What do u prefer

they were cancelled because of faulty data and incorrect assumptions based upon that data. there is nothing in the foreskin that would have any impact upon HIV virus, the correlation between circumcision and AIDS is more a factor of which group of men were being circumcized, and which men were more likely to have intercourse with an infected partner. Those studies showing increased STD and urinary tract infections in intact men have been repeatedly shown to be very flawed studies, but for some reason, they are still floating around. It's pure propoganda and lies. But if you wish to believe it, and justify the mutilation of your precious children, that's your business. Just don't expect anyone else to believe that crap.

 

I love how all your links are just from one site. One site from the internet is not something to base a great argument from, sorry.

I know that my dad ended up getting circumsized because he had an infection as a child. Because no one taught my grandma how to take care of a male baby properly (she was just barely 17 and unwed, fortyfive-ish years ago). It's an unnecessary surgery, guys just need to wash (or be washed as infants) properly and there aren't any problems with being uncut.

 

It's a bit hard for me to say one way or the other as I have only ever been with my man, who is uncircumsized, so I haven't seen what a circumsized penis looks like 1st hand. But, I can honestly say that comparing pics of cut guys with my man's uncut penis, I much prefer it being completely intact! I think uncut is nicer - I personally find it more attractive. And as long as the guy keeps properly clean then there are no issues - just the same as a woman should keep herself clean.

And I agree with what someone else mentioned earlier - I would not cicumsize my son if I have one (and my man agrees with me) unless medically necessary and even then as a last resort only. If when he grows up and he is old enough to decide for himself and he decides that he wants to be cut, that will be his decision, but I will leave that choice up to him.

 

As I am Jewish, naturally I prefer circumsized. However, was I not Jewish, the opposite would be true.

 

Responding to the actual thread topic: I've found that I prefer a circumsized penis and am glad my partner is circ'ed. In my experience they feel better during PIV sex, are easier to administer oral and manual sex to, and are cleaner (and easier to check for cleanliness before engaging in sexual contact).

 

It is genital mutilation. In fact it is now considered a cosmetic procedure that is not warranted medically. The American Academy of pediatrics no longer recommends it and now most insurances won't pay for it. In some western states over 60% of babies born are left intact. I prefer uncirced. Because it is how nature intended it. I have heard the penile cancer link but the truth is less than 1 in 100,000 men will develop penile cancer and they use that as an excuse to amputate their foreskin, yet 1 in 7-9 women will develop breast cancer and noone is cutting their breasts off at birth. Obviously the foreskin has a purpose of men wouldn't be born with it.

 

OMG. He's a nut. Thank you, Jane.

I prefer a penis the way it was intended to be. If a foreskin wasn't meant to be there, it wouldn't be there. My son is uncut, I couldn't see doing that to an innocent baby. My dh is cut, and has no remnant of his fore left. He was left with what I can see as reduced sensation. MOre lately than ever, as he ages. I know there are ways to get the foreskin back, but he is scared to try it. It's his body, so I ain't gonna interfer, but he never really understood what I was going on about all these years, about the dangers of gential mutialtion ect, until recently. (It's his body, but his unthinking parents took a liberty they had no right to take.)

eyesofanangel, are you aware that at LEAST 3 infant lives are lost and at least twice that many complete penis removals are neccesary every year in the USA, due to circing? That, alone, is enough reason. But, there are many more. (Also, the majority of infant deaths due to genital mutialition in the USA are NOT reported, as simoly "DIC" (failure of blood to clot and exaguanation following) "infection" or other things are used on the death certificate. The actual death and damage rate due to genital mutialion in the USA is actually unknown, but it effects many.

 

I like both. I really can't decide if I like one over the other. It's all about the right penis and the person attached to it.

 

The right penis is the one boys come into the world with.

 

Mmm. No. The right penis is whatever I choose, honey.

