Circumcision

[nunne]

I am wondering about the aesthetics of the circumcised and uncircumcised penis, and how nudists feel about it. I have seen a lot of discussion about the health issues and tactile sensations, but don't know which is preferred from the aesthetics point of view.

Which do you prefer to see? Do women have any particular preference? Or does it not matter in the least. Do men prefer to see an uncircumcised penis or a circumcised one? Or does it matter? And am I just hung up on something that is totally silly and unimportant?

I am circumcised, and actually prefer to see males who are uncircumcised. I'm not gay, but just like seeing an attractive female (which is every nude woman I have ever seen) and I also enjoy seeing a good looking man in the nude.

[nunne]

I am wondering about the aesthetics of the circumcised and uncircumcised penis, and how nudists feel about it. I have seen a lot of discussion about the health issues and tactile sensations, but don't know which is preferred from the aesthetics point of view.

Which do you prefer to see? Do women have any particular preference? Or does it not matter in the least. Do men prefer to see an uncircumcised penis or a circumcised one? Or does it matter? And am I just hung up on something that is totally silly and unimportant?

I am circumcised, and actually prefer to see males who are uncircumcised. I'm not gay, but just like seeing an attractive female (which is every nude woman I have ever seen) and I also enjoy seeing a good looking man in the nude.

[TXK NUDE]

OMG--here we go again!

[Cranialstrain]

Sorry to seem rude but - WHO CARES!? The whole point of true naturism is that you are accepted for who and what you are, whether you have 3 legs, 2 heads or are 30 stone.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Ian @ gobare.com

But Cranial, most nudists talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Body acceptance is such a great concept. Now we need to actually live by those words.

As for esthetics, why would something full of scars be more pleasant to look at than something in it's natural state?

(yup, here we go again)

[nunne]

Perhaps I miss the whole point about being a naturist or nudist, but I don't think "the whole point" is to accept others as they are. That is, of course, what happens, but I certainly enjoy social nudism also because other people are naked, and I am not blind to their nudity. I do have preferences, and as I said, I haven't seen a naked female that I didn't think was beautiful. On the other hand, is it wrong to say that it is more pleasurable to see a woman with firm breasts and a nice shape, or to see a muscular man as opposed to one who has a pot belly and no shape whatsoever?

We may just be putting our heads in the sand to say that it makes no difference in our enjoyment of nudity about the aesthetics of those around us. So let's find out about this by an open discussion about these pleasures while re-affirming that in the acceptance of nudists, that pleasure does not stand in the way of total body acceptance for all.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nunne:
I am wondering about the aesthetics of the circumcised and uncircumcised penis, and how nudists feel about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Nudists" don't care one way or the other.

Individual people may have their own opinion. But there is no "Nudist" opinion. Is there a "Nudist" opinion about the aesthetics of ear shape? Nose size? Hair color?

If anything, because many nudists embrace body acceptance, which includes as a major principle being non-judgemental about physical appearance, they may be more likely to not give a damn.

-Mark
Who doesn't give a damn. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[TXK NUDE]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nunne:
On the other hand, is it wrong to say that it is more pleasurable to see a woman with firm breasts and a nice shape, or to see a muscular man as opposed to one who has a pot belly and no shape whatsoever?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I object! Pear is a shape! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Rex]

If no-one posts, we all stop coming to this forum.
Controversial topics often seem to get the biggest response.
Body image and awareness does, for some reason, seem to be controversial with some nudists.
Those who don't feel the topic is appropriate are often the first to comment, which is great, because their comments often add new dimensions to the original post.
Re the original thread. I am not circumcised, and I'm glad about that. I am neutral about those who are, and I would imagine that to be the case with most people, nudist or textile.
Re body awareness, I owe a lot to my mother's attitudes.
When I was 9 or 10, and going through a "shy about body" stage, she told me how I would have various problems as I grew older, if I did not become comfortable with my body.
When I was 16, she advised me to learn to dance, and then I would meet lots of nice girls. It worked then, it still works at 69. She also knew it would encourage me to be outgoing, and develop courtesy, posture and dress-sense.
She told me, "stand up straight and be proud of yourself".
I want to look healthy and capable, and I respect that look in others, although I certainly don't have any "superior" thoughts about those who don't, and often can't, fit any particular image.
A good looking person without a heart, is just an empty shell, but I believe that good health, fitness and a confident manner, are worth striving for.

[florida-david]

as i have said before, circumcision is evil and unneccessary. why our society keeps doing it is silly. i prefer to see an uncirc'd penis, but i generally do not look to see if some is or is not cut. but it does not make sence to me why a purple penis head is attractive when it should have been clearly left intact (and i am cut!).

[NakedGary]

Circumcision is a topic that never seem to go away. Many pages on INA fourms can be found by typing "circumcision" in the search link from the main page where it says "Search all Posts"

85% of the worlds male population is left natural and intact.

[Griffin]

No one need apologize for this topic, circumcision, appearing anew as a topic. Its sister topic in Miscellaneous, "uncircumcising," far exceeds all other topics for postings, with 241 at the last count. As naturists, it's an obvious topic. Males are either circumcised or they are not -- and it is evident who is and isn't. And for some males, who were cut against their will as babies and boys, there is a kind of "penis envy" that they wished they had been left intact the way nature or God intended. Many of us naturists who were circumcised but opted to leave our own sons intact take pride that we broke the nasty cycle. I, for one, see it as fundamental precept of naturism to honor how nature produced our bodies and not be so arrogant to cut off parts of our helpless, innocent children because of some entrenched,indefensible cultural practice.
Medically, it is unnecessary. Thus it becomes elective or cosmetic surgery, and that step belongs to the owner of the body to decide what stays and what goes. It's gets down to basic human rights and genital integrity.

[Fresh Air]

In the end we die and our penises (if we have them) turn to dust. How they appeared and who like or disliked how they appeared in life doesn't matter. It is only important that the stuff inside worked, such that life could go on.

I don't think we should turn this into another 250 post topic. Oppinions will vary, resolution will not be met.

On the same note nunne, when it comes to astetics about genitals or anything else, oppinions will vary. There will never be one concencus on what is and isn't pleasing. It's part of what makes each person different, and interesting.

I don't think their is a differing of diversity on these matters when it comes to nudists. It would seem that oppinions on the topic perculate society as a whole.

Me, I marvel at the diversity of life and find it a strength.

Fresh Air

[NakedGary]

Thumbs Up "Griffin"

NakedGary [Left Intact and Natural]

[NORM-UK]

I would invite everyone with an interest in this issue to visit the NORM-UK website (http://www.norm-uk.org) and follow the links to other sources of information.

Circumcision of males or females should be avoided because it is not necessary and a violation of their fundamental human rights. Circumcision of girls is a crime in the UK, USA, and other countries. There is no legal protection for boys, except in Scandanavia where minimal protection now exists in Sweden. Cultures that practise female circumcision (which involve a variety of mutilations--some terribly severe, others less so, but still unacceptable) use the same justifications for it as some in the west use to defend male circumcision.

In very rare cases male circumcision results in death even in western hospitals. Solid research indicates that circumcision of baby boys disrupts sleep patterns, breast feeding, bonding, and the male's pain threshold for life. In adulthood a circumcised man may experience sexual problems. More research is needed in this area. The rates of impotence is higher in the USA than Europe, and this suggests there may be a relationship.

The foreskin contains unique nerve endings, and protects the glans (head) from rubbing against clothing and/or the elements.

If an intact boy or man has a problem with his foreskin, there are conservative treatments available. It is important to point out that it is perfectly normal for a boy's foreskin to be attached to his glans until the late teens. Washing with water (not soap!) is all that is needed for good hygeine.

Although naturists quite rightly promote the idea of body acceptance, that is not a justification for unnecessary surgery. Circumcised boys and men may have negative feelings about being subjected to what is a form of genital mutilation. I would suggest a degree of compassion and empathy. It's easy to say 'Who cares?' if you are intact. Most of the letters received by NORM-UK are from quite regular men, but many also say they have never been able to talk about the subject with anyone and fear riducule. As naturists, I'm sure you would find that terrible. Not all circumcised men have such negative feelings, but it remains a taboo subject for many to even discuss.

Non-surgical foreskin restoration is available for circumcised men. (Surgical options are generally not recommended.) Most men do not restore just for the look, but also for improved function. The mechanics of sexual intercourse and masterbation is slighly different. A restored man does, however, also look exactly the same as an intact man when he is flaccid. Some men have reported that prior to restoration they felt ashamed of their bodies and avoided all public nudity, but after restoration were quite comfortable in nude situations (gym showers, etc.) Most of these men were non-naturists, but interestingly not all. I personally know of one man who was a naturist before restoration and another who felt confident to give it a try only afterwards. It is also interesting to point out that many men reported negative feelings about their circumcision status if they grew up in a community where most men were intact or circumcised.

Please feel free to e-mail any questions you might have to NORM-UK. The board members include physicians, a Jewish academic, a former nurse and feminist, and many others concerned with human rights and good scientifically-based medical practises.

[fredm74]

I embrace my body no matter what. Circumcised or not..........

-Fred



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NORM-UK:
I would invite everyone with an interest in this issue to visit the http://www.norm-uk.org and follow the links to other sources of information.

Circumcision of males or females should be avoided because it is not necessary and a violation of their fundamental human rights. Circumcision of girls is a crime in the UK, USA, and other countries. There is no legal protection for boys, except in Scandanavia where minimal protection now exists in Sweden. Cultures that practise female circumcision (which involve a variety of mutilations--some terribly severe, others less so, but still unacceptable) use the same justifications for it as some in the west use to defend male circumcision.

