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