their child for the future, then I am not opposed to their freedom to choose. There is risk, but in general it makes no significant difference in the long run.

Dan

Fortunately, FGM is illegal in the US. I guess, in my opinion, MGM is just as bad and should also be illegal. The cultures that perform FGM do it for cultural or religious purposes, for the same reason we do circumcisions here in the US. So why is circumcision ALSO not illegal?

[Fresh Air]

Plastic surgery on the genitals is not illegal. The "FGM" or female circumcision practiced by some cultures in other areas of the world is drastically different than cosmetic plastic surgery, and greatly different than the typical circumcision done commonly in the US. It is understandable why this is illegal.

Female Circumcision (http://www.netterimages.com/image/detail.htm?variantID=4341)

Male Circumcision (http://www.mhhe.com/socscience/sex/common/ibank/ibank/0051.jpg)

Just as a side note, I thought this was interesting...

Doctors in India have carried out what they say is the first penis transplant from a child born with two to a child born without one
Article (http://www.menshealth.co.uk/news/story.phtml?id=811)

I guess that's worse than a circcumcision. At least someone benefited. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dan

[Bob S.]

Reading both sides of this, it reminds me of the abortion argument. The pro-choicers feel that a mother should decide what goes on with her own body while the pro-lifers feel that the child is alive and should be born.

Both sides are trying to fight for their cause unabashedly in both the abortion issue and the circumcision issue.

"Removing the clitoris is equal (to me, anyway) to cutting off the head of the penis. "

Yes, HereticChick. Both are horrible. But no one here is advocating cutting off the head of the penis. Just the foreskin.

Bob S.

[l2ltlarry]

Bob S. and HereticChick, I was doing mental editorials this morning on both of your posted thoughts here.

Reading both sides of this, it reminds me of the abortion argument. The pro-choicers feel that a mother should decide what goes on with her own body while the pro-lifers feel that the child is alive and should be born.

Both sides are trying to fight for their cause unabashedly in both the abortion issue and the circumcision issue.

Fortunately, FGM is illegal in the US. I guess, in my opinion, MGM is just as bad and should also be illegal. The cultures that perform FGM do it for cultural or religious purposes, for the same reason we do circumcisions here in the US. So why is circumcision ALSO not illegal?

Two pages ago, NakedGary said get off abortion and back on the topic "are you circumcised?". My thought was, if I recall, Einstein believed that one thing connects to another which connects to another; everything is connected to everything. I think as you do, Bob, that the abortion debate and the circumcision debate is the very same kind of argument.


"So why is circumcision not ALSO illegal?" May I ask, how many more things should our society criminalize? Not wearing clothes in unacceptable places is widely criminalized. We don't appreciate that very much. In recent years, things too numerous to mention have been criminalized, far too many in my opinion. In the book I mentioned earlier, 'None of there diseases', the authors say, at the turn of the 19th century to the 20th century, the Bible was widely accepted as true in American society and circumcision was becoming popular and accepted because it's a Bible concept.

For thousands of years, many people accepted that God commanded circumcision. Of course, it later became optional according to the
Christian viewpoint. In any event, many people agreed with the Apostle Paul when he said, "Of what value is circumcision? Much in every way." So for a very long time, circumcision was valued by many people. Not so, female genital mutilation. It was never mentioned in the Bible and I don't think there is any record of it being widely practiced in enlightened cultures.

If anyone reads as much information as they can find on circumcision, an unbiased person would have to conclude there is some value to it. Hardly any unbiased person would say the same of FGM. They are not equal at all.

Now as to criminalizing circumcision. The Bible probably says more than once, "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord." How could criminalizing circumcision stop me or other males from circumcising ourselves? Would the police have to go around inspecting penises to be sure nobody had disobeyed the prohibition against being circumcised? Sounds a lot like the movie 'Europa Europa' in 'Naturist
guide to the Movies' with the Nazis inspecting penises and usually killing those on the spot who were circumcised. What else could criminalizing circumcision lead to? Oh, wait. We are a kinder, gentler nation; we would only get thrown into prison if we were caught circumcised. Is that what anti-circumcision activists are suggesting? You say, "Oh no, it's routine infant circumcision we are talking about." The negativity I hear from the anti's suggests to me that blanket illegality of circumcision is what they want.