In very rare cases male circumcision results in death even in western hospitals. Solid research indicates that circumcision of baby boys disrupts sleep patterns, breast feeding, bonding, and the male's pain threshold for life. In adulthood a circumcised man may experience sexual problems. More research is needed in this area. The rates of impotence is higher in the USA than Europe, and this suggests there may be a relationship.

The foreskin contains unique nerve endings, and protects the glans (head) from rubbing against clothing and/or the elements.

If an intact boy or man has a problem with his foreskin, there are conservative treatments available. It is important to point out that it is perfectly normal for a boy's foreskin to be attached to his glans until the late teens. Washing with water (not soap!) is all that is needed for good hygeine.

Although naturists quite rightly promote the idea of body acceptance, that is not a justification for unnecessary surgery. Circumcised boys and men may have negative feelings about being subjected to what is a form of genital mutilation. I would suggest a degree of compassion and empathy. It's easy to say 'Who cares?' if you are intact. Most of the letters received by NORM-UK are from quite regular men, but many also say they have never been able to talk about the subject with anyone and fear riducule. As naturists, I'm sure you would find that terrible. Not all circumcised men have such negative feelings, but it remains a taboo subject for many to even discuss.

Non-surgical foreskin restoration is available for circumcised men. (Surgical options are generally not recommended.) Most men do not restore just for the look, but also for improved function. The mechanics of sexual intercourse and masterbation is slighly different. A restored man does, however, also look exactly the same as an intact man when he is flaccid. Some men have reported that prior to restoration they felt ashamed of their bodies and avoided all public nudity, but after restoration were quite comfortable in nude situations (gym showers, etc.) Most of these men were non-naturists, but interestingly not all. I personally know of one man who was a naturist before restoration and another who felt confident to give it a try only afterwards. It is also interesting to point out that many men reported negative feelings about their circumcision status if they grew up in a community where most men were intact or circumcised.

Please feel free to e-mail any questions you might have to NORM-UK. The board members include physicians, a Jewish academic, a former nurse and feminist, and many others concerned with human rights and good scientifically-based medical practises. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[NakedGary]

Here is a complete list of links on the subject from both sides of the fence.

Should nudists be concerned with the intact or circumcised status of other peoples anatomy?

We are who we are, like we are. Be nude, be natural, be free...

links:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~albfie/page2a.htm
http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~albfie/normaward.htm
http://www.user1.netcarrier.com/~albfie/Hampton2.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/Notjustaflap.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Gallery.html
http://www.infocirc.org/rollston.htm
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_media_resources.html?action=showitem&item=119
http://www.cirp.org/news/1991.03.12_Atlanta_lawsuit/
http://infocirc.org/websites.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sweden.html#law
http://www.the-penis-website.com/shape.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/
http://www.circumcisionvideos.com/wbwr.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html
http://www.circumcision.org/info.htm#TOP
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/CIRCUMCISION/v1n1.html#article1
http://homeschoolzone.com/pp/news/goldman.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/sesame/177/circinfo.html
http://www.circinfo.com/index.htmlhttp://www.circinfo.com/guide_to_decision/index.html
http://www.kahal.org/
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/index.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/end.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Law-cont.html
http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/
http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/faq.htm

[Trailscout]

Norm sounds like a neo-Nazi anti-Semitic European. We see far too many of them these days.

I don't know how they got a Jewish academic to be their puppet, but this is prime example of Europeans intolerant of Jewish culture.

[florida-david]

trailscout says - Norm sounds like a neo-Nazi anti-Semitic European. We see far too many of them these days.I don't know how they got a Jewish academic to be their puppet, but this is prime example of Europeans intolerant of Jewish culture.


actually, trailscout, if you look into the ancient jewish definition of circumcision, you will find that it was not originally the mutilation it is today, it was a little cut to afirm the boy as jewish, not the hacking it is now. the jews aligned with the christians on this and attempted to keep boys from masturbating by destorying penile sensation through over cutting and exposing tissue designed to be hidden. i am cut and jewish, but did not mutilate my boys. the "anti-Semitic European" stuff you just spouted about norm is wacked!! read the facts before name calling!!

[NORM-UK]

I resent being called a neo-Nazi and anti-Semite simply because I'm concerned about the human rights of children who are being subjected to medically unnecessary surgery. I believe publishing that someone is a neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic when this is untrue is called libel, and I would thank you to retract it. Otherwise, I will consider legal action.

I am an individual, but I am a volunteer for NORM-UK and they are aware that I post on this particular messageboard.

Readers that follow the link I provided will see that NORM-UK has a Jewish board member (you are welcome to contact him directly) and there are many voices from within the Jewish community who feel that physical circumcision is wrong. British Rabbi Julia Neuberger, American Psychologist Ronald Goldman PhD, Gregory Dervin - founder of Students for Genital Integrity at San Francisco State, and the parents at 'Kahal' in Israel, just to name a few. Readers might also like to know that groups that incite racial hatred in the United Kingdom are illegal. (Jews are considered a race for the purposes of this law.) Therefore, charitable status would not be granted by the government to a group that supported racial hatred, and prosecutions would likely take place.

Most circumcisions in the United States and United Kingdom are not done for religious reasons. Since this is my culture that I feel is not taking the issue seriously, I feel perfectly comfortable being critical of it.

There are many good links provided above by Gary. When reading them, be critical of each and every one. Are they basing their opinion on replicated scientific studies? Are they in agreement with every medical society in the world that does not recommend routine circumcision? Are they concerned with profit? Are the people concerned with human rights and equality? Are the publications/studies authored by real academics at legitimate institutions?

I agree with with Fred, actually, I too accept everybody regardless of how they look. Most men didn't choose to have the operation (and if they did choose as adults they had the right to do so). If men are comfortable with themselves and not experiencing any problems, I'm genuinely happy for them. If they are having negative feelings or sexual problems, however, I think the most 'accepting' thing would be to try to understand and put them in contact with people who can help.

***
I just wanted to add that I live in the UK, but I'm not a European. I'm a loyal American.

[fredm74]

WoW! It's getting quite touchy in here.....

I don't think name calling is mature, we can all agree to disagree and still remain cordial to one another........

As for the circumcision issue, I suppose it's the parents choice whether they want their newborn son to be circumcised or not. My parents who are originally from Haiti made the decision to have me and my younger brother circumcised. Not sure if this was for "religious" reasons or medical. I choose medical. It doesn't make a difference either way. Accepting your body for what it is is important. It makes no sense to get into a big political issue over it.......I think it's a personal choice between parents to decide.......

Stay nude, Fred /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NORM-UK:
I resent being called a neo-Nazi and anti-Semite simply because I'm concerned about the human rights of children who are being subjected to medically unnecessary surgery. I believe publishing that someone is a neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic when this is untrue is called libel, and I would thank you to retract it. Otherwise, I will consider legal action.

I am an individual, but I am a volunteer for NORM-UK and they are aware that I post on this particular messageboard.

Readers that follow the link I provided will see that NORM-UK has a Jewish board member (you are welcome to contact him directly) and there are many voices from within the Jewish community who feel that physical circumcision is wrong. British Rabbi Julia Neuberger, American Psychologist Ronald Goldman PhD, Gregory Dervin - founder of Students for Genital Integrity at San Francisco State, and the parents at 'Kahal' in Israel, just to name a few. Readers might also like to know that groups that incite racial hatred in the United Kingdom are illegal. (Jews are considered a race for the purposes of this law.) Therefore, charitable status would not be granted by the government to a group that supported racial hatred, and prosecutions would likely take place.

Most circumcisions in the United States and United Kingdom are not done for religious reasons. Since this is my culture that I feel is not taking the issue seriously, I feel perfectly comfortable being critical of it.

There are many good links provided above by Gary. When reading them, be critical of each and every one. Are they basing their opinion on replicated scientific studies? Are they in agreement with every medical society in the world that does not recommend routine circumcision? Are they concerned with profit? Are the people concerned with human rights and equality? Are the publications/studies authored by real academics at legitimate institutions?


I agree with with Fred, actually, I too accept everybody regardless of how they look. Most men didn't choose to have the operation (and if they did choose as adults they had the right to do so). If men are comfortable with themselves and not experiencing any problems, I'm genuinely happy for them. If they are having negative feelings or sexual problems, however, I think the most 'accepting' thing would be to try to understand and put them in contact with people who can help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[NakedGary]

NORM-UK

YOUR QUOTE:
"I would suggest deleting 'The referenced link' as it is a fetish site with pornographic overtones. At the very least, children shoud NOT be allowed to view this site without parents checking it first."

I deleted the referenced link not because of your claim of being a "fetish" site, [fetish in my dictionary says "An object usually nonsexual in nature, that arouses sexual feelings.[but any object could be be the penis] but due some very incorrect medical statements such as "bacteria causes or produces smega" re: "Their is no more excess foreskin causing bacteria and that produces smegma" and "The circumcised penis looks more natural" [more natural than a naturally intact penis?] come on Folks.

This site is way too pro circ, and makes improper and incorrect medical statements that are completly false and erroneous.

There are links to gay fellatio images, so I agree that it's best to delete this link from the list, and that has been done. Thanks for bringing that to attention.

We are born uncut and should remain that way except for emergency medical purposes. Circumcision has no useful purpose, and I'm SO thankful I'm uncut.

[Trailscout]

David,

Circumcision is a right of Jewish people to keep the cultural continuity with their heritage. In view of the desecration of synagogues in France and Germany, I don't trust Europeans to be fair and friendly. The Swedes and Norm's advocacy group probably are not fascists, but the way the article was written, it seems to typify the way do-gooder Europeans trample over the rights of traditional peoples in their midst. The rabbi is obviously not orthodox; did you note that rebbi is a woman? Somehow they think that the Orthodox, the Hassidim will just acquiese to some new social policy that flies in the face of the core symbol of their cultural identity simply because they found a female reform rabbi to sign off on it?

