circumcision?

Question

Do u think it is good.

How many ppl have it done now??

Answer 1

As with anything, it has advantages and disadvanges. Disadvantages include loss of sensitivity and pleasure, more difficulty with masturbation (after all, that's how it was promoted in the USA since masturbation was 'bad'), and plenty of others. You can read of them here:
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2

In general, circumcision is becoming a lot less popular. The USA is the last advanced nation still doing it, but rates are quickly falling. In some states the rate is as low as 14%, compared to being almost universal a few decades ago.

USA statistics:
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/

Worldwide statistics:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html

As far as HIV/AIDS goes, the advanced nation with the highest circumcision rates (the USA) has the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the advanced nations, according to the CIA, so circumcision doesn't generally 'lower HIV rates' in advanced nations (we take showers! *gasp!*)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html

But yeah, you can also read on on common myths, here:
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2

Answer 2

You're going to get a really biased opinion here you've asked the question to a primarily american crowd. North America still leads the world in infant genital mutilation by a long run and therefore most people are simply unfamiliar with a foreskin, either functionally or esthetically and therefore you won't get a very balanced answer for the most part. But here's some facts to start with.
Removing the foresking has been clinically proven to be painful at any age. Just because you don't remember the pain, doesn't mean you didn't feel it.
Removing the foreskin cuts off over three miles of nerves that would otherwise benefit a man.
Removing the foreskin has not been clinically proven to reduce the chance of acquiring and STD. (including AIDS) Teaching simple hygeine has solved this problem.
Removing the foreskin keratinizes the head of the penis which is originally a mucous membrane. This causes excessive drying out and eventual desensitization.
Removing the foreskin can limit the eventual size of the penis as a lack of skin will limit the capacity to which the penis can grow when a boy hits puberty.
Bad circumscisions result in deformed penis' and in rare cases amputation and sex reassignement. (don't believe me, do your homework)
It has been clinically proven that there is no medical reason for routine circumcision.
Circumcision as we understand it today is entirely different than circumcision of ages past. Even in Roman times, only the very tip was cut off, not the entire foreskin. (again, do your homework peoples) This is even true of biblical times. According to Jewish tradition, only the very tip was cut, enough to shed blood, but not enough to hinder the function.
The only medically necessary prescription of circumcion is on condition known as chronic perpetual phimosis where the boy was never taught to pull his foreskin back when cleaning and therefore never acheived retractability. Even then, nearly 90% of all phimosis cases can be corrected simply by stretching the foreskin back.
Here in America routine circ was started by a Dr. Kellogg, (yes, think of frosted flakes) and his twisted take on childhood sexuality, or the suppression of it.

Do your homework and you'll see that there is no logical reason for circumcision. Period. Just because we here in america have come to think of the cut penis as the norm, doesn't mean it's natural or right. The bottom line is that more people in this country need to be educated on what circumcision is really all about.

Don't do it, not to you, not your kids, not to anyone. Ignorance hurts.

Answer 3

That's a fairly complex question to answer, as it depends on many factors. Some religions/cultures require it. And it can be ostracizing to go against religion/culture, though there are always a group that do.

It may be medically necessary in rare cases (like less than 5% of all the uncircumcised men who develop problems). It's usually indicated in cases of severe phimosis - a condition where the foreskin opening is too tight/narrow to the point of pain or painful urination, or recurrent & frequent irritations/infections despite all other treatments. But the true benefits end there.

Medically, it provides no further benefit. Some claim it's cleaner/more hygienic if the penis is circumcised, but the uncircumcised penis is very easy to clean and keep clean (link 1). And proper genital hygiene can prevent/minimize most problems that're associated with a foreskin.

Other people believe the circumcised penis is less prone to infections/STDs. Most studies show that there's no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in regards to contracting diseases. While recent studies seem to show a protective effect of circumcision against HIV/AIDS infection, it should be noted that proper genital hygiene essentially negates this benefit (link 2). So it can be seen that washing oneself properly is like the great equalizer.

And also, since circumcision removes most of the nerve endings in the foreskin, it will reduce sexual sensitivity (link 3). Furthermore, several studies indicate that the foreskin may play a role in the sexual satisfaction/pleasure of both the man and woman (links 4, 5, 6).

All in all, I believe it depends. As long as one maintains good genital hygiene, practices safe sex, and has a fully functional foreskin (which is true in the vast majority of cases), then it's probably better to be uncircumcised. But if there's a problem involving the foreskin that can't be remedied any other way (again, quite rare), circumcision is probably the best option.

About 70-80% of the world's male population is uncircumcised and the vast majority of them have no problems with their foreskins. In the US the circumcision rate used to be as high as 90% a few decades ago when it was routine and done without any consent. Today that circumcision rate has dropped to 60% nationally (with the rate being higher/lower depending on the state), probably because many parents realize it's painful, has little/no benefit, is no longer covered by some insurance, and the increasing use of informed consent (though some doctors suck at the informing part and are biased).

See links 7 and 8 for further discussion on this.

Answer 4

It is apparent that I have not experienced it, however being a woman and mother, it has effected me in some ways.

It stems from religion that it is consider to be clean if it is done. Most doctors these days make it a custom to automatically do this act to baby boys after birth before they are released from the hospital.

Talk to your doctor of the actual procedure (it will scare the hell out of you!) and decide if it right for you. As long as you stay real clean, it is no shame to not be.

