FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Male Genital Mutilation
Male Genital Mutilation
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
(Male half here)
Not having one, for most of my life I've been oblivious to the foreskin and how an uncut cock works.
Since we started swinging, I've seen some in action and have been more and more intrigued.
Particularly the fact that an uncut cock doesn't need lubricant. That sounds very, very convenient.
I was watching how easily Cleo could stroke one a couple of nights back, I was fascinated and felt a bit envious and aggrieved that I don't have one and never had a say in the matter.
She then googled the function of a foreskin and we looked at it over lunch yesterday when talking about the night before.
Now I have a bone to pick with my parents! 
But seriously, how is it acceptable to circumcise boys for non-medical reasons?
FGM is abhorrent. But it is widely regarded as such - which is entirely appropriate. But non- medical circumcision IS MGM.
Some of the facts are stunning:
There is over 6 feet of blood vessels in the average foreskin, which engorge along with the rest of the cock when erect
10-20 thousand specialist nerve endings for pleasure, stretch, pressure etc. in the foreskin - all cut off in circumcision
the glans/ head isn't designed to be exposed - it becomes less sensitive when it is due to circumcision
The foreskin is designed to slide back and forwards over the shaft and head to stimulate and make sexual activity easier
The most sensitive part of the cock is the frenulum on the underside and base of the head where the foreskin joins - but this is mostly destroyed in circumcision
Etc
Etc
I find it a bit incredible. You can argue (wrongly) that a woman can function fine if her clitoris is removed. And I suppose if you can orgasm to penetration or your g spot I suppose not all sexual pleasure is removed. But FGM is butchery.
But from what I can see, so is circumcision. I wouldn't know of course, not having one. But from what I read it seems to be a significant loss.
Now my cock functions fine and I love sex. I can take a long time to cum and get desensitized after 3 or 4 days of constant sex. Cleo says she prefers the look of a circumcised cock. But that seems to be the only possible advantage - I do wonder what it would feel like were my cock in tact.
Of course a minority of men get infections under the foreskin, but the majority clearly work fine. So that is no reason to circumcise babies.
So interested if other cut guys have thoughts along these lines.
And interested what uncut guys have to say - how important is the foreskin to you in the overall function of your cock.
And a female perspective too, on the difference between the cut and uncut experience.
Nothing any of us cut guys can do about it now, so I won't lose sleep over it. But I will be objecting to non-medical circumcision whenever the topic is raised.
Hopefully I'll get a bit more than some of the usual one liners in response, but then this is fab after all!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong 
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them."
Exactly what she said 
I'm just glad my parents left my bits alone, I can't imagine life without my foreskin! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them.
Exactly what she said
I'm just glad my parents left my bits alone, I can't imagine life without my foreskin!"
Is it an important part of the way you function sexually?
I wonder if there is anyone on here who has had it removed as an adult and could describe before and after. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It basically shows the power of religion. If you cut off the tip of a baby's little toe you would be sent to prison. Cut off his foreskin and because it is sanctioned by thousands of years of religious practice it is fine. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Had mine cut off 2 years ago, so lived most of my life with a foreskin. Can say from my experience, i haven't felt any loss of sensation in the tip. Might be different for others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It basically shows the power of religion. If you cut off the tip of a baby's little toe you would be sent to prison. Cut off his foreskin and because it is sanctioned by thousands of years of religious practice it is fine. "
Mine wasn't religious. Supposidly was for hygiene reasons due to hot climate |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
My parents told me once it was just because Dad was circumcised and they didn't want me growing up feeling different to him.
So not even religious.
But either way, we would not accept FGM in the Western world for religious reasons. It should be medical necessity only. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I had mine removed 8 years ago. Mine had become tight and kept splitting at the end and was incredibly painful. Now that it has gone my end is less sensitive and I had to re learn my wanking technique but overall I feel cleaner and more confident with it. As a bi guy it has put me off other peoples foreskins to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I sometimes think I would like to be circumsised as I have a tight- ish foreskin. It isn't so bad that I get any discomfort whilst having sex (and it does retract fully) but wondered how much more satisfying it would be without.
As for making a decision for a small child to have their body "mutilated" without any consent, well I cannot agree, unless there are medical reasons. Cleanliness cannot and should not be used as a go to excuse for this, I was taught from a young age to retract my foreskin to clean it thoroughly, it should be a routine part of daily cleansing.
If however as a consenting adult or age where a life changing decision can be made, you wish to have the op, then this is fine.
Just my thoughts, not all will agree I'm sure. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I was circumcised at 7 because it was too tight and caused problems. I'm really glad I had it done. It definitely looks better, its cleaner and I have no issues with sex. Not sure what you mean about lube OP? I only ever use it for anal and fisting... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't think any parent has the right to mutilate a child in any way. And that includes Tattoos and piercings. Ears are slightly different and an age limit of say 11 should be put on that as well.
