I have a question about circumcision??

Question

One of the arguments in favor of circumcision is that the procedure is done when the boy is a baby so he will not remember it and it will not cause any bad psychological effects. If it has no bad psychological effects, then how do you explain the men that are so pissed off that they are circumcised that they are willing to pay thousands of dollars to get surgery to replace their foreskin????

if i am reading some of your responces correctly, some of you seem to be blaming the men who feel mutilated and not the parents for having it done unnessesarily??

Answer 1

Guys get pissed off because it gets sore! If you walk allot, run, cycle climb or most any activity the exposed head gets damn sore! Doctors don't see a problem with this because they work in an office and their idea of exercise is to ride a golf cart for 18 holes. Try a job where you walk for 10 hrs (I have logged 14,000 steps on a pedometer) or bounce in a tractor across a rough field for 16 hours a day for weeks, it gets damn sore!

And then to try to make love to my wife. I couldn't feel that I even had penetration.

The problem with the restoration surgery is that while you can get the glans (head of the penis) covered and protected from friction, and injury, and regain some sensitivity, it never will be a real foreskin. Do I want more skin on my penis with limited nerve function? I have enough of that already. And after being circumcised I have a real problem with letting anyone near my willy with a knife. In fact I rarely believe anything a damn doctor says, except for when they say they can't do anything for me and still charge me for an office call.

What I have been trying is a penal sheath that protects and restores the sensitivity of the glans (to some extent). See http://senslip.com/. I have been wearing a sheath under my clothing for two months night and day removing it only to shower and for sex. Now I can be as active as I need to be and not get so sore, and sex is better for me than it was 31 years ago. And the wife likes me allot better too.

Hygiene: teach your son about using soap and water; this will open a channel of communication with him. Get yourself and him used to talking about things that are important to him, and believe me his penis will be important to him. With this channel open you will have a chance to talk about things that he might not see as being so important yet; things like safe sex, smoking, drug use etc.

Circumcision doesn't protect from STDs (a claimed lower rate of infection is not protection); safe sex and condoms protect from STDs. Sweden never has had wide spread circumcision (and now has banned circumcision of children) and their incidence of STDs is 50 times less than the US.

Most of the world’s males (85%) are not circumcised including the fabled French and Latin lovers. It is just some spoiled, shallow US females that think that males should be modified to look like plastic dildos (which BTW can't feel anything either)

Answer 2

The decision should be up to the male in an age where he can decide for himself. To the answer about circumcised being more beautiful, are you aware that many uncircumcised can retract the foreskin and look just like a circumcised guy? Many guys have a rather tight foreskin which retracts naturally with an erection, or can be retracted at any time. I wonder also if women know how much more sensitive the entire penis is before losing all those nerves in circumcision. I have been told that the head protruding out of the foreskin as an erection reached fullness, to complete exposure, was "beautiful." I am grateful for being "un."

Answer 3

Circumcision, like the ban on pork, was the result of an endemic problem of the days of the Torah or Old Testament.

Improper cleaning and cooking of pork lead to many dying of food poisoning and since the pig is a vermin eating waste, it was concluded that it was an unclean beast.

Similarly, a rampant urinary infection was aggravated by the restriction of the bridge and the solution was to surgical free the passage by cutting the bridge, which brought about circumcision.

Unfortunately, though the solutions were found to both problems later, the more orthodox people assume this to be of "Religious" Duty and have not changed.

All the best.

Answer 4

Surgery is less effective than manual foreskin restoration, where the skin of the penis is stretched forward over many months, making a new "foreskin." Of course, this isn't the same as a real foreskin. Once it's cut off, all the nerves, blood vessels, the frenulum, etc. are all gone. Never to return.

A restored foreskin does, however, protect the head of the penis from desensitization, from rubbing against clothing all the time.

If you want to know how dangerous circumcision can be, Google David Reimer; his penis was accidentally cut off during his circumcision, so his parents & doctors decided to have him sexually re-assigned as a girl. He suffered severe depression all his life because of this, and finally committed suicide at the age of 38.

Another example is a man who wrote to Dan Savage's advice column "Savage Love." The head of his penis had been sliced off during his circumcision. He still had his balls & shaft, so he could still get aroused, but he couldn't reach orgasm. To quote Dan Savage:
"...speaking as a contentedly circumcised adult male who likes his dick just the way it is and has no truck whatsoever with hysterical anti-circumcision activists (whew!), I would rather teach my son to wash under his foreskin than assume even the tiniest risk of him losing the head of his penis in a botched circumcision."

