Circumsized or uncircumsized?

You still never answered the big Freudian question on what's up with your dick, and until you do everything you say is worth about the same value as horse shit

 

I happen to be an old Jewish guy who was butchered by a mohel on the 8th day of my life. It happened all the way back in the late 1950s, around the same time that Marilyn Monroe was running around with Joe DiMaggio and the Platters were topping the music charts. The mohel totally screwed me up for life and I'm sure that he must be burning in hell right now on account of what he did to me.

 

You say circumcision can't be categorized as a "surgical procedure" under medical grounds because it serves no medical purpose, yet all forms of plastic surgery are considered surgical procedures whether there is a "valid" reason for them or not. Plastic surgeons still have to go to medical school. They still earn medical degrees. In your opinion they don't classify,like many people suggest that plastic surgery is "butchery" and "mutilation" but in the medical profession it is still considered a surgical procedure. And you're wrong. Cosmetic surgery isn't always something that the person decides and seeks out. There are a lot of parents that decide to go through with cosmetic surgery for their children for various reasons.

Again, I still don't agree with circumcision but your arguments can't hold their weight.

 

Plastic surgery is similar to cosmetic surgery, in that both are considered optional for a fully consenting adult, in cases where the patient actively seeks out the procedure and gives his or her fully informed consent after being fully informed of the procedure's risks and potential benefits.

OK ... then apparently you agree with the idea that other people have an inherent right to alter YOUR GENITALS without obtaining YOUR CONSENT... and please spare me the hypocrisy of saying that female circumcision is "wrong" or that female circumcision is "mutilation."

FEMALE CIRCUMCISION MUST BE A FORM OF 'SURGERY' ACCORDING TO YOUR REASONING. FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IS SOMETHING THAT PARENTS JUST 'DO' TO FEMALE CHILDREN FOR VARIOUS 'REASONS' (ACCORDING TO YOUR REASONING) SO WHY THEN ARE PEOPLE ALWAYS COMPLAINING ABOUT IT ?

If some third-party ever hired a "plastic surgeon" to alter YOUR GENITALS without obtaining YOUR CONSENT (which is along the same lines of what Tanya Harding did when she hired a "hit man" to attack Nancy Kerrigan with a baseball bat), I'd venture that it probably wouldn't make a lick of a difference to you if the practitioner had advanced medical credentials or if he or she was simply a barber who does circumcision as a sideline.

You keep on saying that you don't agree with circumcision, but then everything you say seems to support it totally.

Circumcision must be placed under the heading of "butchery" and "mutilation."

It doesn't really matter if the practitioner has advanced medical credentials.

If a given procedure is carried out with the intention of destroying a normal bodily structure, you can call it by whatever name you choose to call it, but as for me ... I am going to call it "mutilation."

 

My! I didn't know the world was so black and white. Gee Golly and here I've been seeing in grey and Technicolor.

I don't agree with circumcision. I'm not SUPPORTING it, I'm just simply pointing out the flaws in your argument because it's not only over the top but isn't true and you're making the rest of us look bad. You're wording things in ways that either don't make sense, there is no evidence to back it up, or you're skewing definitions. I'm not going to agree with rubbish just because I think something is wrong. That would be like me saying I'm Catholic just because I believe in God. I agree with the cause, but not your reasons.

 

No, you haven't been able to point out a single flaw in my reasoning.

My position is can be summarized in the following way: a) Circumcision has no valid medical purpose except in extremely rare cases of BXO and preputial carcinoma, and b) that a procedure cannot be categorized as "surgery" when it is carried out with the intention of destroying a normal bodily structure.

Circumcision is usually carried out with the intention of destroying a normal bodily structure and therefore it constitutes "mutilation" and not surgery. If there's a demonstrable need for destroying the bodily structure, then it would constitute "surgery," but in cases where a normal bodily structure is being destroyed for some contrived reason, such as "looking like dad and the other circumcised kids," then it ceases to be surgery and it falls under the category of "mutilation."

My definition applies to both male and female circumcision.

If you believe that male circumcision is "surgery" and that female circumcision is "mutilation," then I would say that you have a biased world view.

You are also wrong when you assert that I haven't supplied any evidence.

I have supplied an article from the BBC which essentially proves that male circumcision is considered to be "a form of mutilation" by the Swedish medical commmunity. That article from the medical journal "Pediatrics" would also be considered evidence by most reasonable people, in support of my contention that genital mutilation is extremely painful.

 

I have been both.