As for circumcision, I doubt that it would be a mere laceration, but it is entirely possible that circumcision was less extreme than the cuts currently made. If you have any Web-based info, please post it.

[Griffin]

The insidious thing about circumcision is that it is usually imposed on the victim without consent and permanently alters the physiology of the penis. Naturists should embrace how nature made our bodies as human beings. If we believe the body was designed perfectly, we should be repulsed that culture has chosen to mutilate it by whacking off part of a boy's penis. Having been circumcised at birth but having regained full foreskin coverage through stretching, I can say, without qualification, that the foreskin belongs there for the protection, sensitivity, mechanics of sex, the sense of wholeness and aesthetics. Now when I roll back the foreskin in a nudist setting, I feel naked as in "vulnerable." Fortunately many parents have become enlightened enough to respect body integrity wholeness of their sons and to recognize the owner should have ultimate sovereignty over his body. All the excuses for circumcision are pretty lame and flimsy. We left our son intact when he was born in 1975 and he spent his growing up years with his father looking different. He was assured that he was the one normal one. Now, of course, we are much alike.
Circumcision really has no place in a civilized world anymore than female genital mutilation. I tend to hold naturists to a higher standard as being more enlightenedd, but advocating circumcision doesn't seem to meet that test.

[andy_ma]

I have to agree with all of Florida David's comments. Also, I am glad that we do discuss this topic. I also affirm, if you aren't interested, then ignore the posts. I am uncircumcised. I know growing up and body acceptance wise, I was unhappy about about being uncut. Of course, as an adult and when I became a nudist, I realized that a) I was glad I was left intact and b) it just didn't matter to worry about it. I'm glad we can discuss these topics. You never know, it might be helpful to others.

[cdg-fr]

I think for a long time parents didn't often make a conscious decision about circumcision - they tend to follow family tradition. If Daddy is cut - the male kid's are cut. But it does not have to be that way. Increasingly here in Canada I find that while most (but not all) of my Canadian-born friends are cut (North American influence) they are choosing to leave their sons intact unless for religious reasons they have them circumcized. Those that have them circumcized other than for religious reasons tend to have done so because they are circumcized. Certainly, because of the waves of immigration from European and Asian cultures, there are increasing numbers of males with intact foreskins. In fact, I think circumsision is now considered cosmetic surgery and parents have to pay for the procedure.

As for me, I was circumcised, following family traditions. My wife and I chose to leave our sons intact. Perhaps the only time I have ever really felt in the "minority" was participating in nude activities in Europe or in the Caribbean where there might be lots of Europeans on holidays.

I might add that living in Toronto and going to the local clothing optional beach, my guess is that maybe 1/3 rd of males are intact. But, if stratified by age, more and more of the younger men are intact. I do believe a trend has been established.

Now, I am not sure that nudists have a preference. We are who we are. Let's just accept our bodies. And these discussions are helpful if they open the mind that choices are possible and we don't just have to keep doing what has been done during the past 80 years in North America - since I understand that routine circumcision was introduced as part of an effort in WW I for hygiene reasons?

[andy_ma]

CDG,

I am American but lived in Toronto for business for 4 years. I agree with your post. Interestingly, my Father is not cut, but I am. I also found that I was NOT the minority at the clothing optional beaches in Toronto - there were indeed more uncut men. I always assumed it was the cultural/ethnic/religious beliefs of the area. Just my observations and 2 cents.

[cdg-fr]

Hey Andy - I'm confused!

Earlier today you are intact - and then several hours later, you are cut and dad is not. Anyway if you are cut, and Dad isn't, then my guess is that is the past influence and thinking of North American thinking boys need to be circumcised for medical reasons.

And yes, on the frequency of uncut men in Toronto, I agree with you because when Hanlan's co beach is mostly those under 35, then uncut numbers rise. And interestingly, there seem to be a number of former Eastern Europe immigrants that like nudism which of course are predominatly uncut.

[andy_ma]

CDG,

Sorry for the confusion! I just read what I wrote. My coffee must have not kicked in quickly enough yesterday or my fingers were going too fast! Something. I am uncut - my father is cut.

I am uncut and i like it that way. We are born uncut and that its the way it must remains. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Niki23]

I'm uncut and I find it better tht way.

[Baron Lake]

Niki,
Better compared to what? Since you are not cut you cannot compare your experience to someone who is. (At least directly as a personal experience). Anyway, possibly debatable issues of hygiene aside, it becomes a matter of subjective opinion involving aesthetics and religious tradition. I guess that's about two cents worth.
b.l.

[Griffin]

Sure, a cut male can challenge a intact guy who doesn't know what it may be like to NOT have a foreskin. The bigger issue and problem is that all too many males never had the chance to have and know his foreskin before it was amputated shortly after birth due to no choice of his own. Seems the smart and fair and just thing would be for parents to leave the foreskin where it was put in the first place by nature because it has a real purpose. Having long ago gone through the needed skin stretching to get full coverage of my glans -- and even look almost like I was never cut in the first place after birth -- I can say without qualification that my foreskin is a wonderful, useful structure to have. Just glad we left our son intact when he was born 29 years ago. While it should be up to adult males to determine to keep or cut off their foreskins, it goes over the line for parents to automatically make that decision to cut off that body part from their baby boys. It is also sad that men will get circumcised because others say the foreskin is ugly -- or other people like the cut, exposed look better. A foreskin is just a wonderful thing to have in my sexual tool chest.

Women can compare the two... believe me it's more than looks and hygiene.

An intact man is a better sex partner because there is no friction. His skin sits still while the penis goes back and forth. A cut man can't do that and we sell so much lubricant here in the US because there are so many cut men.

No friction means I don't get sore and I can have sex longer.

[Rabid_Clam]

All too often in circumcision far too much foreskin is removed in the interest of sanitation. Personally I am cut but observing other males cut or not does not lend need for preference or catagorizing on that feature.

Again all too often so much of the foreskin is removed that the penis does not erect correctly or as it would have had there been enough skin left to facilitate the growth in erection. So any point would be better made in functionality over how it looks.

As has been said it really makes no difference to a true nudist. It may make some difference to a sexual partner and that is not what nudism is all about. Foreskin is as natural as the erection and they must be left to work togather at the appropriate time and place. A nudist gathering usually is not a place to contemplate such matters albeit in amenable company there may be rare circumstances where this would be fine if all persons present agree.

[Niki23]

I'm glad

[Niki23]

I'm glad i'm not circumsises. I quite like my willy the way it is.

[mrbee]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cranialstrain:
Sorry to seem rude but - WHO CARES!? The whole point of true naturism is that you are accepted for who and what you are, whether you have 3 legs, 2 heads or are 30 stone.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Ian @ gobare.com <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I 'm with Crainialstrain on this one !
Cheers and Stay Naked,
Mrbee

[vintagecarguy]

I see that a few,possibly well meaning people are still saying,who cares?
Well,though it pains me to have to do so again,I will reply.
I care.Thats not to say I care about an adult choosing to be cut,or a person who was cut as a child and happy.Im happy for those who are happy.
I wouldnt wish my trouble on my worst enemy.
I will NEVER have a normal sex life due to what a BUTCHER with a medical license did to me when I was one day old.
I have posted the details before.I care because I dont want more to suffer.One can always have the foreskin removed later as an adult,I cant go back and break the hands of the scum who ruined me and save myself.
I must admit Im one of the lucky ones.
David Reimer who lost his entire penis to a circumcision gone wrong in 1966 just killed himself this May.
He was cut at the age of seven months after he and his twin brother were diagnosed with phimosis.
After he lost his penis his twin due to be cut at the same time for the same problem was left untouched.As is common with the supposed problems of being intact,the untouched twins phimosis cleared up on its own.Phimosis does not need knives to go away.
If you want more about the crimes of the medical establishment just read the book,As Nature Made Him.
It tells how he was abused by doctors for many years after the accident and how lies by the doctors caused injury to be infliced on many more childrem for decades after.

[the NAKED eye]

I,m with mrbee, too, on this. With him in thought not in shape, if you get what I mean!
As a kid we had nicknames- Cavaliers and Roundheads- for the uncut boys and the cut boys. So very British!

I 'm with Crainialstrain on this one !
Cheers and Stay Naked,
Mrbee[/QUOTE]

[Griffin]

Vintagecarguy,
I applaud your earnest passion about the right to have sovereignty over one's own body and to decry the madness that is routine infant circumcision. Your bluntness is refreshing. Years ago, I wrote a angry letter to the hospital where I was born and circumcised many decades before. The circumcising butcher was probably dead by then, but I called for the hospital leadership to have the conscience and social justice to close down their foreskin ripoff unit. They didn't respond,and hospitals never do. They keep performing their dirty little surgery and collecting the fees. Anytime a hospital asks me for charitable funds, I tell them I'll give when they stop amputating foreskins from the helpless, unwilling victims. Here in Arizona, we were successful in 2002 to get the state to stop funding circumcisions for low-income families under Medicaid because it could not be medically justified. (12,800 boys a year for $1.66 million). It became the 7th state to stop such funding and now there are 12 states, mostly in the American West. Tragically, some hospitals are performing them anyway after Medicaid is cut. They are just eating the cost ($125 plus) presumably to accommodate the uninformed and ill-informed parents who ask for it. No medical society in the world advocates routine infant circumcision, which is merely culturally directed cosmetic surgery. Because it is illegal in the U.S. to perform circumcision (female genital mutilation) on minor females, as occurs primarily in Africa, there have been some attempts in the courts to get male genital mutilation stopped on the basis of equal protection under the law. But the double-standard issue has not yet been successful. Cutting off living, healthy structures from the genitalia of anyone, without their consent, should be against the law in a civilized society. As someone once asked, "What possible advantage could there be to removing from the penis its only movable part?"