If you have never had a foreskin you will never have had the experience of zipping it up in your jeans accidentally   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think any parent has the right to mutilate a child in any way. And that includes Tattoos and piercings. Ears are slightly different and an age limit of say 11 should be put on that as well.
If you have never had a foreskin you will never have had the experience of zipping it up in your jeans accidentally "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I was circumcised at 7 because it was too tight and caused problems. I'm really glad I had it done. It definitely looks better, its cleaner and I have no issues with sex. Not sure what you mean about lube OP? I only ever use it for anal and fisting..."
Lube? You masturbate without it?? Ouch!
Cleo had only ever had uncircumcised men before me, so never used lubricant. It's been a revelation for her though and she recommends it to everyone! We wouldn't always need it of course, but it's just a lot easier.
If anyone wants recommendations by the way, liquid silk pump packs are phenomenal! There is almost no point in our bedroom where you aren't within arm's reach of one!
Most of the posters here are guys who have had trouble with their foreskins which is an obvious reason for circumcision. Most don't have problems of course so it's not representative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I don't think any parent has the right to mutilate a child in any way. And that includes Tattoos and piercings. Ears are slightly different and an age limit of say 11 should be put on that as well.
If you have never had a foreskin you will never have had the experience of zipping it up in your jeans accidentally "
No - I have zipped my knob up in my jeans as well!!! Once in my life. Never again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them.
Exactly what she said
I'm just glad my parents left my bits alone, I can't imagine life without my foreskin!
Is it an important part of the way you function sexually?
I wonder if there is anyone on here who has had it removed as an adult and could describe before and after. "
It's very important to me, sexually. Firstly, wanking without lube is very convenient, as you said. It wasn't until later in life that I even thought of using lube/oil to enhance masturbation, as I'd always managed fine without it.
The head of my penis is sensitive and feels very uncomfortable if the foreskin rolls back while I have pants on. I like that the foreskin keeps the sensitive part protected, so that it only needs to come out when the sensitivity is pleasurable! I would hate to lose that sensitivity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them.
Exactly what she said
I'm just glad my parents left my bits alone, I can't imagine life without my foreskin!
Is it an important part of the way you function sexually?
I wonder if there is anyone on here who has had it removed as an adult and could describe before and after.
It's very important to me, sexually. Firstly, wanking without lube is very convenient, as you said. It wasn't until later in life that I even thought of using lube/oil to enhance masturbation, as I'd always managed fine without it.
The head of my penis is sensitive and feels very uncomfortable if the foreskin rolls back while I have pants on. I like that the foreskin keeps the sensitive part protected, so that it only needs to come out when the sensitivity is pleasurable! I would hate to lose that sensitivity."
That sensitivity bit is interesting because mine is clearly being rubbed all the time and must be very desensitized by comparison. In pants it just feels like any other bit of skin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a sick practice which has been normalised by religion. It's just wrong in every way.
It should be a choice made when they're an adult. Or by 2 doctors if it's for medical reasons in a child.
My forskin split many times growing up and it was also fused to the glans until the onset of puberty, it's just one of those things. I never considered lopping it off.
Same goes for my sons who also had fused foreskin on the glans, doctors suggested cutting it off. NO F***ING WAY was my answer, my boys thank me for that now they have grown. Yes they had a tear every now and again, but doesn't a hymen tear? You don't see folk lopping hymens out do you?
MGM should be outlawed  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ieman300Man
over a year ago
Best Greggs in Cheshire East |
I was cut as a baby not a clue why. Never thought to ask to be fair. Never lose sensitivity like has been described. Not got a problem with it really. As to why its done for any other reason than medical i dunno. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"Mine was done when I was a child for medical reasons but I've never had any complaints from me or anyone else "
I get that, but the truth is there is no way we can know what it would have been like otherwise. I still love my cock and love sex, but from an anatomy and physiology perspective, apparently my cock would have been much more sensitive with the foreskin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *van ArdenMan
over a year ago
Coleford, Forest of Dean, Gloucestershire. |
I've never thought about it before but you have a point.I have a foreskin and I suppose there are advantages and disadvantages.
Circumcision is quite a dramatic procedure and as such the decision to go ahead with circumcision should lie with the male without external influence when that male can consider the pros and cons.
I agree with one of the contributors that forced circumcision is totally abhorrent and more should be done to stop it.
I don't know if I'm correct in my assumption but I always thought that the clitoris would be removed during FGM. That is absolutely barbaric due to the fact carrying out FMG denies a female the ability to be fulfilled by the sexual act.
However I hadn't realised that the foreskin contains nerve endings that can produce pleasure during the sex act. From my own point of view I'm happy with my voluminous foreskin and I don't feel that it detracts from the stimulation of my glans.
Funnily I sometimes feel that my glans (bellend) is a bit too sensitive ??
