liquid

Rstalker, I am replying to your "What's the big deal question" way way back. I notice you have been asking some sensible questions, and rebuffed somewhat emotively and irrespectfully, so I apologise for those who did that, even though I am probably as anti-circ as they are.

What is the big deal? Well, basically, there is no big deal. Note that I refer only to routine circs - it can be a very useful operation when certain conditions are actually diagnosed.

Routine circs carry only one proven preventative health benefit, and that is reduced infection rates. These reduction is very low, indeed, almost negligible because these days everyone has access to basic hygiene and most people use it.

This is contered by the infections and complications (both physical and psychological)that occur due to the invasive procedure itself.

The balance of the medical pros and cons is that there is actually more medical harm being done statistically by the procedure than that it prevents. This isn't by a massive margin - some people have been rather graphic about extreme complications that can occur, but one must remember that equally nasty things happen due to infection. However, the margin is distinct.

I could get you some figures about it, but I don't think it is necessary when the American Medical Association, as well as the Canadian and British, have produced policy papers advising against routine operations. A google search should unearth these easily enough.

That is why I am against the procedure. Even if it was medically neutral, there are other costs, such as medical professional time and equipment usage. There is also the issue that the child has no opportunity to defend itself. In fact, I think it is a shame doctors do not take more of an active stance against it, but there are two problems, namely outdated medical knowledge and certain resisting groups (Not just Jews, I hasten to add).

I hope that has been helpful.

Anunnaki

I`d like to go on record to make it clear that I did not call Rimstalker a "stupid fucking prick". Surely I would have caught hell by now from the moderators if this wasn`t clear.

What I said was that IMO anyone who makes it his/her job to defend this barbaric,ritualistic and superstitious practice is a stupid fucking prick.
Rimstalker has apparently decided that this applies to him.

I don`t believe his arguments are coming from some bizarre kind of circumcision apologetics (if there even is such a foolish thing),but rather from ignorance and tradition.

Btw,
I`m sure some of you will have a chuckle over this,but the routine circumcision I received as an infant was too tight and because of it my penis developed a downward curve while erect. I`m at least lucky that it`s not painful,but there are quite a few sexual positions that are out of the question for me. Trust me,I`ve made a thorough attempt at them and it`s just not gonna happen.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Xtopher

As I read through this topic, I found myself slowly doubling over until I eventually ended up in the fetal position under my desk.

I had my doubts about circumsision but the doc talked me into it by saying we should "keep the locker room the same". The Son should look like the Dad and the other boys at school, lest he feel different...or some such nonsense.

Wish I had researched it more, I wouldn't have let them do it.

Boro Nut

Anunnaki. You must be aware that this is not the place to use such language, especially when used in association with a fellow board member. The term stupid fucking prick is so demeaning, and is offensive to many of us who enjoy rational and genteel debate. Please do not say stupid fucking prick again.

I respect your right to freedom of speech, but not when it comes to calling Rimstalker a stupid fucking prick. If you say that Rimstalker is a stupid fucking prick you deserve everything that is coming to you.

You are perfectly within your rights to think that Rimstalker is a stupid fucking prick, just not to say that Rimstalker is a stupid fucking prick. That's what freedom of thought is all about.

If its of any consolation to you, I think he is a stupid fucking prick as well, you just wont catch me saying it that's all.

Boro Nut

tronvillain

Frogsmoocher:
I am uncircumsized, and the statement remains ridiculous.

Anunnaki

The problem with the above quote is that he has it backwards. Common sense alone tells us that something under almost constant protection is gonna be MUCH more sensitive when it comes out to play once in a while.

A dried out weather beaten glans without any protection from years of rubbing against underpants and anything else it comes in contact with can`t possibly be more sensative than one in it`s NATURAL protective covering.

Baloo

Seems as though Rimstalker could use a little help here, so I thought I'd throw this into the mix: Fellatio.

Oral sex plays plays a large role in my wife's and my sex life, adding fun, variety, and new twists regularly. Without going into detail, let's just say she enjoys fellating me, and I enjoy being fellated. Under only very rare circumstances do either of use find it even mildly unpleasent (in which case we desist for that particular occasion). For my wife, however, this hasn't been the case in one of her previous sexual relationships. Years before, she had been in a relationship with an intact boyfriend during college, and found herself the boat where she just couldn't enjoy giving him oral sex if he had gone even a couple of hours since his last shower, as the mucousy secretions of an intact penis become quite nauseating on about that same time-line. Unless done shortly after cleansing, apparently fellating an uncircumsized male is a decidedly unenjoyable experience.