[nunne]

Well - I have been reading through this post again, and it appears to me that several conclusions can be drawn from the discussion:

1. Men who are uncut prefer it that way.

2. Men who are cut are split about whether they like it or not.

2. Women don't care, but seem to feel that there is no need for it. (Cyndiann -I honestly didn't know it made any difference to a woman.)

3. There is a really significant movement to try to reverse the cultural impetous to have all boys circumsized.

When my son was born 37 years ago, my wife and I never even stopped to consider whether he would be circumsized. It was just the accepted thing. It is another of the decisions in my life that I wish I could take back.

When my grandson was born recently, my daughter and son-in-law actually asked for some advice from us. My son expressed the opinion that he wishes he were not circumsized, and I urged them not to make the mistake I did. When he is an adult, he can make the decision for himself.

I am happy to say that they chose to leave him intact, and I have scored a little victory in the counter movement towards making this a matter of choice for the man who is affected instead of by someone else.

[the NAKED eye]

Nunne has summed up this debate pretty well and I agree with his sentiments. As I'm cut ("a roundhead") there is little I can do except be happy with my penis; I am!
To widen this dicussion a little: what about penis adornments? Is a true naturist comfortable with body decoration? Tattoos, body piercings are to some an integeral part of their bodies, but they are actually adornments. For the sake of this discussion let's stick to penis adornments. I have a "prince albert ring" so am I true naturist. I am naked whenever I can be, but "prince albert" stays put with the rest of my penis "crown jewels" Am I really naked?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nunne:
Well - I have been reading through this post again, and it appears to me that several conclusions can be drawn from the discussion:

1. Men who are uncut prefer it that way.

2. Men who are cut are split about whether they like it or not.

2. Women don't care, but seem to feel that there is no need for it. (Cyndiann -I honestly didn't know it made any difference to a woman.)

3. There is a really significant movement to try to reverse the cultural impetous to have all boys circumsized.

When my son was born 37 years ago, my wife and I never even stopped to consider whether he would be circumsized. It was just the accepted thing. It is another of the decisions in my life that I wish I could take back.

When my grandson was born recently, my daughter and son-in-law actually asked for some advice from us. My son expressed the opinion that he wishes he were not circumsized, and I urged them not to make the mistake I did. When he is an adult, he can make the decision for himself.

I am happy to say that they chose to leave him intact, and I have scored a little victory in the counter movement towards making this a matter of choice for the man who is affected instead of by someone else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Rabid_Clam]

Having read much of this thread and being cut myself I am not sure about the validity of either method. Yet for sanitation reasons and where I know of men that had problems from far too much fore skin, I beleive an amount of circumcision is in order. I do think in today's world the cut takes off far too much skin. About half is reasonable which will allow the penis glans to be expoxed enough for sanitation and enough left to not mar the erection.

Men who are fully erect and the skin on the penis is stretched flat and stiff have had too much taken off. Those who are fully erect and have yet enough left to comfortably cover at least half the glans is a proper cut. That proper cut allows for adequate sanitation while allowing enough skin for natural events to occur.

[cdg-fr]

nunne - good for you. When my sons were born some 15 and 12 years ago they remained intact. Since I was cut I knew one day as little kids probably by the age of 5 (yes it did happen) they would comment that their penis looked different than mine. I was friend counselled that at that young age, I could reply, "that I have a Daddy penis and they have a boy penis". Accurate in some repects and age appropriate explanation. Later on we have had the discussion about keeping theirs intact

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
Having read much of this thread and being cut myself I am not sure about the validity of either method. Yet for sanitation reasons and where I know of men that had problems from far too much fore skin, I beleive an amount of circumcision is in order. I do think in today's world the cut takes off far too much skin. About half is reasonable which will allow the penis glans to be expoxed enough for sanitation and enough left to not mar the erection.

Men who are fully erect and the skin on the penis is stretched flat and stiff have had too much taken off. Those who are fully erect and have yet enough left to comfortably cover at least half the glans is a proper cut. That proper cut allows for adequate sanitation while allowing enough skin for natural events to occur. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you are saying is that we should cut body parts off rather than clean them. Sounds a little drastic. Let's go with your point of view.... ears are really hard to clean so let's chop them off too. Bet it will slow down those ear infections kids are prone to! And you know how dirty their hands can get, let's at least lob off the fingers.

Actually since the foreskin doesn't retract until years down the road cleaning under it is really a moot point until they are old enough to be giving themselves a bath or shower. Why not teach them to clean it the same way you'd also teach them to brush their teeth? Oh, wait, let's just pull those buggers out and skip that too. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Rabid_Clam]

cyndiann, your post sounded somewhat angry. As a very young boy my mother taught me how to clean my penis. This was standard practise in all my bathing but eventually I did get an infection and that resulted in circumcision, I still remember that day and the whole thing!

Men who keep themselves very clean in every aspect still have problems from infection. This area of the body does not get aired out as does the ear, hands or most other parts and it is drying air that can retard and prevent many infections. After all, even a cut with a bandage must be kept clean AND dry to heal.

There are variations in forskin between each person and in some it can be a problem while in others including siblings such problems never arise.

Circmucision is not at all a bad thing, but how it is done is. In most cases far too much is cut off. This comes from the fear of malpractise suits that may come in the future in the case of infection so the practise is to remove more than really necessary.

We are back to the lawyers who make good money regardless of good or bad. Not to begin a new thread discussion but the root problem is not the circumcision but the lawyers who will pounce like a cat on fresh meat on any opportunity so those who may become meat over react to protect themselves and guess who pays for it, yup. Which is why air fare is so out rageously high, and so many other things are so incredibly expensive and that is to pay off insurance that pays off huge settlements.

We can go round and round and round on this, but I fully stand my ground that circumcision is good but if done properly and properly means to not remove any more than absolutely necessary. How much is that? Well that is per individual where we are created all equal but with variations. No need to be angry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
cyndiann, your post sounded somewhat angry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You didn't see the smiling smiley? I was being sarcastic. I was also simply following your train of thought to show you how silly it looks to me. There is no anger.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


As a very young boy my mother taught me how to clean my penis. This was standard practise in all my bathing but eventually I did get an infection and that resulted in circumcision, I still remember that day and the whole thing!

Men who keep themselves very clean in every aspect still have problems from infection. This area of the body does not get aired out as does the ear, hands or most other parts and it is drying air that can retard and prevent many infections. After all, even a cut with a bandage must be kept clean AND dry to heal.

There are variations in forskin between each person and in some it can be a problem while in others including siblings such problems never arise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not against circs for medical reasons. However, that is a small minority that would have your problem.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Circmucision is not at all a bad thing, but how it is done is. In most cases far too much is cut off. This comes from the fear of malpractise suits that may come in the future in the case of infection so the practise is to remove more than really necessary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You aren't considering the lawsuits from the botched circs. Some boys end up with nothing to pee from. Why take the chance on cases that aren't medically necessary?<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

We are back to the lawyers who make good money regardless of good or bad. Not to begin a new thread discussion but the root problem is not the circumcision but the lawyers who will pounce like a cat on fresh meat on any opportunity so those who may become meat over react to protect themselves and guess who pays for it, yup. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, we are back to the doctors that don't want to quit making those bucks from cutting body parts off. Most times they don't really educate parents when asked for an opinion, even knowing that the AMA is against it.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>


We can go round and round and round on this, but I fully stand my ground that circumcision is good but if done properly and properly means to not remove any more than absolutely necessary. How much is that? Well that is per individual where we are created all equal but with variations. No need to be angry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then please tell me the difference between removing penis parts and removing ear parts just for cleanliness.....

And explain to the parents of the deformed children that you only wanted to be clean. The dangers vastly outweigh the results.

[Griffin]

Rabid_Clam,
Your own personal story of needing a circumcision as a boy because of infection is anecdotal and cannot legitimize blanket circumcisions. It's clear from massive literature that doctors have been quick to cut foreskins off whenever any "problem" related to the penis arose. Phimosis (tight foreskin) is the best example. Progressive medicine has developed ways around it, including stretching. Infections are such a convenient issue raised against foreskins, but if they are so common, why isn't circumcision common in other parts of the world, especially Europe, where circumcision is very uncommon? Maybe it has to do with a greater respect for all structures of the body and their practicing normal hygiene. The old "infection" argument doesn't work, or medical societies would advocate for circumcision and they don't. The ever-moist vagina is even more prone to infections, and those are dealt with without surgery. Let's face it: circumcision is entrenched in America because it is so commonly done and survives only because of misinformation and the tyranny of the momentum of tradition. It is also commonly done because most people, especially males themselves, don't understand the unique functions of the foreskin and why keeping it has real benefits. Having left our son (now an adult) intact and my having fully restored my own foreskin and enjoying every aspect of the wholeness, I can say the humane, ethical and parentally sensitive approach is to NOT circumcise a baby boy. On the rare chance problems develop later, then the parent should first approach all options that preserve his foreskin. Sadly, most doctors trivialize foreskins as well and think their amputations are the quick and simple solution. Doctors won't get sued for NOT circumcising. Changing this medical madness starts with education, especially by parents. Intact men on the forum say again and again, they prefer their foreskins. That should be enough of an endorsement. Loving parents of newborns should understand that.
Circumcision belongs on the dung heap of discredited medical quackery. In the final analysis, humans should have sovereinty over their own bodies and not have to grow up and ask why someone whacked off a part of their bodies.