Which brings up another point. Why are so many people bringing up infections with intact penises? Girls have a lot more skin & moist folds "down there" then men do. Girls get UTI's, yeast infections, etc. Yet nobody starts talking about circumcising baby girls to prevent "infections." You prevent infections by washing. If you still get one, take medicine for it. Why the hell do people think genital surgery is better than a little soap & water?

I guess we'd better pull our kids' teeth, too. We need to prevent cavities and tooth decay, you know. It's too much trouble to teach them to brush & floss properly.

Answer 5

Actually, very few men ever have that surgery, and I've never seen any reputable evidence (ie: peer-reviewed medical or psychological journals, etc.) that there are negative psychological effects, although there may be a few isolated cases. Given that circumcision has been around for multiple millenia, such complaints would be widely known if it were such a great problem-- particularly since the "circumcision-repair" surgery has been around for a long time, too.

In First Century Palestine some Jews actually had the surgery done! These were secular Jews, at a time when the dominant culture in the Roman Empire included men socializing and doing business in Roman-style bath-houses (the Romans, like the Greeks before them, didn't share our cultural attitudes about nudity-- this had nothing to do with homosexuality). Jews who wanted to identify with the ruling Romans could dress like them and talk like them, but in the bath houses they couldn't "pass", having been circumcised when they were eight days old. Some were willing to undergo some pretty primitive surgery (remember, this is a body part with significant nerve endings-- and it was before the invention of anesthesia!).

But they didn't undergo the surgery because of any "bad psychological effects" from being circumcised, but to fit in with their Roman rulers (a kind of "Semitic Anti-Semitism). I suspect that there are a variety of reasons men today may try to have a circumcision reversed (including, in some cases, anti-semitism), but not because of psychological trauma from the original surgery, whatever they may choose to blame it on.

Circumcision was routine in the United States for all male children for most of the Twentieth Century. Over the past couple of decades it has become somewhat controversial, however-- some political action groups such as the Canadian "Association for Genital Integrity" and the U.S. "National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers" have challenged the medical establishment on whether infant circumcision should ever be done, even for religious Jews. [The "National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers" maked itself appear to be an unbiased information clearinghouse... until you notice that their acronym is "NO-CIRC"-- they're clearly taking sides in the argument!]

Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists support circumcision as an elective procedure (ie: not beneficial for the child's health, but not harmful, either), while the American Academy of Pediatrics remains somewhat more supportive of the procedure- in 1999, they said that “Circumcision is not essential to a child's well-being at birth, even though it does have some potential medical benefits. These benefits are not compelling enough to warrant the AAP to recommend routine newborn circumcision.” [Among the potential health benefits is the lessened chance of getting penile cancer-- which occurs in less than one man in 100,000 anyway. Also, it is far easier to maintain physical cleanliness, thus reducing the risk of infection.]

Answer 6

I read an article not too long ago about this guy who had a circumcision done for religious reasons and was botched when he was a baby. It was done by a priest who wasn't certified and this caused him great phyical and emotional stress. Hopefully this is not too common, where it gets botched. It's a lot cleaner when you do get circumsised, otherwise you get smagma. I know someone who had problems because he wasn't circumsised. He didn't like having sex because it hurt him to get erect. The head became too big and it would hurt him to pull the foreskin down. He asked the doctor about this and they said the only solution would be to get circumsised, however he was warned this could possibly lower his sex drive(because of his age). His mom had wanted to give him one when he was a baby, but could not afford it. He wishes he had one. The doctor said it had something to do with not properly cleaning it when he was a kid. He was upset about this because he had no father figure to show him how to properly do this. So, in the end I guess it should be done as early as possible, by a doctor who knows what they are doing.

Answer 7

I am a man, 32 years old, hispanic, uncut.

Reasons why you should have circumcision:

1.- Studies show that there is more %tage of women with cervical cancer that have a uncut partner. (That doesn't mean that is the reason).

2. Studies also say that there is no prove that cut men have less sensitivity. ( How do they know if they don't have the skin?)

3. Some girls think is sexier and beautiful.


Reason why you shoudn't have circumcision:

1.- Is a taboo for hispanics.

2.- If you are a clean guy, and take showers everyday and clean your privates, there is no way you can catch an infection.

3.- Penis is protected with the skin. (if you are cut, don't you think the penis's skin would get thicker and a little bit harder?)

4.- Some girls think is sexier and beautiful.

Answer 8

Circumcision is an old Jewish Torra, Talmud religeous rule that was imposed upon the American peoples by Jewish insistance.