Good topic of discussion though ??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *olliPineCouple
over a year ago
swingers clubs |
Completely agree OP.
Unless it is for medical reasons, leave alone - or at least wait until the recipient of the circumcision can make a clearly informed choice of their own.
To me, it is male genital mutilation.
When done for cultural or religious reasons, to a child and without their informed consent it should be outlawed.
Informed consent is paramount - it should not be a parents choice, but that of the person who 'owns' the foreskin. Obviously medical reasons excluded from this argument.
It's about time the elected leaders of this country stood up against the control of religion.
To me it is just a breeding place for racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry and abuse. All in the name of maintaining traditions - which were brought about to control their population.
The fact they still get away with these practices - genital mutilation / against gay marriage / against sexual equality. Other companies must represent minorities and women in their workforce and boardroom and treat them as equal. Yet it's ok to be able the law in the name of religion.
I'd love to see their policies on informed consent, and equality in the workplace, and also their safeguarding of vulnerable people policy.
I digress - Rant over!
Feel better now.
XY |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"Good points OP and I totally agree.
I don't know what I would do without my foreskin, I would have nowhere to store my Smarties."
Ha! That's not even funny! I remember a guy who, as a party trick, used to insert $7.20 Australian in 20c coins under his foreskin. If you haven't seen an Australian 20c coin, they are huge. No English coins are that size. Larger diatmeter than 50p and about as thick as the old pound coin. What a sight!!
So my parents also denied me the opportunity to indulge in hilarious party tricks!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Female here, I've had a few men say to me that they can't orgasm from oral and they were all circumcised so it seems logical that has something to do with a loss of sensation. We've got a young son and wouldn't dream of doing that to him unless he needed it . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"Female here, I've had a few men say to me that they can't orgasm from oral and they were all circumcised so it seems logical that has something to do with a loss of sensation. We've got a young son and wouldn't dream of doing that to him unless he needed it ."
The plot thickens...
I can't orgasm from oral either and it drives Cleo nuts. She blames herself but it just doesn't do enough for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Female here, I've had a few men say to me that they can't orgasm from oral and they were all circumcised so it seems logical that has something to do with a loss of sensation. We've got a young son and wouldn't dream of doing that to him unless he needed it .
The plot thickens...
I can't orgasm from oral either and it drives Cleo nuts. She blames herself but it just doesn't do enough for me. "
I can still come from oral. It's a different feeling though from coming with a foreskin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don't believe it affects ability to orgasm at all. I was as a baby ( as many were after the war as American views in things proliferated in many fields). I rather wish it had had the effect of delaying orgasm somewhat! At one time it was felt by many health experts to be a sound policy, and this view predominated in the US. Those circumsized for religious reasons were a small minority. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm uncut so can't comment on what it's like to be cut but my foreskin is quite flexible and can stretch back over my helmet without problems. I love the feeling of it sliding up and down my helmet as it's being wanked, either by me or a lady.
The women I've been with haven't mentioned it either way so I'm guessing it's not much of an issue for the vast majority of people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have my foreskin intact, but a few years ago I was thinking of getting circumcised. I've done some research and turned out, that in many cases, there is some lost of sensation. But at the same time, orgasms are more intense.
Also, according to WHO, risk of catching HIV is 60% lower for circumcised males |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I am happily circumcised, and cannot say that there is any negative impact on my sex life or psychological scaring from it.
1. if desensitisation was such a bad thing, then why are there so many products out there offering to improve sex by desensitising the penis...
2. I don't understand your point about lube unless for anal ?????? At the risk of being offensive I would suggest more foreplay is a far more pleasurable solution for all involved......
3.I agree that unless it is for medical reasons it should be a matter for personal choice, like piercings or tatoos......and shouldn't be just done for cultural conformity or religious reasons!
4. I don't agree that it is comparable to FGM and to be honest I find the comparison offensive... The male medical equivalent would be removal of the glans tip what we are talking about is effectively a male labiaplasty..... I think it is hugely unfair to the young women and girls who have been so completly and horrificaly assaulted and violated, and trivialises what they have gone through! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I am happily circumcised, and cannot say that there is any negative impact on my sex life or psychological scaring from it.
1. if desensitisation was such a bad thing, then why are there so many products out there offering to improve sex by desensitising the penis...
2. I don't understand your point about lube unless for anal ?????? At the risk of being offensive I would suggest more foreplay is a far more pleasurable solution for all involved......
3.I agree that unless it is for medical reasons it should be a matter for personal choice, like piercings or tatoos......and shouldn't be just done for cultural conformity or religious reasons!
4. I don't agree that it is comparable to FGM and to be honest I find the comparison offensive... The male medical equivalent would be removal of the glans tip what we are talking about is effectively a male labiaplasty..... I think it is hugely unfair to the young women and girls who have been so completly and horrificaly assaulted and violated, and trivialises what they have gone through!"