[Rabid_Clam]

Griffin, that was pretty good, thanks. I was lucky that when I was circumcized that not too much was removed so my penis remained normal and otherwise intact.

I really think that circumcision today is another bill to add for the Dr so he makes more money. I do beleive there are cases where circumcision is necessary but am not a doctor so really can't comment. If your boys do fine in tact great. Not sure I want to be intact now where for me all is fine.

But my original comment of they take off too much is absolutely true. Men get erect penis and the shaft skin is stretched so thight the panis bends. That I fully object to and then some.

[Griffin]

Speaking of the fanaticism for the fetish of circumcision, did anyone see the wire story from AP published Sept. 7 about a father who chose to try to whack off his son's foreskin?:

RIDGEFIELD, Wash. -- A Ridgefield, Washington, man faces assault charges after trying to circumcise his eight-year-old son with a kitchen knife.
Edward Baxter is being held in the Clark County jail on $50,000 bail
Baxter told police that he numbed the boy's penis with ice before attempting the circumcision at home. The eight-year-old has only minor injuries.
Baxter was arrested and charged with assault.
Prosecutor Kim Farr says the Ridgefield man was inspired by the Bible, which says that all men should be circumcised.
Baxter and his wife have nine children.
##

We would like to know more of the story, but certainly the boy's age must have played a role in his getting free or making a loud enough protest or having some defenses. Tragicly newborns and infants don't stand a chance. What is great about the seriousness of the charges brought is that it doesn't trivialize the severity of the father's alleged actions -- that you just don't start hacking off your children's body parts. This all conjured what the great British scholar and human behaviorist Dr. Desmond Morris wrote about circumcision: "Tribal mutilations, such a lip-plugging, tooth-filing, ear-stretchng 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 towards the 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 protests 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." (From p. 229) "Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behavior" by Desmond Morris, Ph.D., (1977).
Last comment, if this nutty father bothered to read and correctly understood the New Testament, circumcision serves no value (1 Corinthians 7:19; Philippians 3:3 and other references).
Whether by a kitchen knife or by a paid circumciser's evil stainless steel tools, the savage practice is still medically unethical and a violation of universal human rights of the unconsenting.

[mj]

Am cut, by parents decision...I cannot fault them for doing what they thought best. When my wife was about to deliver our first we had signed papers oking circu. As I was walking down the hallway heard a little baby crying, I looked in, and there was DR. circu. a little baby boy. I went back to nurses station, requested papers oking the circum. Nurse handed them to me and I tore them up. She asked why I did that, I told her you cannot tell me that little baby doesn't feel pain. I decided then and there if we had a boy would leave him uncut to make decision himself. cleanliness is no big deal...you just keep it clean. BTW it was a little girl, in fact both my kids are girls, and bathed, showered them for the first several years of their lives so ended up teaching them how to clean selves. No big deal. Bath time was a fun time, a bonding time for us. We, kids, and I would stip down by the washing machine, then became a game of catch me if you can daddy, and once caught the task was then to keep in the tub. I would shower one, hand her out to wife who dried her, and then bathe the other. We would chat about what happened that day etc. Then after I was done bathing the girls I would take my shower...then it was off to bed....either read a story or listen to a story tape and snuggle and fall asleep. Twenty two years later I can still tell if my oldest has had a bad day....she will want to cuddle and bury her head in my shoulder...gosh did this ramble and get off topic...

[nudenwv]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cdg-fr:
I think for a long time parents didn't often make a conscious decision about circumcision - they tend to follow family tradition. If Daddy is cut - the male kid's are cut. But it does not have to be that way. Increasingly here in Canada I find that while most (but not all) of my Canadian-born friends are cut (North American influence) they are choosing to leave their sons intact unless for religious reasons they have them circumcized. Those that have them circumcized other than for religious reasons tend to have done so because they are circumcized. Certainly, because of the waves of immigration from European and Asian cultures, there are increasing numbers of males with intact foreskins. In fact, I think circumsision is now considered cosmetic surgery and parents have to pay for the procedure.

As for me, I was circumcised, following family traditions. My wife and I chose to leave our sons intact. Perhaps the only time I have ever really felt in the "minority" was participating in nude activities in Europe or in the Caribbean where there might be lots of Europeans on holidays.

I might add that living in Toronto and going to the local clothing optional beach, my guess is that maybe 1/3 rd of males are intact. But, if stratified by age, more and more of the younger men are intact. I do believe a trend has been established.

Now, I am not sure that nudists have a preference. We are who we are. Let's just accept our bodies. And these discussions are helpful if they open the mind that choices are possible and we don't just have to keep doing what has been done during the past 80 years in North America - since I understand that routine circumcision was introduced as part of an effort in WW I for hygiene reasons? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>i'am cut and smooothe..i think the smoothe look gives us the extra we all want...uncut is fine and looking altogeather and have that extra inch but i had no choice in the matter......uncut is coming back.....hats off to those lucky enough to be uncut.....

[Snoboy]

I was circumcized when I was five years old. They snipped me when I went in to have my tonsils out. I still remember the shock of it when I came out from the anesthesia. I often wish that I had not been cut because I have read that guys who are cut lose some of the sensation but I am and I am happy with the way things are.

[NakedGary]

+85% of the world’s male population is left intact naturally.

Why hack off healthy functioning body parts of others without consent? The foreskin was put there for a purpose. Let the bearer decide.

Circumcision is organ mutilation and penile reduction, unnatural, and is a rip off of many of beneficial functions and pleasures for life.

Snoboy,

That would be quite a shock. Go in to have your tonsils removed and they remove your foreskin. Did they remove your tonsils too, or was it a complete screw-up?

If there's nothing wrong with it why remove it?

By the way, is that you in your avatar? Whoever did it is very talented.

[Snoboy]

Yes to both questions Jon Marc. This was done by a student when I posed sometime ago. I was clipped on both ends. I couldn't swallow and I couldn't pee.

[DoctorSurferDude]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Griffin:
Circumcision belongs on the dung heap of discredited medical quackery. In the final analysis, humans should have sovereinty over their own bodies and not have to grow up and ask why someone whacked off a part of their bodies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Circumcision originated in Judaism and adopted by christianity. It was apparently God's idea, and at the time it was a brilliant idea if you consider that there was no soap or running water....being circumcised ensured good penile hygine.

Fast forward to today where we live in a culture that showers pretty much daily and shares knowledge at the speed of light, the risk of primary bacterial infection due to poor hygine in an uncircumcised male is pretty slim....HOWEVER...

Studies have shown that there is increased transmission of viruses like Human Papilloma Virus in non-curcumcised males. HPV is associated with increased risk for penile cancer and increased risk of cervical cancer in female partners. So overall the incidence of "disease" is slightly increased in non-circumcised males, but only slightly. If a non-circumcised male maintains a low number of sexual partners and engages in low-risk sexual behavior then the incidence drops to nearly zero and circumcision vs. non-circumcision shows no difference as far as disease goes.

So basically it is tradition, and aside from phimosis and an increased risk of HPV in sexually adventurous men, there is no arguable reason for worrying about circumcision. The decision will continue to be the parent's, although if I am asked for advice I will state the previous and tell the parents that it's really a fairly neutral choice.

[DoctorSurferDude]

So...I wonder...

Is there an increased risk of skin cancer to the head of the penis in circumcised male nudists?

Since that tissue lacks pigment (melanin) it cannot compensate for sunlight and even with sunblock it may be more prone to suffer from the ill effects of the UV that does get through. Any thoughts on that?

[Trailscout]

Doc, I'd swear that mine is pigmented, just as dark as the rest of the penis. I have a light olive complexion.

[DoctorSurferDude]

Sorry...I didn't quite state it right. If it lacked pigment it would be albino. I meant it doesn't have the same properties when it comes to melanin. It's like a forehead compared to lips. Lips too can very in their pigment, but in general pinker tissues lack the same protection from sunlight as regular skin provides.

[Zorro]

I've never had any problems with being circumcised, and personally, I think it looks better. But, that's just me.

[lonelyguy]

I was not cut when i was born and i have not had any problems,Alwas keep it clean and it wont rust (lol)Ihave been married 4 times and not one of my xes had any complaint,till we went to court (lol)

[Snoboy]

Lonelyguy, from the sound of it, you probably wore all the foreskin off with four marriages. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[vintagecarguy]

a few circumcisions that didnt get in the news as much as they should have.....
Jacob Sweet,born in Anchorage Alaska in 1986,cut on day 2 after birth.infection developed at circ. site.26 hours after entering hospital stopped breathing during massive seizure.Child now has severe brain damage and requires 24 hour care for the rest of his life,thanks to the great benefits of routine infant circumcision!

New York...
a clinic agreed to pay 1.2 million to an 8 year old mutilated at age 3.the clinic,doctor and rabbi who performed the cut were sued for..."permanent shortening and disfigurement of the penis."during the trial experts testified that the boys mutilation will make intercourse difficult...thanks to the wonderfull cultural tradition of circumcision!
.

Allan Ervin,born July 1985,on life support since December 1985 due to brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation during circumcision.he died at Spartanburg Regional Medical Center 3 weeks before his 7th birthday...thanks to the miracle cure-all modern surgical snake oil..infant circumcision!
this kind of story happens every year,even circ supporters admit to a death rate of 1 or 2 a year,thats DEATH RATE!,not doesnt look like daddy,not laughed at in locker room,not inflamation of the foreskin requiring an antibiotic cream,thats DEATH.
if an adult wants a circ,fine,thats his right but cutting kids is wrong.
Binding the feet of little girls in China was a cultural tradion that deserved to die.The cutting off of a little girls clitoris that is still legal in many parts of the world deserves to die.Some women who have been mutilated defend the cutting as a religeous tradition.that doesnt make it right.It deserves to die.
If traditions didnt change pedophilia would be accepted as normal in some parts of the western world.That custom died and so will infant genital mutilation.