Now, let me extend this a bit by pointing out that the VAST majority of my sexual encounters prior to marriage (in fact, all experiences with all but one girl) were of an oral nature. This was almost as pleasurable (if not as pleasurable) as intercourse, but at a greatly reduced risk of STD's, and no risk of unplanned pregnancy. If I rewind, and imagine myself in those same situations, with an uncircumsized penis that was not freshly washed, and having to choose between 3 options:

1) Push for oral sex, knowing that it would probably be "gross" for the girl
2) Stop all making-out/petting/stroking/stripping activity to make a break for the nearest restroom to "wash up" as best as possible or
3) Bypass the hassle of oral sex entirely, and push to move straight on towards intercourse, relying on condoms to not break or transmit STD's,

I have to think I'd have gone for option #3 every time... my wife backs this claim up, as apparently she and her intact boyfriend both found themselves avoiding oral sex whenever possible, a sad state of affairs indeed.

Another point... In regards to sex being more enjoyable for intact men, I've read many testimonies of men who get circumcized late in life; some proclaim it makes no difference in sexual enjoyment, some complain of a temporary loss, and a small fraction complain of permanent loss. However, I have yet to see a single study that shows any compelling evidence that uncircumcized men enjoy sex more than men circumcized during infancy. If this were the case, we would expect to see statistically significant differences in the level of sexual activity between the two groups, even after taking all other cultural differences between them into consideration. I mean, it's simple test of stimulai/reward psychology... if for two Groups A and B, an activity is significantly more pleasurable for members of Group A than it is for members of Group B, we would expect the activity to be persued and engaged in to a significantly higher degree by members of Group A. In fact, I have seen only a single study that measures this difference:

(In other words, circumcised men have sex just as much, and in a wider variety of ways, than their uncircumcized counterparts).

If the testimonies of men who were circumcised in adulthood make any case, it is the case that IF you decide the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks THEN it may be detrimental to your child to delay the operation until they have reached consentual age.

Furthermore, can anyone tell me why I cannot find a single study, of all the references from the anti-circumcision page, that talks about how "traumatic" a circumcision is for babies that ARE anesthetized (as my son(s)would be, should we have them circumcized)? It seems like every single description of the operation is preceded with: "In an non-anesthetized circumcision..." Personally, I think the whole argument from silence on that point seems pretty strong...

Let me just conclude with a disclaimer: I'm actually undecided on the issue, and am making the best case I can for circumcison for both my own benefit and the benefit of lurkers who may want a more informed decision.

Oxidizing Material

I'm cut, my penis looks great, works fine, it doesn't hurt and if it did, I don't remember, I'm not emotionally scarred, I don't feel any less of a man (in fact, I feel better after seeing those uncut ones), and honestly, I've never felt any different no matter what I do because of the lack of skin and snot covering my manhood. Barbaric? Then you'd probably equate getting your ear pierced as barbaric as well.

Anunnaki

And this tidbit.....
It was MY choice to get my ears pierced and it DID NOT fuck up my ears. I was also not strapped to a board when my ears were pierced.

Oh yeah,I almost forgot....
I`m not trying to get my EARS into a vagina and enjoy the wide variety of positions that many of you and your fucking "great looking" cocks take for granted.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Anunnaki ]</p>

Corwin

Ear piercing isn't barbaric, but cutting off the earlobes for no medical reason would be. Especially cutting off the earlobes of someone who hasn't consented to the procedure and doing it simply because 'everybody else does it.'

Aside from some rare medical issues, such as frostbite or other circulatory problems, what possible reason is there to slice off a perfectly normal and functioning piece of tissue? One that performs a normal and healthy function? Yes you have to wash it. Guess what? You have to wash other parts of your body too. I stand by my statement. Routine circ is equivalent to snipping off a baby's fingertips because they'll just get dirt under the nails and there's the chance they'll get skin cancer on their fingertips... besides... those fingernails just have to go. They're nothing more than an archaic reminder of our more primitive biological past.... when we had claws. No need for them these days. You can pick things up just FINE if you only have fingers out to the second joint... look... he does it.... everybody does it.

If you defend routing circ... let me ask you something. How about we take YOU and without asking your permission, strap you down and cut off your ears? Of course we'll give you a local anasthetic... in the long run it'll be better. You won't get all that nasty wax buildup and the lines of your face will be cleaner. Come on.... everybody ELSE is doing it.... you want to look like everybody else, don't you?

Oh... and chicks dig smooth heads.

Can you see the analogy?