I spent 41 years natural and the last 5 years in hell due to a wrong diagnosis. I was talked into being mutilated, YES MUTILATED, by a doctor that said that there was NO difference. What a Lie. I had to have reconstruction 2 months ago at the University of Virginia just so I would be able to have sex again and not have to sit down and pee.
So I can tell you both sides. Natural is great and everything works the way nature intended it to. Before, I did not have to support Johnson and Johnson by buying tons of lube. Sex could be quick if I wanted it too or last all night. It's bull about the hard to keep clean thing. That's just lazy men. I can tell you from actual experience that the feeling is the difference between gently stroking your lips and rubbing the heel of your foot. I have seen a few penises in my life because I a gay. I can tell you that natural guys are better lovers - for the simple fact that the penis was made to have a foreskin. Most, but not all, cut guys have trouble reaching orgasm. They have to try and stimulate themselves to the point of near pain. They can last and last and last and last till finally they have to masterbate because intercourse or oral does not stimulate them enough. While you are in your teens and 20's being cut works pretty well if you overlook the scars, nicks, and weird shapes. But wait till you are in your 30's and up and you will see what I am talking about. Things are not going to be so good.
Circumcision does damage! I have seen penises that were scared with hatch marks all over. I knew one guy that had only half a glans. I have seen skin bridges, turkey necks, bent penises and pubic hair all the way to the circ line.

And did you know that the cut penis is 5 percent shorter than the natural one. That's due to the tight skin keeping it from growing during puberty not from the foreskin overhang.

Before the ranting begins about how nobody has seen any of these things. Your right, most guys that had problems are ashamed about how they look. Ever wonder why the otherwise normal guy in high school never took a shower. They have been outcasts all their days. Doctors have actually done sex reasignment on babies that have had their penises cut all the way off during this minor surgery. Yes, 1 in 5000 has severe mutilation. 3 have dies in the USA last year.

So, it's not so cut and dry or black and white.

 

i am cut and most every woman i have met loves it when they are cut.

 

I think if I use lots of ice I can give myself a circumcision. What do you think, I just want to fit in. Please help has anyone ever done this?

 

Oh, be a man. Do it straight-up.

 

1. Hmmmm, again I find it odd, new members out of the blue with only 1 post to rant about circumcision

2. If you are really cut something must've went horribly wrong because I don't think any cut guy here has trouble reaching orgasm, we all think our dicks work fine. though premature ejaculation is a far more common problem with uncut guys

3. Um, proof that uncut dicks are bigger? See this is why I don't think you're cut, the skin is not that tight even when hard

4. Yes mistakes happen in circumcision, but statistics are a fun thing to manipulate, you fail to point out the fact percent wise it's very low, you have a better chance of being hit by a drunk driver on the way home from the hospital then your son undergoing any mistakes in circumcision on the same day

 

This is from the great circumcision advacate Morris from Australia. It's hard to find in his paper.
"Average erect penis length of 156 White men aged 18-55 years (mean 33) in a study in Sydney, Australia, was 16.0 cm (5% CI 12.2-19.8) [464a]. Length in the 102 who were circumcised was 0.8 cm (i.e, 5%, or 1/20th) less than length in the 43 who were uncircumcised. It was suggested that 'insufficient residual foreskin in some uncircumcised men may have tethered their erections'. If so, this would have applied to men who had been circumcised by methods that can sometimes result in removal of more foreskin in a proportion of men. The Plastibell technique does not do this, so should not affect erect length. Since the Plastibell has since become the most common device used for circumcision in Australia today, there should now be little or no difference in erect penis length in relation to circumcision status."

The Plastibell is not used in the USA very often. The Gimco Clamp is.



If your son is one of the stat. low incedents how would you feel then.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) states, "The exact incidence of postoperative complications is unknown."5 One must question: Why is the incidence of complications not recorded? The AAP estimates, however, that this incidence is 0.2%,6 an extraordinarily low figure. Even applying this low incidence to the number of estimated circumcisions during the above period, over 131,726 males are living with these complications. Neither the estimates of the AAP nor NOHARMM include sexual or psychological consequences from neonatal circumcision that manifest or are recognized later in life.