[mrbee]

As a general rule I believe it's probably best that we don't subject children to any surgical procedure unless there is a compelling medical need.
Whether that child is male or female I think the genitals are probably left well alone until the child is old enough to make a decision for his/herself.

The prevention of potential issues regarding hygiene and the foreskin is often the same reason quoted when cutting away or reducing the labia on females. It's quite ludicrous.

What the hell are we doing to our children ????
I find it incredibly bizarre and sad that we subject our children so randomly and often without question to decisions that affect them forever. How can anyone prefer not to have a foreskin if you can't remember having one ? To discuss it in that way demonstrates yet again that we are discussing a cosmetic procedure when it is performed on infants without a medical complaint. Someone remind me - why are we performing cosmetic surgery on infants ?


Leave well aone is my view , even the thought of it..... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Cheers, Mrbee

I am not circumcised and have quite a prominant foreskin. As a child and particularly as a teenager this used to embarass me, especially after a friend saw me while we were dressing and announced "he hasn't got a helmet!". The first time I was undressed in front of a lady (which preceeded being a naturist by a good few years) I was mortified that she should notice.

Being a naturist has helped me feel more confortable about my body (yes, boys get like that too!) and now I quite like it the way things are. I follow a strict hygiene regime which means I have never had any health problems "down there" and to be honest I do feel a bit of an individual!

[P.J.]

Hey Zorro...

I agree with you.

I was also circumcized as an infant.

I wasn't cut in a way that would later discourage me from sexual activity.

Being 50 years of age has slowed me down more than that simple surgical procedure that I experienced as an infant.

One of the many reasons that I think that infant circumcision is better is that I think that an adult would be terrified of any cutting down there!

For that reason, I would never consider a vasectomy.

When a doctor reaches down there, a gloved hand is unpleasant enough. A hand with a scalpel can be downrigt really scary!

Moving on to the subject of female circumcision, that is simply cruel and barbaric physical mutilation. Some savage primitive cultures, especially those who treat the females like slaves and inferior individuals, engage in this detestable practice to curb female sexuality. Fortunately, the more civilized countries outlaw female circumsision. I wish that those who subject their daughters to such cruel practices were given more harsh penalties under the law.

[mrbee]

P.J.
What's the difference between male and female circumcision ?
I'm confused by your points ?
Someone remind me - why are we performing cosmetic surgery on infants ?
Cheers. Mrbee

[vintagecarguy]

P.J.
Im glad you dont feel hurt but I am forced to suffer pain instead of pleasure for my entire life due to my infant circumcision.
Its not psycological,its very real physical pain.That in turn leads to nearly unbearable emotional pain.Im not the only one.
For some it is unbearable,David Reimer killed himself this past summer.If you dont know who he is just type his name into a search engine,if you care.
Many men suffer due to very common problems caused by infant mutilation.
No one had a right to rob me of my sexuality at birth.I now channel my rage toward ending this disgusting barbaric practice.I dont mean to cause any harm or insult to those who are cut and happy,but I wont hide the harm done to me and many others.

[P.J.]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mrbee:
P.J.
So remind me again ? What's the difference between male and female circumcision ?
I'm confused by your points ?
Cheers. Mrbee <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



mrbee...
Greetings from Yankeeland.
You caught me before I had the chance to sign off.
Moving along to the lively discussion of circumcision...
Female circumcision is the practice of genital mutilation. Some cultures engage and encourage this practice to curb their daughters from engaging in promiscuous sexual activity.
Women who have been subjected to this grisly procedure have less sensitivity, since it is the clitoris that is injured.
Of course, a male circumcision that is performed incorrectly would also have the sort of results that I would rather not dwell upon!
As for the pros and cons of male circumcision, this subject will never go away, but from time to time, this makes for some intellectual stimulating debates.
Now if I don't sign off and get to bed, by British wife might consider the option of becoming my British ex-wife!
Cheerio the noo!

[vintagecarguy]

P.J.
Just a thought,
perhaps you should dwell upon what happens when a male circumcision is done incorrectly,or even correctly for a man who wants his whole body.
Perhaps then you might consider helping stop RIC.
Please look carefully at the horrror that this causes many men and the families of those men and infants.Dwell on it.Im forced to every day,every time I urinate and see that horrible scar,everytime I try to be intimate with my girlfriend.Ive got a life sentence.
That is a crime.That is barbaric.That is grisly.I have less sensitivity.I am injured.I deserve the same protection as women.

[Rabid_Clam]

I am circumcised and feel fine about it. The stories of infants and other todlers being grieviously hurt from circumcision is horrible but any time a person gets invloved the subject is left lend to the errors of man every time and errors will happen.

Of the millions of circumcision performed yearly the error rate is extremely low. The question opens is "Is the benefit actually a betterment to the male or not?". In my mind the jury is out on that but I lean towards circumcision and for the foreskin to not be totally removed but to leave adequate room for penile erection with out stretching the skin but enough removed to provice sanitation and normal air drying to all surface parts.

No Dr. here, just my opinion.

[Ben_m]

by DoctorSurferDude <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Since that tissue lacks pigment (melanin) it cannot compensate for sunlight and even with sunblock it may be more prone to suffer from the ill effects of the UV that does get through. Any thoughts on that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I've said before that my 'approach' to sun exposure is to do so gruadually, carefully, and avoiding burns in the process (and I haven't had a significant sunburn in many, many years). But...., guess where the first place on me is that burns.... - you guess it, my circumcision scar. It isn't uncommon for me to 'wear' sunscreen there and nowhere else. Just as you state, it cannot compensate for sunlight, and as you surmise, yes, I expect it's a risk and a problem. Curiously, as it's generally "messed up" anyway, even when it does burn, it never peels, and only really hurts when pants rub on it. So there's a workable work-around of sorts, well, most of the time http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Although I don't spend time crying about it, I'll admit I'm one that wishes I had been "left alone" (not circumsized), and if I had sons, which I don't, they would have been "left alone". I don't like the feeling that I have been "modified" without my consent (which I can't imagine ever would have happened). But, I figure that's pretty much the extent of my influence in the world with respect to it. I do see routine infant circumcision as "wrong", but what to do about it in a world that has such a difficult time even defining "right" and "wrong"?

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by P.J.:
I wish that those who subject their daughters to such cruel practices were given more harsh penalties under the law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that male circumcisions are endorsed by, amongst others, white middle-class Americans doesn't mean it is not as barbaric a practice as female circumcision.

Perhaps you should be wishing that anyone who abuses children by genital mutilation should be given harsh penalties under the law.

Rik

[Rabid_Clam]

I have heard of female circumcision, but what is that? Have never seen any female part that was circumcised.

Just cannot imagine any purpose for this on a female never mind what they cut.

Have heard of some cultures that sew the vaginal canal closed, that is the most barbaric thing I can think of other than a unic.

Just what goes through people's minds to do such a thing? Male circumcision if done correctly does not harm the subject nor a partner and is most beneficial in nature. But any other such act is simply outrageously insanity to even think of !

[roadrambler2]

Just to throw in an old joke into this mix.
A chap once told me the best job he ever had was working in the hospital circumcision dept. The pay wasn't all that bad and the tips were good. Sorry guys!

[vintagecarguy]

Mr Rabid Clam....

The doc that mutilated me would claim it was done correctly.
I,the subject was harmed.It is most barbaric,it was not beneficial.There are NO CONFIRMED MEDICAL BENEFITS!Nearly all of the worlds pediatric medical organisations,DO NOT APPROVE OF RIC.
I would like to reccomend that anyone interested go to...
www.noharmm.org (http://www.noharmm.org)
www.nocirc.org (http://www.nocirc.org)
or read "Sex As Nature Intended"
or "As Nature Made Him"
or "Circumcision Exposed"

The deligates of family practice and the college of pediatric urologists are in general agreement that infant circumcision is containdicated and provides no valid medical or hygenic benefits.

in 1982 an Iowa infant bled to death from ric
1983 virginia boys penis degloved requiring skin grafts.
1984 Louisiana boys penis destroyed.
1985 2 boys in Atlanta lost their penis,one underwent sex change.hope he doesnt kill himself like David Reimer just did.
it goes on year after year and thats only the few you hear about.the complication rate is much higher when you facter in those of us who docs report as ok as babies but then we as adults find sex painful or impossible.

Dr. Hank Streitfield states"In America,with millions of circumcisions performed annually,about five little boys will die each year as a result of infection or bleeding"
small percentage?yes,what if one of those boys is yours?

The American Medical Association states"routine circumcision is nontherapeutic"

I as man circumcised October 25,1967 do proclaim circumcision has caused me great harm and has given no benefit.It has caused a life time of pain and anguish.I encourage all men who feel harmed in any way by circumcision to stand up and fight to protect future generations.Children,male female and those of ambiguous genitailia deserve to be protected from often well meaning but misguided assaults on their body integrity.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rabid_Clam:
I have heard of female circumcision, but what is that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Female Circumcision" is a misnomer, it is properly called Female Genital Mutilation (http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm).

It is the removal of the clitoris, and often a portion of the labia. It may include the sowing up the vulva exept for a small opening for urinination (the lucky husband will later 'open' it up with a double edged dagger on the wedding night). It is intended to prevent pleasure during sex so that women will remain faithfull to their owners ... er ... husbands. It is typically performed on a girl in a ceremony prior to puberty, but always prior to marriage.

It is in no way analogeous to male circumcision. The analogy would be to castration.

