Circumcision is barbaric!

This is based on FatManHobbyists's sig line.. and it's a subject I agree with 100%. Circumcision is barbaric!! It's an antiquated practice based on a pre-biblical concept that serve no purpose in our modern society.

However, I do know that some providers find an uncircumcised penis unattractive and even unacceptable. So to the gents I ask you - have you ever experienced any discrimination or aversion because your penis is uncircumcised?

And for the gents that have been cut.. knowing that you natural foreskin would have acted much like a clit-hood - protecting and shielding your glans head thereby keeping it ultra sensitive and easily stimiulated - would you choose still choose circumcision?

My inquiring mind would love to know.

*besos*

~Bella

However, I do know that some providers find an uncircumcised penis unattractive and even unacceptable. So to the gents I ask you - have you ever experienced any discrimination or aversion because your penis is uncircumcised? Originally Posted by BellaDonna

One provider will only give a BBBJ if you are circumcised. Otherwise it is a CBJ.

Some of the most vocal supporters of circumcision are circumcised men. But then it is the women who hold down the little girls in countries that practice "female circumcision".

At the age of 33, my urologist recommended circumcision for me due to some sort of chronic problem I was having; the exact nature of which I can't really recall. Now that I'm twice that age, I've never had cause to regret it. I'm still satisfied with the results and haven't experienced anything negative. I agree that it is a decision that should be made as an adult. I'm curious to know if FMH is circumcised; I don't think it is "barbaric" when applied to an adult.

Nope. My mother was from Europe so she did not circumcise me. If you want to get circumcised as an adult, that is your choice just like tattoos, piercings, and any other body modification. But I think it is wrong to so significantly alter a baby's body, mostly for appearance.

I'm cut and quite happy that I am. I would choose to do it if the choice hadn't been made for me.

One provider will only give a BBBJ if you are circumcised. Otherwise it is a CBJ.

Some of the most vocal supporters of circumcision are circumcised men. But then it is the women who hold down the little girls in countries that practice "female circumcision". Originally Posted by FatManHobbyist

``Female circumcision'' is a misnomer and bears no resemblennce to male circumcision. What is euphemistically called ``female circumcision'' is removal of the clitotris, the equivalend of removing a man's penis.

``Female circumcision'' is a misnomer and bears no resemblennce to male circumcision. What is euphemistically called ``female circumcision'' is removal of the clitotris, the equivalend of removing a man's penis. Originally Posted by npita

Exactly. It is worse and women, who you would think would be the most vocal opponents, are the ones restraining the girl.

You said if you had not been cut as a child, you would get it done now. I do not think you can know that as you have never been uncut. And if no one else was uncut, would you do it? I doubt it.

My assertion is that we should not do this to children. It is barbaric. If an adult wants to do it to themselves, that is their right. I will alter my sig to reflect this position.

Read about it and make up your own mind after being educated about it.
http://www.circinfo.net/


One of the risks of not being circumcised mentioned is Penile Carcinoma; a risk almost entirely exclusive to the uncircumcised population
eeeewww.

Heck, even Wikipedia has better info than that pro-circumcision site:

The American Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians say the use of infant circumcision in hope of preventing penile cancer in adulthood is not justified. The American Cancer Society has said that the suggestion that circumcision reduces penile cancer rates, were based on studies that were flawed because they failed to consider other factors that are now known to affect penile cancer risk. It concluded: "The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer."

One study reported a lifetime risk of a man in the United States developing invasive penile cancer (IPC) to be 1 in 600 if he is uncircumcised though this study has been criticised. Several studies report that the risk is higher if a male was not circumcised neonatally, with relative risk estimates including 3.2 and 22 associated with the presence of a foreskin, and 0.41 associated with its absence. Several authors also state that there is a lower incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men. A few studies suggested that circumcision decreased the risk of HPV infection in males. A study that concluded circumcision did not prevent penile cancer was done by Wallerstein, which reported that the risk of penile cancer in Japan, Norway, and Sweden (countries with a low rate of circumcision) is about the same (1 in 100,000 per year) as in the US.

By your logic, we should routinely remove any body part that could become cancerous.

Here is a video of circumcision. The intro and full version can be found here.

If you decide to circumcise your son, I highly recommend that you watch a procedure in person from the very beginning.

Here is a anti-circumcision site that has good information:
http://www.cirp.org/

The "Gliding Mechanism" may be of interest to the ladies.

The Gliding Mechanism

During intercourse the loose skin of the intact penis slides up and down the shaft of the penis, stimulating the glans and the sensitive erogenous receptors of the foreskin itself. On the outstroke the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin. This is known as the `gliding mechanism.'

The gliding mechanism is Nature's intended mechanism of intercourse. As such, it contributes greatly to sexual pleasure. Also, since more of the loose skin of the penis remains inside the vagina, the woman's natural lubrication is not drawn out to evaporate to a great extent, which makes sex easier without using artificial lubricants.

The prepuce is a highly innervated and vascularized genital structure. It is entirely lined with the peripenic muscle sheet. Specialized ecoptic sebaceous glans on the inner preputial surface produce natural emollients and lubricants necessary for normal sexual function. The primary orgasmic triggers are found in the preputial orifice and frenulum. When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus. Only the presence and functions of the prepuce allow for physiologically normal coitus to occur as designed by nature.

(Fleiss, Paul M; Frederick Hodges. "Nontherapeutic Circumcision Should not be Performed," American Medical News, vol. 38, no. 26 (July 17, 1995): p. 16.)

I'm quite happy to be circumsized. No bun for my hotdog, thanks. The word "Smegma" has been enough to justify circumcision for me, but now CPI has given me "Penile Carcinoma" to add to my list. All things considered, I'm very appreciative of my Mother's "barbarism". Thanks Mom!

Smegma is from improper hygiene. Women can get it, too.

I've not been circumcised; I've also not had to deal with smegma (dead foreskin) issues since the past decade.

I have not seen smegma since I was like, a grungy 8-year-old that eschewed baths. It just isn't an issue if you wash your dick... anymore than it would be for a woman that did not wash her genitals.