Incidence estimates in the table above represent aggregate figures for a wide range of lifelong physical complications including excessive skin loss, laceration of penile and scrotal skin, beveling deformities of the glans, iatrogenic hypospadias/epispadias, chordee, bowing/curvature, keloid formation/prominent scarring, lymphedema of the glans, concealed penis, skin bridges, skin tags, preputial cysts, meatal stenosis/urinary obstruction, and loss of penis (with likely gender reassignment). Although American circumcision advocate, Thomas E. Wiswell, M.D., suggests that the post-neonatal complication rate from medicalized, non-ritual circumcision is 1.7%7, the true incidence of these complications is not known. In the likely event that at least 1% of circumcisions performed in this period resulted in a physical complication with a negative lifelong impact, the number of males affected during the period totals to a staggering 658,630.

Many of these complications go unreported by surgeons, either because they are not immediately recognized on the infant's tiny penis, or they are of little significance to surgeons who circumcise hundreds of male newborns annually. These usually remain unreported throughout a male's life due to his own ignorance of, or inhibitions to report, circumcision-related penile complications.

These figures also include the most common complications of hemorrhage and infection (sepsis). Serious hemorrhage, which can lead to brain damage, occurs in about 2% of circumcised infants.8 Thus, over 1.3 million males born between 1940 and 1990 some form of serious hemorrhage resulting from neonatal circumcision, with an unreported and unknown incidence of long-term effect. Infections, which can result in bacteremia, meningitis, osteomyeltis, lung abscess, diptheria and tuberculosis,9 occurs in up to 10% of patients.3 Thus, up to 6.5 million males born between 1940 and 1990 have experienced some infectious complication resulting from circumcision, with an unreported and unknown incidence of long-term effect.

Williams notes that, "Although hemorrhage and sepsis are the main cause of morbidity, the variety of complications is enormous. The literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision."3 In his statement, Williams of course did not account for other lifelong circumcision pathology.

Apropos of lifelong effects, these figures do not include infant circumcision complications that may manifest sexually or psychologically in the male in later life. As with physical effects, these sexual or psychological complications may go unacknowledged, unspoken and/or unreported by the average circumcised male who suffers from them.

Like I said Just wait a few years. You'll see. Like I said, it's something very few men talk about.

 

And if you don't think i'm CUT, send me your email and i'll show you. I do not freeking lie buddie. I do have the balls to have my real name, though.

 

I would imagine that various degrees of harm occur with circumcision, and that some circumcisions are more severe than others, depending on how much healthy tissue was amputated by the knife-wielding maniac who did it. I am over fifty years old and have absolutely no feeling left. Everything's numb. So when I listen to a circumcised man bragging about how good sex is for him, it reminds me of a novice "weekend warrior" who goes around bragging about his tremendous hunting abilities.

It is just soooo freaking absurd listening to men who go bragging about how good they are in bed. Viagra sales are so astronomically high, it must be a fairly good indication that sex must really suck in a bizarro society where men are walking around with butchered penises while they go around bragging about how wonderful they are in bed and how much they enjoy having orgasms. Yeah, but they have to work soooo hard in order to achieve those orgasms, and they still don't seem to understand that sex isn't really about achieving orgasms. I think that women can see the issue more clearly than circumcised men can, since they are the ones who've got to endure all of that rough abrasional pounding.

 

Okay, cut or uncut has very little to do with performance in bed. At least in the sense of "who is better". I've been with both, and I've had good and bad experiences with both. The only difference I've ever heard in guys in terms of bedroom performance is that an uncut dick is more sensitive, but that sensitivity doesn't make for a better lover. It just means that they can feel more, not that they can fuck better.

As for Viagra, I highly doubt it has much to do with circumcision and more to do with all the psych meds our society pumps into their systems, the natural process of aging, and the way the brain functions as well as pressures put on men by the world around them to be fully function under such conditions.

Sucks that you're numb, but maybe the psychological mind fuck you keep putting yourself through has more to do with it than the actual fact that you're cut, or underlying health issues with your age, which is normal.

 

Sorry, too funny not to quote. WTF is a skin bridge, turkey neck, and/or circ line?

I'll read your answer with my eyes squinted and head turned to one side, in case I need to recoil in horror.

 

I know that there are lots of women who disagree with you on this point.

There has GOT to be a big difference in the performance of both "styles," and this is due largely to the different 'mechanics' which are involved:

- The circumcised penis has no moveable skin, it just plows in and out, and this creates inordinate friction. Inordinate friction necessitates the use of artificial lubrication during both sex and masturbation.

- The intact penis doesn't require the use of artificial lubrication. It also contains a sheath of muscle fiber, and this enables the man to exert far more control over the love-making experience. So, not only does the intact man have far greater sexual feelings than a circumcised man, but he can also exert more control over his love-making.