1. Desensitisation may with the products you mention be a good thing- permanent .... simply no!
2. I don't understand your point.
3. I agree with your agree!, so was yours medical that you feel it was the right thing?
4. It's mutilation of a males genitals ... it doesn't need comparison, it's not a "well you only lost this much". To be offended by the suggestion that they are comparable is absurd... they are both simply wrong!
I find it incomprehensible that this occurs and would love to discuss with the parents that sanction it!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Female here, I've had a few men say to me that they can't orgasm from oral and they were all circumcised so it seems logical that has something to do with a loss of sensation. We've got a young son and wouldn't dream of doing that to him unless he needed it ."
I can cum from oral and I am cut. And cum a lot! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I was done for medical reason. Never found out why. My dad and brother still have theirs so must be true lol
Anyway mine feels great when touched. But must admit. I wished I had one. They look fantastic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis."
The objections stem, largely, around not removing bits of human beings with no good reason it's hard to attach theory or politics to a reasonably simple concept! Does one need to reflect on any evidence? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Well it depends on whether you consider there is good reason does it not? As I said I'm not convinced there is, which is why we didn't really consider it for our son, but many perfectly rational and well informed people, particularly in the USA- in fact the majority of people there- take a different view. There doesn't seem to me to be overwhelming evidence either way.
We remove lots of "bits" when we think that is beneficial to our health. Mutilating young girls in order to prevent them from achieving sexual pleasure is an utterly different matter and I think the comparison inappropriate and illogical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Great thread.
I have often thought how wrong it is to allow what is effectively MGM.
Personally, I don't think any unnecessary operations on children should be allowed.
My gran says she had to think long and hard before agreeing to get my dad circumcised, even though it was done for medical reasons.
The foreskin is there for a reason.
Nita |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
One of my exes was circumcised as a child due to medical reasons. As a naive 21 year old I never noticed, and when we reconnected last year I only realised when I asked.
Handjobs, oral and full sex were no different to being with an uncircumcised man - and we never had to use lube for handjobs and stuff because of pre cum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them."
Totally agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hilloutMan
over a year ago
All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest |
"(Male half here)
Not having one, for most of my life I've been oblivious to the foreskin and how an uncut cock works.
Since we started swinging, I've seen some in action and have been more and more intrigued.
Particularly the fact that an uncut cock doesn't need lubricant. That sounds very, very convenient.
I was watching how easily Cleo could stroke one a couple of nights back, I was fascinated and felt a bit envious and aggrieved that I don't have one and never had a say in the matter.
She then googled the function of a foreskin and we looked at it over lunch yesterday when talking about the night before.
Now I have a bone to pick with my parents!
But seriously, how is it acceptable to circumcise boys for non-medical reasons?
FGM is abhorrent. But it is widely regarded as such - which is entirely appropriate. But non- medical circumcision IS MGM.
Some of the facts are stunning:
There is over 6 feet of blood vessels in the average foreskin, which engorge along with the rest of the cock when erect
10-20 thousand specialist nerve endings for pleasure, stretch, pressure etc. in the foreskin - all cut off in circumcision
the glans/ head isn't designed to be exposed - it becomes less sensitive when it is due to circumcision
The foreskin is designed to slide back and forwards over the shaft and head to stimulate and make sexual activity easier
The most sensitive part of the cock is the frenulum on the underside and base of the head where the foreskin joins - but this is mostly destroyed in circumcision
Etc
Etc
I find it a bit incredible. You can argue (wrongly) that a woman can function fine if her clitoris is removed. And I suppose if you can orgasm to penetration or your g spot I suppose not all sexual pleasure is removed. But FGM is butchery.
But from what I can see, so is circumcision. I wouldn't know of course, not having one. But from what I read it seems to be a significant loss.
Now my cock functions fine and I love sex. I can take a long time to cum and get desensitized after 3 or 4 days of constant sex. Cleo says she prefers the look of a circumcised cock. But that seems to be the only possible advantage - I do wonder what it would feel like were my cock in tact.
Of course a minority of men get infections under the foreskin, but the majority clearly work fine. So that is no reason to circumcise babies.
So interested if other cut guys have thoughts along these lines.
And interested what uncut guys have to say - how important is the foreskin to you in the overall function of your cock.
And a female perspective too, on the difference between the cut and uncut experience.
Nothing any of us cut guys can do about it now, so I won't lose sleep over it. But I will be objecting to non-medical circumcision whenever the topic is raised.
Hopefully I'll get a bit more than some of the usual one liners in response, but then this is fab after all!
"
That's very interesting. I'm not circumsized, but oddly I have virtually no foreskin, meaning my "head" is always uncovered. I think it's great and consider myself lucky  however I've always wondered what the sensation of having it covered would be like! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The GUM clinic has said circumcised cocks are less likely to catch and harbour STIs. I guess that is one reason to do it.
