I'm uncircumcised and I've never had any problems whatsoever with it. And most uncircumcised guys never have any problems either, contrary to some people's misconceptions. 70-80% of the world's men are uncircumcised, so how can that be a bad thing if it's not causing them (or the women that go with them) any problems?
I think it's a personal choice to get circumcised or not, and not something to be imposed on another person. If you want to have it done, go do it and be happy.
But I don't think it's right for it to be done on infants who can't really protest. To think of it this way - is it right that one of the first experiences in life is to have a very sensitive part of your body cut off? That pain must be unimaginable; the only consolation is that the infant won't remember that pain long term. But it's still a terrible excuse. Plus, circumcision has its own risks and complications that people downplay/ignore way too often.
2008-01-01 14:20:46
·
answer #1
·
answered by trebla_5 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
I'm not circumcised and I'm glad I'm not.
I think male circumcision is wrong, invasive and damaging when performed on an unconsenting infant.
I'm sorry that this happened to you. It wasn't right. You should have a say in whether or not the most sensitive part of your body is removed and modified.
2008-01-01 21:40:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by SunkenShip 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
I think it's unnecessary, unless the person in question really wants it done. So I think it's barbaric how it's done to babies without their consent and often without adequate pain relief. An adult male can make his own decision if they like the look or whatever, just as long as they realise that it is not cleaner or healthier or better or HIV-reducing or anything. Sorry you're circumcised and wish you weren't. Many men are like that.
2008-01-01 05:20:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
1⤋
you know, I wish people would quit using the 'reduces sensitivity' thing. In my case, this just isn't true! I've lived life both ways, and wouldn't go back to being uncut; love the snip I got. I'm more sensitive now than I ever was. And it's great not having to worry about the hygiene. I WOULD agree that maybe parents shouldn't do this to their boys and let the boy make the decision. Unlike you, I got to do this.
2007-12-31 20:48:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by John N 7
·
1⤊
8⤋
"What is your oppinion on Male Circumcision?"
Haha, as apposed to female circumcision?
I'm glad I was cut..
You say it decreases sensitivity by 50% (arguable number I'm sure), but that's a good thing.
Sure it decreases sensitivity, but decreased sensitivity means you can go at it longer without blowing your load. Longer stimulation is good for a female..
2007-12-31 19:43:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
9⤋
I am intact, and couldn't be happier about it. In my 34 years I have not had a single problem with my penis or foreskin. To be honest I couldn't imagine life with out my foreskin. It would drive me insane to have my penis head touching my boxers, it is just far to sensitive.
As for the UTI's, they claim the protection is only in the first year of life. If you read the AAP's full statement on circumcision, they do confess that the studies may be flawed, as they do not exclude premature babies and they are more susceptible to UTI's and are never circumcised due to their fragile nature.
In the US circumcision was implemented to stop masturbation, in other places in the world that circumcise it has religious origins. In both cases the purpose of circumcision was to inflict the maximum amount of damage to the penis while retaining the ability to procreate.
2007-12-31 19:41:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rise Against 4
·
11⤊
1⤋
Circumcision is eh, well i'm glad i'm not. I take good care of it, and yeah, when i pull back it does feel good, and with skin over the head it still feels good. But more when its pulled back.
2007-12-31 19:36:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Michael 3
·
8⤊
1⤋
If it's for religious or traditional reasons, sure whatever. But I think there's too much misinformation about circumcision out there, and the fact that it's become as standard as it has really speaks to how sheep-like people can be.
There's no health benefits to it at all. As far as UTIs go, they can be prevented by *washing* it regularly, which you should be doing whether you're cut or not. Really, not to be crass, but how tough is it to convince a guy to spend an extra 30 seconds with his penis in the shower?
2007-12-31 19:05:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Seattle_Slacker 5
·
8⤊
1⤋
There is no medical, or health benefit ot circumcission it results in major pain for the infant ,what good comes of that.
There have been many many cases of complications of infection and quite a few deaths resulting from these complications.
It is more a religious ,cultural belief but a practise that is wide spread and very very old.
In indigenous cultures that use it as an initiation ceremony the circumcission is not performed until a reasonable age is reached
2007-12-31 19:04:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by simon c 2
·
9⤊
1⤋
I am a female but I prefer the look for a cut guy.
2007-12-31 19:03:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by cmb5283 4
·
4⤊
10⤋