Both ways have their healthy and satisfying results if you use the situation carefully and love yourself for who you are, not how you are. I am not really assuming that you are not, but it is important to whoever reads this answer that they be informed. Good question!

Answer 5

I was circumcised as a ten year old - didn't hurt and I prefer they way it looks and feels. If you (the penis owner) want it done it's good if you don't - it's bad or if you have no say in the matter as in newborns it is bad.

Answer 6

I've seen a lot of man wood and most have the bark removed at the end of trunk.

The downside for the guy is, they cut off a LOT of nerve receptors, so, if you think your orgasms feel good now, they may have felt AWESOME if they left the bark on, so to speak.

Answer 7

It is not good.

It has terrible side effects.


I feel one should not be allowed to cut parts off of someone's body without their informed consent, be it the mother or the father irrelevant of their intentions. It is an irreversible process.


It's perpetuated by culture, just as FGM in other areas and the majority of people who force it on their children do not know the true facts.


Parents should not have the right to force it on to their children. Should they have the right to circumcise girls? It is comparable to type 2 female circumcision (see below).
No medical institution in the developed world actually recommends the practice.
The following link contains the position of medical societies in English speaking countries on circumcision. Specifically British Medical Association, Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Canadian Paediatric Society, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Australian College of Paediatrics and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons:
http://www.circumcision.org/position.htm


Here is a video of the operation. Watch it if you want to learn more. Please do watch it.
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=352478&fr=ybr_sbc
It is not just a little snip here and there. Watch the above video of a circumcision in progress.


The foreskin keeps the glans soft and moist and protects it from trauma and injury. Without this protection, the glans becomes dry, calloused, and desensitized from exposure and chafing.
Specialized nerve endings in the foreskin enhance sexual pleasure.
The foreskin may have functions not yet recognized or understood.
[ http://www.nocirc.org/publish/pamphlet7.html ]

"Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis and decreases the fine-touch pressure sensitivity of glans penis. The most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those parts ablated by circumcision. When compared to the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis, several locations on the uncircumcised penis that are missing from the circumcised penis were significantly more sensitive." Circumcision removes as much as 75% of sensation [ http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf ].

The foreskin reduces the force required by the penis to enter the vagina. It also increases the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. Here is a study to back this up: http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

Performing circumcision on a child can and does result in the deaths of children due to blood loss and/or failure of the immune system.
It can and does result in very significant scaring.
It can and does result in sexual problems later in life.

Circumcised males have a much higher rate of sexual dysfunction. [ http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/ ]




A lot of the information perpetuated about it preventing diseases is false.
The study that you are less susceptible to aids if you are circumcised is flawed. Here is a discussion of the report and its methodology by "Doctors Opposing Circumcision": http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html .

Have a read through their statement. It is very informative. It shows the methodological flaws and poor conclusion in the report that the WHO has jumped upon. Everything is aptly sourced.


Men may often feel a need to justify their own circumcision by the generation of claims of health benefits.[ http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ ]
"The medical literature is full of protective claims for various diseases, such as sexually transmitted disease , male and female cancers, and urinary tract infection. All such claims have been disproved."[ http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html ]




"The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is having exactly the opposite effect. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS."

Condoms have been proven to be an effective means of combating AIDS.

Are you aware that Stallings study also shows that female circumcision also reduces HIV transmission? [ http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138 ]
Female circumcision type II is the removal of the prepuce, part of the clitoris and the labia. Because of the function of the male foreskin, male circumcision is comparable to type II female circumcision. [ http://www.mgmbill.org/mgm101.pps ]
Should we circumcise girls or is this practice different or is it that one is "culturally" acceptable and one is not.
We do not nor should we circumcise girls.

It should be the choice of the victim as to whether or not they want to undergo the procedure. There are many men who try to undo the damage done to them every year: http://www.norm.org/
It is wrong to force an irreversible process onto them that they may not undergo as a adult if they still had the choice.

They are both mutilations of the genitals. A parent does not have a right to mutilate their child's genitals by the following UN conventions: the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the U.N. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. These violations were brought to the attention of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2001 both orally and in writing by NOCIRC. However, the U.N. has yet to take action. [ http://www.mgmbill.org/un.htm ]

The vast majority of the world(83%) is not circumcised.
There is no good reason to perform male genital mutilation.


See these sites specifically:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
http://www.mgmbill.org/
http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.norm.org/

Here is a tracking of circumcision news articles which is kept very up to date:
http://www.cirp.org/news/

Have a look at this website:
http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

Have a look at these videos:
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=137650&fr=ybr_sbc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1736954830543671382&sourceid=searchfeed

Answer 8

unless there is a medical problem, there is no need to have it done. I still have my foreskin and I have never had any problems. We are born with it for a reason and so we shouldn't just hap hazardly chop it off unless a medical condition makes it necessary.

Answer 9

it isn't as common as it used to be , in the states it has decreased like 20% ,but still a majority of males are circumsized.

Answer 10

no, its not good.

it is there for a reason. we dont cut off eyelids do we ? lips? ears ?
i have no idea why so many parents attack it as soon as the baby is born. like they are afraid it is going to mutate and take over the world.

kill it! kill it !

lower your risk of AIDS by 40% ?

women have a hood on the clit, why not amputate that too ? we can wipe out AIDS in our life time.

amputate the penis and reduce your risk of AIDS by 100%!