If the family has a history of overtight foreskins then perhaps it is better to cut as a child than an adult? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well it depends on whether you consider there is good reason does it not? As I said I'm not convinced there is, which is why we didn't really consider it for our son, but many perfectly rational and well informed people, particularly in the USA- in fact the majority of people there- take a different view. There doesn't seem to me to be overwhelming evidence either way.
We remove lots of "bits" when we think that is beneficial to our health. Mutilating young girls in order to prevent them from achieving sexual pleasure is an utterly different matter and I think the comparison inappropriate and illogical."
What bits do we remove and for what reason? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The GUM clinic has said circumcised cocks are less likely to catch and harbour STIs. I guess that is one reason to do it.
If the family has a history of overtight foreskins then perhaps it is better to cut as a child than an adult? "
So by that rationale my family has a history of tonsillitis, appendicitis, breast cancer, ovarian and testicular cancer.... etc. Lop em all off to be on the safe side? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM. "
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age""
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce. "
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
"
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that. "
I'm aware of the details of both and I fully understand the ramifications, or not, to the assaulted party. They remain an assaulted party! Any other assault in the 'civilised' world, against a child, would bring serious consequences. Why not this? Who are we to tell others the right and wrong of chopping bits off their children if 'we' sanction it.
My analogy as I stated was poor, thanks for acknowledging that though it didn't need it but the point was made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that.
I'm aware of the details of both and I fully understand the ramifications, or not, to the assaulted party. They remain an assaulted party! Any other assault in the 'civilised' world, against a child, would bring serious consequences. Why not this? Who are we to tell others the right and wrong of chopping bits off their children if 'we' sanction it.
My analogy as I stated was poor, thanks for acknowledging that though it didn't need it but the point was made."
As was mine. However you have made a point of highlighting that fact you think I am accepting it.
AGAIN ..... I am NOT accepting either circumcision or FGM.
If you had read my original post and all that have followed properly, you would have understood that.
Like you say, some people aren't seeing the wood through the trees. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that.
I'm aware of the details of both and I fully understand the ramifications, or not, to the assaulted party. They remain an assaulted party! Any other assault in the 'civilised' world, against a child, would bring serious consequences. Why not this? Who are we to tell others the right and wrong of chopping bits off their children if 'we' sanction it.
My analogy as I stated was poor, thanks for acknowledging that though it didn't need it but the point was made.
As was mine. However you have made a point of highlighting that fact you think I am accepting it.
AGAIN ..... I am NOT accepting either circumcision or FGM.
If you had read my original post and all that have followed properly, you would have understood that.
Like you say, some people aren't seeing the wood through the trees. "
Like others on the thread stating you don't accept either... you seem to accept one more than the other! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that.
I'm aware of the details of both and I fully understand the ramifications, or not, to the assaulted party. They remain an assaulted party! Any other assault in the 'civilised' world, against a child, would bring serious consequences. Why not this? Who are we to tell others the right and wrong of chopping bits off their children if 'we' sanction it.
My analogy as I stated was poor, thanks for acknowledging that though it didn't need it but the point was made.
As was mine. However you have made a point of highlighting that fact you think I am accepting it.
AGAIN ..... I am NOT accepting either circumcision or FGM.
If you had read my original post and all that have followed properly, you would have understood that.
Like you say, some people aren't seeing the wood through the trees.
Like others on the thread stating you don't accept either... you seem to accept one more than the other!"
I'm not accepting one more than the other. I'm stating that one is worse than the other.
You can state that about anything can you not? Like your own analogy, one is worse than the other. They are both wrong, but the extent of the mutilation speaks for itself. Does it not??
We could then scrutinise the whole justice system if we took that approach.
ABH against GBH
Murder against manslaughter.
I don't accept any of them. They are all still crimes, based on the extent of that crime committed.
Yes I think circumcision should be illegal. Same as FGM. but as I pointed out, it's much more invasive than circumcision. Not that it's right, all I'm saying is that it is worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"FGM is a horrendous act against women and young girls.
Circumcision shouldn't be compared to this!!!
FGM is not just about taking away the clit. Most of the time it is surgically shutting the vagina completely! This is done just after puberty.
Being circumcised doesn't stop you from performing.
Women that go through FGM are being forced to have life changing and mostly life threatening surgery. All because their families think they shouldn't be sexually active
Now you tell me that your parents did that to you to stop you being sexually active??
Don't get me wrong circumcision is taking your rights away at a young age. But you cannot compare that to FGM.
I will! And I'll quote you to help.... "taking your rights away at a young age"
Not for circumcision it's not. They are not circumcising you to stop you having sex are they? No
Therefore it cannot be compared to FGM
That would be cutting a cock off completely to stop you. Not just the foreskin.
