jdawg2

is this still "needed" for health reasons or whatever? I've heard that it makes hygiene a tad bit easier, but is it really so difficult to wash under the hood? (um, i'm unsheathed, so I wouldn't know, lol)

To me, it seems like a pointless thing to do, but if anyone can point out some pros/cons it'll be much appreciated...

tronvillain

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/" target="_blank">Circumcision Information and Resource Pages</a>

<a href="http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/" target="_blank">This</a> article is pretty good.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

jdawg2

circumcision prevents masturbation? Yeah that really worked on me, lol.

Thanks for the info.

tronvillain

Well, I've seen some evidence that seems to indicate that it is a little more difficult.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

liquid

That was an interesting article.

Seriously, do NOT do it - I cannot urge that enough. Not unless there is a specific medical reason to do so. It's an unnecessary invasive procedure that harms more than it helps nowadays. Hygiene is no problem at all, I can assure you.

It really annoys me that we allow this nowadays. After all, it is effectively mutilation. I consider it unethical and I am surprised the medical profession is not more vocal about it. Perhaps because they don't want to attach a stigma to it, because it is used legitimately to treat some conditions if and when they arrive.

GunnerJ

Um, what's the big deal, liquid? I was circumcized as an infant. I never knew that anything was supposed to be there, and I don't miss it. I am able to get an errection, I am able to achive orgasm, and my urination is uneffected. It is in no way comparable to female circumcision, as that has very real effects on a woman's sexual ability. Male circumcision, speaking from expirience, does not, and I don't even remember it!!! I really fail to see what the problem is.

Anyway, here's Unle Cecil's take on it: <a href="http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html" target="_blank">Slice of Life: The Circumcision Debate</a>

butswana

AHHH!!! Rimstalker, your 666th post!! Circumcision MUST be of the devil. Where can I get a foreskin?
I lost mine some 32 years ago, and I don't pine for it. My dick works fine. Never had any problems with it.
I had my son done when he was a day old. He didn't seem to care too much.
Has any one ever had a foreskin attached? What would you call that? Frankencock?

scombrid

If circumcision actually reduces sex drive as some claim, it's probably a good thing it was done to me. Otherwise I would be so out of control as to make Bonobos look celebate. Seriously, I never missed the foreskin and function doesn't seem to have been affected. However, I think it is a pointless medical procedure with no realistic medical justification. It is mild mutilation.

2tadpoles

People often say that the baby won't remember it, so it's okay to do it. Is it okay to break a baby's arm? He won't remember that, either. It doesn't mean he doesn't feel the pain when it's happening. Most circumcisions are done without anesthesia. In a newborn, the foreskin is not retractable.... it is adhered to the glans of the penis. This skin has to be forcibly torn away from the head before it can be crushed or cut off. Some doctors do use a topical anesthetic that is NOT approved for use in infants (EMLA cream). It can cause hemorrhage in the brain, yet they use it to spare the parents anxiety about the surgery being performed on their healthy child.

Routine infant circumcision (RIC) is a barbaric practice that is pretty much contained in the United States. There are no real medical benefits to RIC. Studies suggest that uncircumcised males have a higher rate of penile cancer than circumcised males, but the rate is still incredibly low. Circumcising 100,000 newborn boys to save one old man from cancer is ludicrous.

No medical organization in the WORLD recommends circumcising newborns. It hurts, harms (dries out a mucous membrane and removes 20,000 or so nerve receptors), and takes away choice. Whose penis is it, anyway?

<a href="http://www.noharmm.org" target="_blank">http://www.noharmm.org</a>

Corwin

'You know.... while we're at it why don't we just amputate your baby's fingertips? After all... he'll just get dirt under his nails.... Oh no... we don't need to use anasthesia... babies can't feel pain anyway...'

Circumcision is barbaric and savage. We get all up in arms about female circumcision when the Muslims do it, but we ignore the exact same procedure done on our boys. (Yes it IS the exact same procedure as labial circumcision.)

Circumcision was originally proposed in the west as a means of cutting down the male sex drive during the Victorian period, and ever since has been promoted through the judicious use of HIGHLY questionable data. (The 'studies' that seem to show lower rates of cervical cancer in women who are with circumcised men are highly questionable at best... and terribly unspecific as to the numbers involved. Are we mutilating entire generations of boys so that women can in theory have a .1% lower rate of cervical cancer?)

There is no medical reason or justification for a procedure that removes a perfectly functional part of the human body without anasthetic. Any doctor that performs 'routine circumcisions' should have the same thing done to his fingers. With a cigar cutter.

-Cor