-Mark

[vintagecarguy]

Thanks for the post Naturist Mark.
Id just like to make a couple additions.
There are some who remove the clitoral hood only,making claims of cleanliness similar to unfounded claims made about male genital mutilation.The cutting of healthy genitailia,male or female,no matter how little or how much a crime.
Also the analogy to clitoral mutilation is glansectomy,the loss of the glans penis which does occasionaly occur as one of my nieghbors who suffered this misshap as an infant would attest.

[Tampanude]

I concur with the opinion that those of us who were circumcised or not had little to do with the decision, for religious purposes or otherwise. As far as female circumcision, I think it's the lowest form of brutality. It's merely a control, domination technique to reduce women to baby factories without experiencing the human function of conception

[TempeLawn]

Circumcision is such a dirty, little insidious act of brutality on the helpless and defenseless, committed at a time for maximum protection for the circumcisers and the ignorant parents because the poor young male will never really know what he is missing. Resentment would be minimal. I submit that most males who so freely dismiss their circumcisions and say they don't miss a thing (or it's better) don't have a clue. The lame excuses like "it's easier to clean" or "I can still have great sex" are like Ray Charles saying life was great even though he couldn't see. Compared to what? Nature or God put that foreskin there on males for an intended purpose of protection, lubrication, the mechanics of rolling/gliding skin during sex, a match with the structures of the vagina, and so much more. You circumcised guys don't have that wonderful skin, and sex is different.
We are talking about genital integrity. We are talking about wholeness. We are talking about our bodies ourselves -- our own legitimate universal human right to have sovereignty over the bodies we were given. Not the most loving, well-intentioned parent has a moral, ethical right to order some circumciser (I like the word "butcher" better) to amputate a baby boy or non-adult to satisfy that parent's preferences, prejudices, religious ideas, folklore, peer pressure, family tradition or whim.
As a father whose instinct told him from the get-go that I could/should never have my son cut, I have taken great comfort that three decades ago I left our son with his male birthrights intact. We looked the mindless doctor in the eye and said, "Hell, no. That's cruel nonsense."
All you who who think your sons should look (lack) like Daddy fail to grasp something fundamentally important: That foreskin is rightly your sons, and if he is like 80 percent of the intact males of the world, he far more likely than not would want to keep it -- to know what it does, can do, can feel like.
To deny it because of your whims and wishes is de facto sexual assault of the innocent. And I - and others say - shame on you.

One advantage to not being circumcised is that guys with a small penis look as though they've got more than they do with that skin hanging over the end http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

[Tara]

I say basically - If it ain't broke don't fix it!

I much prefer the "natural" state and would never ever circumcise any sons that I may have. I am not taking a fully functioning part of their body, that was obviously put there for a reason, away from them without their consent.

[lonelyguy]

nope just getting it broke in lol <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
Lonelyguy, from the sound of it, you probably wore all the foreskin off with four marriages. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[TempeLawn]

Check out the new Reuters story from South Africa where a group of young men being readied for their coming-of-age circumcision rites rose up and beat to death the nurse who was readying them to have their penises mutilated.Alas, newborns,strapped down spread-eagled by the "modern" circumcisers don't have a chance to retaliate before the nasty deed takes place.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/01/03/circumcision.nurse.reut/

[naturalmanwa]

I agree with you Tara. I am not circumcised nor is my son and as far as I know my grandfather and none of his sons were either. Doctor in the small town I came from didn't believe in it. I don't either because we are not under the 10 commandments and it is not medically necessary.

Cutting off a perfectly healthy foreskin just out of tradition is in my opinion no different than removing a perfectly healthy appendix.

[Trailscout]

There are tribes in Papua New Guinea that circumcise their boys as an intiation rite.

Orthodox Jews do it in fullfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.

I respect the choice of these cultural groups and would not want some paternalistic government denying a group their cultural identity.

The Apostle Paul urged Jewish Christians not to impose this ordinance on gentile converts to the faith.

In my infancy it was done for misguided medical reasons and so boys would not look different from other boys.

Clearly the foreskin is a useful part of the penis and should be left intact by the vast majority of people, except for those cultures that require it for initiation. There is no biblical mandate for total removal of the foreskin, so perhaps a token trim would suffice for Orthodox Jews, leaving most of this vital covering intact to do its job.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
... except for those cultures that require it for initiation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you think mutilation is ok as long as it's part of an initiation ceremony?

Mutilation is mutilation whatever the excuse.

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
... except for those cultures that require it for initiation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you think mutilation is ok as long as it's part of an initiation ceremony?

Mutilation is mutilation whatever the excuse.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are tribes in Africa(somalia, ethiopia area) that practice ritual circs on girls. It disfigures them, and causes medical problems in later life. I wonder if trailscout objects to the "paternalistic government" banning them in Europe and North America. Shouldn't those people be able to practice their cultural rites as well?

[Trailscout]

Female clitorectomy is not a perfect analog to trimming the foreskin.

At some point society decides when to interfere in tribal practices and when to leave them to their own devices. I draw the line at the point of allowing male circumcision, but outlawing clitorectomy.

Recently there was a great hew and cry about Mexican immigrants butchering goats in their back yards, but fact is, my great grandpa used to slaughter a hog every winter in his suburban back yard just like he did back on the farm. Yes the hog's screams were horrible and there were blood and guts aplenty, but that was our way and cultural conflicts like this are inevitable in our "smaller than it used to be world".

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Female clitorectomy is not a perfect analog to trimming the foreskin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They both involve unnecessary butchery.
[/quote]At some point society decides when to interfere in tribal practices and when to leave them to their own devices. [/quote]When do you think it will finaly get to interfere with the tribal practice of circumcision?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I draw the line at the point of allowing male circumcision, but outlawing clitorectomy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could that be because you just happen to belong to a tribe which practices circumcision?

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Female clitorectomy is not a perfect analog to trimming the foreskin. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They both involve unnecessary butchery.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>At some point society decides when to interfere in tribal practices and when to leave them to their own devices. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When do you think society will finally get to interfere with the tribal practice of circumcision?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I draw the line at the point of allowing male circumcision, but outlawing clitorectomy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could that be because you just happen to belong to a tribe which practices circumcision?

Rik

[Trailscout]

I belong to a tribe that butchers hogs in the back yard, but I respect the rights of people to trim a little foreskin from their sons to fulfill a rite of passage.

Rik, just as a barbershop distinguishes in price between "just a trim" and a shaved head, so should you distinguish between circumcision and clitorectomy.

[shãybare]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
The problem I have with both is the "victim" has no voice in the matter. In the case of many, they are not babies but older children and just held down while the procedure is being done. Given the choice I do not believe these children would go through with it. They are certainly too young to understand why this is being done.

I once saw a picture in Look magazine of an African boy who at puberty was being circumcised. One man held him from behind while another man stretched his foreskin as far as it would go in preparation of cutting it off with a knife. This is their "Rite of Passage" into manhood. I can't imagine the pain those boys would have to suffer. Talk about barbaric!

[Trailscout]

Hebrew circumcision is done on the eighth day of life, apparently not as traumatic at that age as juvenile circumcision.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Female clitorectomy is not a perfect analog to trimming the foreskin.

At some point society decides when to interfere in tribal practices and when to leave them to their own devices. I draw the line at the point of allowing male circumcision, but outlawing clitorectomy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, so it is a matter of moral relativism.
It is wrong to disfigure a girl, but OK to do alter a boy.

[Trailscout]

Male circumcision is no more disfiguring than a tattoo! I don't recommend it, but who am I to stop you? Who is the government to do so? Haven't we been through this scenario before with trying to assimilate Native Americans into white society? Cut their locks, forbid the Sun Dance, ban their language?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Male circumcision is no more disfiguring than a tattoo! I don't recommend it, but who am I to stop you? Who is the government to do so? Haven't we been through this scenario before with trying to assimilate Native Americans into white society? Cut their locks, forbid the Sun Dance, ban their language? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


yet you have no problem with the government forbidding the cultural rite of female circ.

Or is that a case of the cultures that practice that rite not being worthy of cultural
protection?

Come, come, young man. You can't cherry pick which practices are OK and which are wrong. To do so is to practice moral relativism.

BTW, you do make an interesting comment. You have stated previously that tattoos and other body modifications are adornment and go against the natural state of the human body as created by the lord. Now you say that you have no problem with children being forcibly modified from their natural state.

You really can't have it both ways.

[vintagecarguy]

Trailscout......
"no more disfuguring than a tattoo",
what?!?
amputating a moving functioning part of the male genitailia is the same as putting colored ink under the skin!!!!!!
The approximate percentage of skin lost in a circumcision is 36 percent.thats skin CUT OFF!not ink stuffed into the skin.thats skin GONE FOREVER!thats approximately 2.5 inches long by 4.7 inches in circumference totaling about 12 square inches of skin robbed from the adult penis.not the addition of some pigment.
male genital mutilation has robbed me of my sexuality.Tattoos cant do that!
How can one compare the amputation of tissue,NORMAL HEALTHY FUNCTIONAL TISSUE,with the addition of ink to the skin.
and on that might I add,Should I be allowed to tattoo a harley davidson emblem on my child?I think not.I only have the right to permantly alter my own body for aesthetics,NOT MY CHILDS!

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Male circumcision is no more disfiguring than a tattoo! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL. I wonder what sort of uproar there would be if parents decided to tattoo new-born babies instead of having them circumcised on the basis that tattooing is "no more disfuguring" than circumicision.

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Hebrew circumcision is done on the eighth day of life, apparently not as traumatic at that age as juvenile circumcision. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, eight day old babies can't understand what's happening. So that's OK then.