These women can't reverse FGM and majority of cases their whole vaginal are surgically closed!!!
At least you can still have sex with a circumcised penis and still reproduce.
Ok .... so there are degrees of mutilation .... there are some who suffer more than others .... if someone in any way mutilates another's (child's) genitals is it not similarly wrong? The argument that it isn't as bad allows those who sanction the act to continue.
I do not in any way think either act is right, I think both are serious acts of assault against children.... but it's not a competition!
There is news around the world of beheading for crimes that, to us, seem ridiculous.... but I guess if there's only an arm chopped off ... that's ok? Well not ok but not nearly as bad..
Reasonably poor analogy I know but think some are struggling to see the woodsman for the trees!
There are degrees of mutilation you are correct.
As I stated I don't agree with circumcision. However comparing it isn't correct.
If you actually look up FGM you will see what it is. And why it shouldn't be compared to circumcision.
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
All im saying is, is that FGM is a shed load more intrusive and damaging than circumcision.
Neither in my eyes should be allowed.
And your analogy of chopping someone's arm off....well I'm not even going to go into that.
I'm aware of the details of both and I fully understand the ramifications, or not, to the assaulted party. They remain an assaulted party! Any other assault in the 'civilised' world, against a child, would bring serious consequences. Why not this? Who are we to tell others the right and wrong of chopping bits off their children if 'we' sanction it.
My analogy as I stated was poor, thanks for acknowledging that though it didn't need it but the point was made.
As was mine. However you have made a point of highlighting that fact you think I am accepting it.
AGAIN ..... I am NOT accepting either circumcision or FGM.
If you had read my original post and all that have followed properly, you would have understood that.
Like you say, some people aren't seeing the wood through the trees.
Like others on the thread stating you don't accept either... you seem to accept one more than the other!
I'm not accepting one more than the other. I'm stating that one is worse than the other.
You can state that about anything can you not? Like your own analogy, one is worse than the other. They are both wrong, but the extent of the mutilation speaks for itself. Does it not??
We could then scrutinise the whole justice system if we took that approach.
ABH against GBH
Murder against manslaughter.
I don't accept any of them. They are all still crimes, based on the extent of that crime committed.
Yes I think circumcision should be illegal. Same as FGM. but as I pointed out, it's much more invasive than circumcision. Not that it's right, all I'm saying is that it is worse. "
Ok |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uicy2sumCouple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Mark was circumcised at 17 due to a tight foreskin and said the best part of the op was waking up to find his willy had doubled in size! (Due to the swelling of course it soon went down much to his disappointment, haha!!)
He has no problem at all with any lack of sensitivity and can cum through oral quite easily!
I'm definitely a fan......
ITS ALL GOOD WITHOUT THE HOOD
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Thankfully most of the points I would have said have been well and truly covered.
I'm not circumcised, thankfully.
My dad was and brother should have been for medical reasons (my Bro hilariously "snapped his banjo" not once but twice!).
I do very much consider it MGM, it has simply been normalised sadly twice through religion... Firstly Abrahamic faiths then good old Dr kellog (yes the cornflake guy) in the USA, who made it a norm for 90% of American males to this day .... Promoted it to cut down on the pleasure young males could have via sex... As he was one of those crazy religious types who attempted to push abstinence... And was also a eugenics fan too.
But hey to each their own...
I personally do not like the look of cut cocks (I'm not bi... But it just looks wrong to me), the only down side is the extra chance of "build-up" if you don't know how to wash! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thankfully most of the points I would have said have been well and truly covered.
I'm not circumcised, thankfully.
My dad was and brother should have been for medical reasons (my Bro hilariously "snapped his banjo" not once but twice!).
I do very much consider it MGM, it has simply been normalised sadly twice through religion... Firstly Abrahamic faiths then good old Dr kellog (yes the cornflake guy) in the USA, who made it a norm for 90% of American males to this day .... Promoted it to cut down on the pleasure young males could have via sex... As he was one of those crazy religious types who attempted to push abstinence... And was also a eugenics fan too.
But hey to each their own...
I personally do not like the look of cut cocks (I'm not bi... But it just looks wrong to me), the only down side is the extra chance of "build-up" if you don't know how to wash!"
So some lessons in personal hygiene? Nah bollocks to that lop it off! And while you're at it you could grow potatoes in those ears.... they've gotta go too! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's a tricky one. In societies like the US, where almost all males are circumcised, being uncircumcised can be stigmatising in itself. Getting someone into bed who has never seen a foreskin before, and gets weirded out by it. This definitely happens.
At the same time, it is genital mutilation, and we shouldn't be doing it to children without sound medical reasons. The theory is that you feel less pain as a newborn, but I suspect it's more a matter of not remembering it.