- Sex is painful to the woman on account of the pounding and thrusting action of the circumcised penis.

- This comparison (intact vs. circumcised) is similar to comparing people with eyelids versus people whose eyelids were amputated at birth. You could also make a comparison between women "with clitoris" and women "without clitoris." If you try hard enough, you can even summon up the image of an African man who says that he enjoys having sex with infibulated women, or that perhaps it doesn't really matter if a woman has her clitoris or not.

- Circumcision probably isn't going to destroy a man's ability to procreate, and yet there are some cases on record which prove that a circumcision gone wrong can sometimes lead to a sex-change operation for the unfortunate child. Similarly, a man who has only one testicle would still maintain his ability to procreate, and yet most parents would never consider amputating one of their son's testicles just because it wouldn't totally inhibit their son's ability to reproduce. If we lived in a bizarro society in which a substantial population was missing one of their testicles, it isn't hard to imagine that these men would be advocating to have the same operation that was done to them, done to others. So once again, we can see that circumcision is basically an "ego thing" for the circumcised man who actively wants to implement a program of mass genital mutilation simply because he doesn't want to live in a society where he is "different" from normal men.

The circumcised man has a definite psychological need for believing that his sexuality is "just fine" even though a great big hunk of flesh was torn out of his penis without his consent, and even though sex isn't really all that great for him owing to the fact that he doesn't really have a whole lot in the way of sexual feelings, it still isn't very likely that he's ever going to admit that "it sucks to have sex" until such time as he can no longer deny it, and he can no longer have any sex at all due to the combined effects of aging and genital mutilation. If he wants to have sex, it's because sex happens to be one of the greatest of all instincts, and this is why circumcision was instituted in the first place, i.e. it was instituted because doctors knew that it was a good way of instituting limits on the sexual pleasure of men and women. Speaking as a circumcised man, I know the psychology of it all too well. I never really enjoyed sex all that much, even as a teenager, but it took me a very long time to make the connection between my lack of sexual pleasure and the fact that I was missing the single most highly innervated part of my sexual organ, which was intended by nature to serve as a protective covering during times when not in use.

I don't think that it's valid to make a dichotomy between mind and body. We enjoy food because we have a brain, but we also enjoy food because we have tongues. If you were to amputate the tongues of newborn infants, it would impact on their ability to enjoy food because they would be missing the peripheral sensory neuro-receptors which enable us to experience the sense of "taste."

You can have sex with a circumcised penis, but having sex with a circumcised penis is like eating food when half of your tongue is missing.

The denial of reality is an important factor which keeps genital mutilation alive.

It is important for people to stop mutilating the genitals of children.

Circumcision is abusive.

 

It should be considered a crime for an adult to amputate sexual parts from children.

I would like to see this evil practice come to a screeching halt. If you even touch the genitals of a child without having an extremely good reason for doing so, you should be locked away for a very long time.

 

Man I would hate to be you, I'll come back with a better response later tonight or tomorrow but you're so fucked up in the head over your own circumcision that you really think all cut guys are the same and making up for something and their dick doesn't work as it should, almost every cut man in the world is happy with their dick, you've spent your life in agony over it, and your dick probably works fine but you've fucked your head so much from the psychology of it you probably have made yourself both mentally and physically numb.

And to think my cut dick works just fine and I don't have the mental trauma you have over it, but one day it's probably going to just be turned into a vagina anyways. Man you're wasting your dick.

 

You don't seem to recall that it was YOU who wanted to know about my circumcision status ?? Well, I gave you my answer, didn't I ????? I told you exactly what you wanted to know, and now you're abusing me verbally for giving an honest answer to YOUR QUESTION. I'm not going to talk about myself any longer. It was never my intention to talk about myself in the first place ... I was only talking about my own mutilation status because I was prodded into doing do so by the likes of you ...

I don't see how you can possibly arrive at such an erroneous conclusion, when all you have to do is to 'scroll up' the page just a little, to the message where I stated that genital mutilation has varying degrees of harm.

FYI, there are lots of men like myself who aren't "happy" that they were butchered by a knife-wielding lunatic.

I don't believe that anyone is truly "happy" with it. What's going on here IMO is that men are simply defending their penile status, i.e. if men are feigning "happiness" about their iatrogenically butchered and desensitized penises, it must be that they're trying to stave off feelings of depression and unhappiness.

I don't believe that you're "fine" in any way or shape or form.

You are quite obviously a severely traumatized individual.