Rik

[nudenwv]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snoboy:
I was circumcized when I was five years old. They snipped me when I went in to have my tonsils out. I still remember the shock of it when I came out from the anesthesia. I often wish that I had not been cut because I have read that guys who are cut lose some of the sensation but I am and I am happy with the way things are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>fellas: lets not catagorize by cut and uncut,like smoking and nonsmoking...i go by personality ......if i like ya i like ya no matter what body type....stay nude and smoothe.

[shãybare]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I have an idea. When I was in High School, I took a debating class. I wasn't very good at it because, as you know, you must be able to debate either side of the argument with conviction and I found it extremely difficult to separate my feelings on a topic and always wanted my personal views on the topic to "win" so I allowed the team defending my personal view to dominate me whether it was my team or the opposing.

I'm sure most of you are already doing this but before you make your next post, stop a moment and try to see this from the other side. Try only to see the pros of the other side.

Just a thought.

[Trailscout]

Shay, let's try it your way for a while:

Let's make circumcision a felony and jail all rabbis who have done the procedure along with all parents who authorized it.

And since Israel is a sanctuary for Judaism, the circumcision cult, the United Nations needs to formulate a plan to dismantle the Zionist state. We'll begin with sea blockades and a no-fly zone. A campaign of carpet bombing should soften the target nicely prior to invasion.

As a precautionary move, we should create internment camps near cities in the US with high Jewish populations. There we can try them for criminal conduct and offer them a choice to renounce Judaism or face execution. We can cooperate with European Union authorities as they do the same in their cities.

==============================================
"What does it matter to you? When you've got a job to do, you've got to do it well. You gotta give the other fellow hell. Say live and let die" - Paul McCartney

[shãybare]

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Did I forget to mention "calm and rational"?
One of the other things I was taught is that in any conversation it is the burden of the speaker in making sure s/he is understood. My point was for each to stop for a moment and try to rationalize the others point of view without letting ones feelings intefere much like a Judge must do when deciding the legality of a case.

Of course this was only a suggestion.

[Rabid_Clam]

When just past of a todler I had some infection caused by excessive foreskin. My mother took me to our famiy phsycian where he circumcised me. I still remember that, seeing him hunched over my penis working the skin while my mother looked on, and then the snip of the scissors.

It was like a firey shooting pain when the skin was clipped but lasted but a few seconds. I was extremely sore, women also waiting at the bus stop asked my mother why I was holding my crotch as I was and she told them. They had a kind of extremely sorry look on their faces.

Even now nearly a half century later I remember so much of that. But as I had previously written I am happy with how I am and how it turned out. The Dr. (Dr. Guptil, Worcester Mass) was extremely skilled at this, took off only what needed to go leaving me with ample skin so as to not deform my penis when erect as what happens to some men.

Life goes on !

In 1996, the Canadian Paediatric Society’s position statement declared: “The Committee does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.” Without therapeutic value, the surgery now cost parents $100 - $400 and it cannot be performed without written consent from at least one of them.

Margaret Somerville, Founder of McGill’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law and an outspoken critic of circumcision in recent years, calls upon doctors and parents to categorically stop performing circumcisions.

“Since it is clearly not a health benefit, circumcision would be considered a non-therapeutic intervention,” says Somerville. “Ethically and legally, parental consent is irrelevant in such a situation. Circumcision removes sexually functioning tissue and causes substantial pain. That makes it a very serious intervention – definitely not one to be consented to by anyone but the individual.”

People’s attitudes about circumcision depend on their sexual experience and knowledge of the issue. While many women have been socialized to believe that uncircumcised males are less clean, ideas are changing.

“I can’t believe some guys think it’s cleaner to be circumcised,” says Anne, a 22-year-old student. “I’m the one with my face in their crotch and I don’t notice a difference. Who had the stupid idea that washing under the foreskin is a chore? I brush my teeth every day. I also wash my labia. Big deal.”

[kali]

no place for a woman, I guess, but here's my penny's worth: if you have had a little bit of skin cut from your foreskin - get over it. I have yet to meet a circumcised man who cannot ejaculate. Remove a female's clitoris, and that's it. stop moaning guys, you're pitiful.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kali:
no place for a woman, I guess, but here's my penny's worth: if you have had a little bit of skin cut from your foreskin - get over it. I have yet to meet a circumcised man who cannot ejaculate. Remove a female's clitoris, and that's it. stop moaning guys, you're pitiful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Amen sister!

If we girls can wax our most sensitive areas until they are silky smooth, I think you guys can handle a little incision when your 8 days old! (or 13 years old if you're Jewish, hehe)

[SkycladSpain]

Being circumcised I must say i wouldnt have it any other way. Looks nicer, is cleaner, and have had to spend too much time dealing with friends who have nasty infections from not being.

[Nude in the North]

I have never had a problem with my circumcision.
Granted I wasn't given a choice in the matter.
Granted I don't know what it would be like to have my foreskin intact.
But at least I'm not suffering from infections and the like.
I guess I can't guess what way is better. I'm just glad they didn't take it all.

Steve

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by _Sarah:
I think you guys can handle a little incision when your 8 days old! (or 13 years old if you're Jewish, hehe) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally Jewish boys are circucisized as infants, traditionally on the 8th day of life. The only reason a boy would be circumsized at 13 (prior to his Bar Mitzvah) is if he wasn't for some reason as an infant.

Circumcision at adolescence is a common practice among Muslims.

-Mark (not Jewish, but did go to summer Hebrew school as a kid).

[hojo44]

I was circumsized as a baby cause my dad saw some nasty infections of the foreskin while he was in the military. Im glad I had it done, I dont want any more medical problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hojo44:
I was circumsized as a baby cause my dad saw some nasty infections of the foreskin while he was in the military. Im glad I had it done, I dont want any more medical problems. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For those who worry about infections of an uncircumsized penis, there is a miracle solution that doesn't require the hacking off of flesh.

It's called daily washing with soap and water!
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/FAQ/

[vintagecarguy]

Might I suggest those who say get over it live in my shoes for a while.SEX HURTS!Its not enjoyable.
How about living in David Reimers shoes,hes DEAD!
does anybody read the previous messages BEFORE posting?
Equating waxing with amputation!?!
perverse!

[JimWill]

Well, I'm uncircumsized and have no problem with it.
My feeling is that cutting the foreskin (some consider it to be a useless addition) would be like removing a girls breasts. They are not usefull for anything any more - most women bottle feed their kids, so breasts are not needed anyway! (And ladies - before you flame me! I like them! And wouldn't want to see that happen at all!) :-)

[NudeTopher]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Sorry...I didn't quite state it right. If it lacked pigment it would be albino. I meant it doesn't have the same properties when it comes to melanin. It's like a forehead compared to lips. Lips too can very in their pigment, but in general pinker tissues lack the same protection from sunlight as regular skin provides. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I flatly refuse to put up an avitar of my penis for educational purposes, I can state that my circumsized penis has never seemed to suffer from intense sunlight exposure. Of course, I always use a strong UV inhibitor/quality sunscreen when spending a day out at the beach or pool. In the early part of the season I use a stronger block on my____ (sorry I almost rhymed). http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I may as well weigh-in on male circumcision. The prevailing attitude at my school (informal survey of medical professionals) echo what Dr. Surfer Dude states. Most believe that it is best done on an infant since there is no memory of the proceedure trauma...the same as if a young child had it's tonsils removed at a young age there would be no lingering memory of the hospital stay or surgical trauma. Additionally, there are less bacterial infections, a lower incidence of transmission of certain STD's, HPV, and HIV.

While I feel bad that Vintagecarguy and some others have had negative experiences the incident rate, and I don't wish to deminish his situation; no matter how many annecdotal cases are presented for botched circumsisions the rate is quite low. It's a lot like the unemployment rate. When your neighbor gets laid off the unemployment rate is high, when you get laid off the unemployment rate is 100%. It's all a matter of perspective.

Everything in life has a risk including stepping into the bathtub. But everything also has a benefit.

There are so many horrors in the world (war, poverty, literacy rates) that I think devoting your life to railing against circumsision (as those in the organizations stated ) is a waste of indignation that could be used to fight some of the real problems in our world.

Christopher, another MD2B

[vintagecarguy]

If infant genital mutilation really worked to help stop the spead of hiv the USA would have the lowest hiv rate of the industrialised word,instead we have the highest among industrial first world nations.
The complication rate is seriously underreported.We dont remove a childs tonsils all the time anymore,we dont cut off a baby girls breasts to prevent breast cancer,why does the USA persist in amputating normal healthy tissue that the rest of the western world has learned to leave alone?
Allowing horrors like infant genital mutilation help allow other horrors to continue,some cultures remove most of a womens external genitalia and call it purification,I fight to stop it.I wont sit back and ignore what was done to me and continues to be done to others simply because worse things could be done to them.
A childs body belongs to that child.
As for bacterial infections the data used to support mutilating male babies was proven flawed many years ago.The rate of infection for all male babies,mutilated and intact both in the often cited army study was higher than maternity wards all over Europe with an over 99 percent intact rate.Thats a higher rate even in the cut babies,problem in the study groups care,not normal human bodies fault.
Instead of criticizing the organisations that work to abolish this barbaric practice,read and learn about why we are fighting.When the cutting of babies stops I can rest but Im sure you can find some who will then join to help fight something you think worthy of our efforts.

yes,war and poverty are horrible,lets fight to end them,but why should one not fight for other rights.Arent the rights of people of all ethnic groups important?Should we not seek equality for all people,until war is abolished?Should we not fight for the rights of women to be treated as equals until the fight against hunger is over?
I must speak out against what was done to me.I can not have a day where I am not reminded of what happened to me.Its marked on my body.I cant avoid it.
I therefore choose to work to save others from my fate.

[NudeTopher]

I therefore choose to work to save others from my fate.[/QUOTE]

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