Yes, there's an STI immunity advantage to being circumcised. The risk of HIV as the insertive partner is considerably lower. Partly because some of the cells removed are particularly susceptible to infection, but mostly (I suspect) because the foreskin traps fluid against the glans and prevents it from drying out, giving the virus a longer life, and greater opportunity to infect.
Just to be different, I have half a foreskin. Born with hypospadias, part of which is that the foreskin doesn't develop correctly. It looks normal when flaccid (glans completely hidden) but erect, I have a foreskin that partially covers the top side of the glans, but no foreskin at all (and no frenulum) on the underside. I've thought of getting circumcised to normalise things. I might just do it one of these days.
If I had a normal foreskin, then I would only consider having it removed if it couldn't be fully retracted to expose the glans. I have no preference for circumcised or uncircumcised, but I'm not a fan of foreskins that won't retract.
Oh, and don't underestimate the value of saliva as lube. One of my exes was circumcised and we used to bareback (we were exclusive and had both tested.) He would use a little bit of saliva just to get inside me, and apart from that, do me dry. I loved it. It was slightly uncomfortable, but certainly not painful, and a whole lot more intense than having a load of slippery lube up there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis."
baby boys die during and following circumcision. One died very recently. I can research the figures. I would never want to be a parent who lost a child by inflicting a completely uneccessary surgical procedure on my newborn son and watch him bleed to death... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis.
baby boys die during and following circumcision. One died very recently. I can research the figures. I would never want to be a parent who lost a child by inflicting a completely uneccessary surgical procedure on my newborn son and watch him bleed to death..."
I would like to see the figures of those who have died as a result of this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis.
baby boys die during and following circumcision. One died very recently. I can research the figures. I would never want to be a parent who lost a child by inflicting a completely uneccessary surgical procedure on my newborn son and watch him bleed to death...
I would like to see the figures of those who have died as a result of this. "
it's such a political issue, it's difficult to find unbiased evidence but from a brief browse, there are 2 studies quoted. I havent had time to research these...
Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
My father was circumcised at about 12 years of age, for medical reasons. There were 4 of us (siblings) all boys and none of us were circumcised.
However we do have a friend who says, from a female perspective that a circumcised penis feels better during sex. Obviously they both feel the same on the forward stroke, but it's the back stroke she says that a circumcised penis feels better, not that an uncircumcised penis feels bad. It's just in the back strike, she says, an uncircumcised penis the forskin will cover the tip and is less pleasurable as the tip is now sheeted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My father was circumcised at about 12 years of age, for medical reasons. There were 4 of us (siblings) all boys and none of us were circumcised.
However we do have a friend who says, from a female perspective that a circumcised penis feels better during sex. Obviously they both feel the same on the forward stroke, but it's the back stroke she says that a circumcised penis feels better, not that an uncircumcised penis feels bad. It's just in the back strike, she says, an uncircumcised penis the forskin will cover the tip and is less pleasurable as the tip is now sheeted. "
HB just asked if we can cut off my foreskin |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *sGivesWoodWoman
over a year ago
ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL |
"I agree totally with you.
Circumcision of male children should only ever be done if there is a medical need and not for cultural reasons.
It is mutilation and is wrong
If an adult male chooses to be circumcised for non medical reasons I have no problem with this, he is able to make the choice for himself. Children are not given this option when it is done to them.
Exactly what she said
I'm just glad my parents left my bits alone, I can't imagine life without my foreskin!
Is it an important part of the way you function sexually?
I wonder if there is anyone on here who has had it removed as an adult and could describe before and after. "
I think there was a guy who was having it done the other day, he posted a thread |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My father was circumcised at about 12 years of age, for medical reasons. There were 4 of us (siblings) all boys and none of us were circumcised.
However we do have a friend who says, from a female perspective that a circumcised penis feels better during sex. Obviously they both feel the same on the forward stroke, but it's the back stroke she says that a circumcised penis feels better, not that an uncircumcised penis feels bad. It's just in the back strike, she says, an uncircumcised penis the forskin will cover the tip and is less pleasurable as the tip is now sheeted. "
I've had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised in long term relationships and never been aware of any difference between the 2.
In this lifestyle, condom use would surely negate any difference now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I am happily circumcised, and cannot say that there is any negative impact on my sex life or psychological scaring from it.
1. if desensitisation was such a bad thing, then why are there so many products out there offering to improve sex by desensitising the penis...
...that's just a silly argument.
2. I don't understand your point about lube unless for anal ?????? At the risk of being offensive I would suggest more foreplay is a far more pleasurable solution for all involved......
as is that. You can masturbate without any sort of lubrication? You or your partner never want a quickie?
3.I agree that unless it is for medical reasons it should be a matter for personal choice, like piercings or tatoos......and shouldn't be just done for cultural conformity or religious reasons!