All of the activism notwithstanding, circumcision of both infant and adult males will probably continue for a very long time. There are too many perceived benefits for it not to.

Also, Fresh Air, I appreciated the links you posted. Lots of good information there.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Jennifer1:
oh thats sick, seriously, chopping off such a sensitive part of the body, causing the baby so much pain.

Now now, Jennifer, it is not the most sensitive part they cut off, it is the protective skin around it they cut away. So the very sensitive head gets less sensitive. And the neck where the head fits the shaft is easier to clean they claim. But that is pure nonsense, because I as a little boy played with my self. I stretched the fore skin down and up, over and off the head. Over time it became so loose that the head is always 90% exposed and the skin lays comfortable around the neck. I believe that it is the most natural intended way to have it. All that crap that masterbation is bad never got to me, my mother did not care that I played with it. Nature child from day one.

[Captain Zen]

Circumcision is as barbaric as female circumcision.[/QUOTE]

Not realy, the clitris is like the head of the penis, to remove it is like cutting off the whole head. The foreskin is more like an eyelid that protects. To remove it is not needed, see my other post. A little fun and good feeling while the child stretches the foreskin is the natural solution.

[fre2bnude]

Now now, Jennifer, it is not the most sensitive part they cut off, it is the protective skin around it they cut away. So the very sensitive head gets less sensitive. And the neck where the head fits the shaft is easier to clean they claim. But that is pure nonsense, because I as a little boy played with my self. I stretched the fore skin down and up, over and off the head. Over time it became so loose that the head is always 90% exposed and the skin lays comfortable around the neck. I believe that it is the most natural intended way to have it. All that crap that masterbation is bad never got to me, my mother did not care that I played with it. Nature child from day one.

How true, that's very much how things were with me it's after all mans (and boys) favourite toy, and as you say it's now very slack and spends more time rolled back than forward, no problem just lots of fun.

[NudeSteve]

I just thought I'd add my 2 cents worth before this got "beat" to death. I agree that it should be left up to the individual. I was the first (and only) boy my parents had. My father was not circumcised and the family Dr. was young and nothing like circumcision was ever mentioned to my folks, so I was not cut. In my PE classes there were only 5 or 6 0ut of 50 kids that weren't cut. Most were very self conscious about it. I lived half my life being intact. I have always been a clean person, and had a shower (at least 1) every day. But since I produce more smegma than most men, I felt somewhat unclean and later each day there seemed to be a different odor that was embarassing to me. I decided to have a circ. Since that time, the odor has not been there, it has been easier to keep clean, my glans has become larger and a lot more sensitive. Sure it was a bit painful for a day or so, but so was my hernia surgery and having my impacted teeth out! I'm 110% satisfied, but it was MY choice.

[DDbear11]

No - i have a Foreskin

[evan s.]

definatly circumcised...

evan s.

[cronat]

Can I be a little bit sarcastic?
I'm thinking of taking out all of my theet, I mean, it's easier to maintain my mouth that way. The fact that mother nature got me theet with a reason, doesn't bother me much. (sarcasm over)

I agree it should be left up to the individual.

[Hooked]

Originally posted by HereticChick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fresh Air: I agree that a clitorectomy would be equivelent to removal of the glands of the male penis. As far as plastic surgery of the labia. It is not as common, but is done sometimes. It's usually done secondary to masculinization though. I guess I sort of feel the same way. If the parents feel that by doing this act they are benefiting their child for the future, then I am not opposed to their freedom to choose. There is risk, but in general it makes no significant difference in the long run.

Dan

Fortunately, FGM is illegal in the US. I guess, in my opinion, MGM is just as bad and should also be illegal. The cultures that perform FGM do it for cultural or religious purposes, for the same reason we do circumcisions here in the US. So why is circumcision ALSO not illegal? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The problem here is that of a misnomer. Sometimes people use the term "female circumcision" when they mean clitorectomy, I guess because clitoris is such a bad word in our societal consciousness so we have to euphemize it. At any rate, I know that communities of Pakistanis here in the Austin and San Antonio area still practice female circumcision (NOT CLITORECTOMY) as well as male circumcision routinely so I don't believe it's illegal. Removing the clit and sewing up the opening, yes, absolutly illegal. That would be considered child abuse in just about every state I can think of.