Religeously , Jewish Rabbis used to chew the forskin off the baby infant and when they arrived to America their inssitance to christians that it was holy and Biblical in accordance to the old testement is what caused the cult of circumcision. It is nothing more than a Jewish insistance and Jewish culture which was imposed into American religeous Christian culture. In Fact it has nothing to do with christianity at all.

The bible talks about "those of the circumcisoin" ie. "Jews" in which God was warning us about not believing any word that ever comes form a "Judaizers" mouth Titus 1;13-14. Jesus was pointing out exactly whom He was talking about when He said " those of the circumcision" which translated meant the Pharisaitical Jews of Jesus time. The referance was used because circumcision was only used by Pharisees and Sadducees who were actually the Jews of Jesus time.

There is no medical implication that having the foreskin remmoved proves to be cleaner or healthier. In fact most hospitals since they have broken aways from the Jewish mentality of circucison and the non-medical need for it, leave it up to the parents to decide. It is not longer required! The only reason they did it in the first place is because religeous nuts believed the Jews when they told them it was in GODs word which it is not!

It is a total Jewish cult that was imposed upon unsuspecting people as a christian thing to do by judeo intervention into christianity. It is now proven nothing more than a Judeo cult and religeous fananatism, a trick by Judeo interferance into Christianity in order to maim the anglos of America. Basically being circumcised does destroy some of the feeling of a male.

The skin is there by Divine creation of GOD and serves a purpose to protect the membrain of the head of a penis. As far as cleanliness , that is a farce! All one has to do is keep ones self clean. It is a given that men would do so. But having a circumcison does not guarentee anything except that we are all following Jewish law and Jewish cult of the Talmud, which is the original design to get all peoples to be circumcised.

I was circumcised when I was younger, against my will. It should be my decission when I am able to make that decission. But thank God most anglos can grow the skin back as I did and I tell you from experiance it is better there, than not being there. I am happy that it is as God made it and have warned my children about getting their children circumcised in accordance to a cult religeous belief of the Jews. It serves no other purpose other than to serve the Jews that you are following their religeous beliefs as they demand you do. Thank God it is no longer mandatory and perhaps some day we can get away with this kooky belief and religeous cult practices of Judeos in the near future.

Answer 9

I consider you thoroughly! both cause them to both legal, or both unlawful. it would want to be very interesting in seeing how something like that were to flow by the court device. i don't have an difficulty with adult males being circumcised at their personal will; we pierce, tattoo, pickle our bodies for all time- why could this be diverse? as long as my charges for time-honored healthcare do not pay for it, i could not care a lot less. that is with little ones I have a issue with. that is his damn body! The "looks more effective", "matches the daddy", "more convenient to sparkling" "safer from STDs" is all crap: looks more effective: like you reported, it really is concern to opinion. matches the daddy: OH tremendous! the daddy replaced into overwhelmed with a belt as a baby too! Wanna have your son re-stay THAT soreness too? more convenient to sparkling: Bugger off. Get off you lazy a$$ and sparkling your youngster! And coach him solid hygiene even as he's previous sufficient. It wasn't problematical for me to carry close. safer: If there is apparently no undisputed medical truth accessible that proves i did not pick to be gay, I refuse to trust that there is undisputed medical information that announces that reduce adult adult males are extra resilient to STDs. Now on to faith: My best chum is jewish and is rather pleased with his reduce penis. in truth that is now and again area of his beginning line even as he meet's someone new. My chum has continually been smooth about his faith (even although he's reform and really non-operating in route of) to the point the position in case you do not consider any particular area of his faith, he receives shielding. I used to assert that it replaced into high-quality to do it for non secular motives, yet then i idea... wait. There are different religions and cultures that require woman circumcisions- those cultures exist the following in Canada and the U. S., yet FGM is unlawful. So what's with the double time-honored? do not analyze the severity; they're both barbaric unnecessary operations- what's the version? an similar chum's lady friend plans on having her childrens reduce. Why? "that is cleanser. Oh he received't bear in mind it." This female is a wide hypocrite. Why? She's professional-existence to the optimal degree- to virtually the point of Palin's professional-existence stance. ok.. youngster's rights, bla bla bla... Now what about even as the youngster is born? the position are his rights then? With all due observe of to all those who practices a faith of a few form, I say to hell with non secular, classic, or cultural motives. Outlaw toddler circumcision for both genders or make both legal.

Answer 10

Personally, I'm glad my parents left me the way god made me and I am totally opposed to it. Ouch! I don't care if the child could remember the pain or not. I truly believe that it should be the choice of the individual to make that kind of decision.