4. I don't agree that it is comparable to FGM and to be honest I find the comparison offensive... The male medical equivalent would be removal of the glans tip what we are talking about is effectively a male labiaplasty..... I think it is hugely unfair to the young women and girls who have been so completly and horrificaly assaulted and violated, and trivialises what they have gone through!"
And this attitude is my case in point.
Forget the FGM comparison. It's is not about whether it is the same or worse or better than FGM.
I don't agree with your comparison to the labia. I doubt the labia contains around 50% of erogenous nerve endings in the female reproductive organ, BUT I would utterly object to allowing it to be surgically excised in children who have no say in it. That would ALSO be genital mutilation.
The normal male reproductive organ has a foreskin. Just like the normal human hand has a ring finger. Unlike foreskins though, ring fingers have little function. They contribute a very little to grip but not at all to dexterous function. Is it ok to cut that off a child for no reason? It's a mutilation of the hand.
The foreskin, on the other hand, is clearly a very sensitive and functional part of the penis. Cutting it off is a mutilation of the penis, period. Very rarely it is necessary, otherwise it isn't.
My main point is this attitude that it is no big deal and somehow acceptable. I have been trained to look for and report FGM, and I do so diligently. But as a professional working in the are for 20 years, I have never encountered it even once.
But every day I encounter men who have had their normal sexual organ mutilated in childhood without a say in the matter. But no one bats an eyelid?
The tonsils are a fairly useless pair of appendages. We don't really know exactly what they do (unlike the foreskin) - something to do with the immune system.
We used to remove tonsils at the drop of a hat.
Now, however, the risks are recognized and there are UK national guidelines on when surgical excision is justified. And they are harsh.
You need 7 confirmed documented episodes of tonsillitis treated by antibiotics in the preceding 12 months before you should be referred for tonsillectomy. And even then you may not get it.
By contrast, there is no such guideline on circumcision and it continues to go under the radar despite its abhorrent nature WHEN UNNECESSARY AND PERFORMED WITHOUT CONSENT.
There is no excuse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ntnCleo OP Couple
over a year ago
Dortmund (Germany) might travel! |
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis."
I'm afraid you are ignoring the facts. Read up on what a foreskin is and does. Or even read my summary carefully - it is based on anatomical and physiological fact - not politics or theory. It is much more than a bit of extra skin.
As for using past medical opinion to justify it, apply that argument to thalidomide.
I'm glad you didn't have you son circumcised. But not all are so enlightened, and your playing down of the matter only helps legitimize what is a crime and assault on children.
Someone mentioned the labia as comparison - it's not a good one but does serve a point. Would you agree to labiectomy in baby girls because it is the fashion at the time, or for religious reasons, or some spurious belief it is healthier or cleaner?
Risks are infection, pain, scarring, desensitization.
All genital mutilation should be illegal. Parents should not be able to choose for their children. Surgeons should be prosecuted if they perform it except for good medical reasons within strict national guidelines. National guidelines need to be developed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The GUM clinic has said circumcised cocks are less likely to catch and harbour STIs. I guess that is one reason to do it.
If the family has a history of overtight foreskins then perhaps it is better to cut as a child than an adult?
So by that rationale my family has a history of tonsillitis, appendicitis, breast cancer, ovarian and testicular cancer.... etc. Lop em all off to be on the safe side? "
The "itises" are infections and not genetic.
The cancer is genetic. Some people have a precautionary mastectomy (Angelina Jolie). Removing the testes or ovaries of a child is a very drastic step but if the genes indicate the certainty of cancer it cannot be ignored later in life....
Compared with cancer, circumcision is a very minor issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Cleaner?
Compared to a foreskin that won't retract, possibly.
Compared to a normal foreskin that will retract how is it any cleaner?
Or are the people that say it's cleaner saying that people who are circumsised are walking around with smegma smeared shreddies?
I love washing mine |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *D835Man
over a year ago
London |
"I agree entirely with Woodsman. I see no useful comparison with fgm. It's a relatively minor operation, and carried out for very different reasons, and with none of the malign effects. It became the norm in the US because it was widely regarded by the medical authorities as beneficial in terms of the mans health. Many still consider this to be so, though it has been challenged in recent years.
Myself I'm not convinced it is necessary and we did not have our son circumcised. That said I have not the slightest criticism of my parents for having taken a different view. The objections I often hear these days seem more political and theoretical rather than reflective of any evidential basis.
baby boys die during and following circumcision. One died very recently. I can research the figures. I would never want to be a parent who lost a child by inflicting a completely uneccessary surgical procedure on my newborn son and watch him bleed to death...
I would like to see the figures of those who have died as a result of this.
it's such a political issue, it's difficult to find unbiased evidence but from a brief browse, there are 2 studies quoted. I havent had time to research these...
Over 100 newborns die each year in the USA, mostly from loss of blood and infection (Van Howe 1997 & 2004, Bollinger 2010).
"
Thanks for the info. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