I'm sure Fresh Air's links explain the misnomer better, can't say for certain because I was afraid to click them. I'm one of those people that get's icked out by rotten dot com

[vintagecarguy]

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

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

[Oz-Man]

Before this thread dies I'll answer the original question: no, I'm not (guess you can see that anyway). My early childhood years were in the 1960's and almost all of my male peers were circumcised and that made me feel awkward and a little confused. Now, in Australia, circumcision rates are very low and the vast majority of males aged under 30 or 35 are uncircumcised.

In the late 1970's a greater awareness emerged that babies and children are not "property" but rather real people incapable of - for the time being - communicating consent, leading to a relatively sudden cutailment of the practice.

As to whether I am a proponent for or against, I don't have a strong view either way. I really don't think that it's particularly ethically sound for any male to trenchantly argue for or defend their "own" state because almost none of us have had the slightest choice in the matter anyway and most have little awareness of what it is like being the other way. (Don't take this as criticism young 'evan s' - you were just answering the question).

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

A relatively small percentage of uncircumcised males experience phimosis where the foreskin won't retract and I totally support circumcision in these cases.

As to aesthetics, that's also a bit hard to answer. Like noses, ears, breasts, hands or feet, each person's "bits" are quite unique and there are many circumcised samples where I've thought "hey, that looks neat" (INA's Corey for instance) and there are many uncircumcised samples where I've also thought "hey, that looks neat" (INA's Aaron for example).

AND I absolutely know that there have been many samples of EITHER variety I've seen where I've initially recoiled a bit and quietly thought: "Oooh - only a mother could love that one!"

If I may digress for a moment I'll throw in that I think that testicles - no matter how fundamentally necessary for the perpetuation of the species - are Mother Nature's little joke on men. I really don't think that I have ever seen a set of testicles that I would call "attractive" (and that absolutely includes my own). Maybe that's why guys are always a bit sensitive about their 'parts'!

I like nudity in general and guy's "bits" do tend to stick out a bit and draw the eye to them. I guess in the end how you react ultimately boils down to how you react to the person that the penis is attached to?

Regards to all!

[azgreen]

The September-October issue of"Mothering" magazine has a six-page article titled "Cutting Kids: Why the Pain of Circumcision Lasts Far Longer Than the Procedure." ("Mothering" can be found in all major book stores or newstands and at libraries.) It tells how the trauma of circumcision impacts a baby. "Increasingly, the trauma experienced by the infant during circumcision is being linked to later childhood intolerance of pain." It notes that routine infant circumcision declined by 11 percent from 2001 to 2003, that the rate dropped 23 percent in the western states and 7 in 10 baby boys are now left intact today.
The article widely covers all the myths and pretexts for circumcision, especially the nonsense on so many counts that a cut penis is a healthier, disease-free structure. It quotes bunch of medical societies who recommend against it.
It also states, "Routine infant circumcision, acknowledged to be a medically unnecessary surgery, is proving to be a tremendous strain on the finances of medical insurance companies and government-sponsored services such as Medicaid." Moreover, the "US taxpayers pay for 28 percent of circumcisions, each state paying an average of $754,478 for the surgery in 2003." It notes that 14 states have now stopped that waste and are ending Medicaid-financed circumcisions and more are considering it. "Mothering" ends by saying that because circumcision is SO personal, the only qualifed person to make that decision is the one who will live with the lifelong consequences of body modification." Circumcision on the helpless can't be defended.

Interesting article in my newspaper the other day about a new book just written by Dr Schoen..former head of pediatrics at Kaiser Oakland..supposedly defending and recommending circumcision..Luckily I have daughters and didn't have to make that decision

[Captain Zen]

Does "Mothering" also provide the alternative, that is: "free play" for the little boy, so that the skin stays elastic and can stretch easily at times of excitement?
Because that is how I developed a half covered glans that easily grows out of its collar.