 

I was able to find the info I was talking about re: the flawed Africa AIDS study.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

This discusses the supposed "prevention" of UTIs in circumcised boys.
http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

A friend of mine made a very good point - newborns aren't sexually active and therefore have no need of "protection" from STDs or AIDS. If a man is promiscuous later and doesn't want to use condoms (which are PROVEN to protect from STDs and AIDS), he can CHOOSE to have a circumcision later if he feels it will help him.

Nothing, NOTHING, justifies cutting the genitals of an infant - male, female, or intersex - without clear medical need. "Girls like it better" is not a medical need. "I heard it's cleaner" is not a medical need. "It's my choice for my child" is not a medical need. It's not your body and not your choice to make. That baby is a PERSON who will have to live forever with the effects of the surgery imposed on him for no reason other than his parents' whim.

 

Maybe the right penis for you to have sex with is the one you choose. But the right penis for a man to live with is the one HE chooses, not the one forced upon him by surgical manipulation.

FYI, for those of you who think circumcision is 'just a little snip' or 'no big deal,' here's a video of an unanesthetised Gomco clamp circumcision. The Gomco is the most common form of circumcision and the vast majority of babies receive no pain medication apart from infant Tylenol or a sugar pacifier.

Routine Infant Circumcision with subtitles. At one point the doctor mentions to the father that there was pain medication in the Betadine solution used to clean the baby's penis. This is a flat-out lie. Pain medication is never mixed into Betadine, it is applied beforehand and allowed to soak into the skin before the Betadine is applied. Even if there was pain medication in the Betadine solution, it was not given any time to take effect before the circumcision began.

 

Aristartle, go see some babies be circumcised l first-hand and maybe you will get it. You'r views are the prdouct of a society that has brainwashed people into accepting a barbaric act as a cultural norm. Your statement just goes to show how little you know about the true heart of the issue.

 

f

pain? They don't remember it. And if pain and consent were truly a problem, you'd be against something like vaccination.

 

Just because they don't remember it as an adult, doesn't mean it hasn't effected them somehow, made them shut down? Did you know crying for an extended period of time (say, the length of a circumcision) could cause damage to an infant's heart. And the stress hormones released can also have a damaging effect on the babe.

With your mentality, should we tattoo our children as infants because they won't remember it? Expose them to a murder scene because they won't remember it? Ridiculous.

And I can't speak for MinkaJane, but I'm opposed to ANYTHING that can potentially harm an infant, be it circumcision or innoculation.

 

A baby won't remember being slapped or pinched, and it would certainly do less damage than circumcision. Does that make it ok?

Studies have shown that circumcised men are more agressive later in life and react more strongly to pain, as a result of the trauma on their developing brains. The same effect has been shown to occur with infants who had other trauma.

BTW, we don't vax. But even if we did, vax would not change my child's sexual organs irreversibly.

 

Show me scientific proof that circumcision has these effects then we can talk. Perhaps we shouldn't allow parents to put their kids down and let them cry because it might cause heart problems?

I have NP with doing something that causes a kid temporary distress in certain instances. Vaccination and circumcision being two reasons. I

do you plug your kid's nose so he/she cant breath? Cause just about everything has potential harm.

 

Let not compare abuse to a medical operation. Ok?

AS A RESULT OF? Please, link to me the study that found that CAUSAL connection! Science rarely EVER makes causal connections.

BTW, we don't vax. But even if we did, vax would not change my child's sexual organs irreversibly.[/QUOTE]

 

I prefer a natural penis.

My husband's penis is normal and intact and if our baby is a boy he will be the same as well. Circumcision hasn't even been a consideration of ours. We tossed the paperwork about it in the info packet our doctors office gave us. I wouldn't pull my baby's teeth to prevent cavities, chop off his arms to prevent broken bones, and I wont have his penis cut to prevent the slight possibility of infection. Its pointless mutliation of his body. I wouldn't want anything like that done to me without my consent, and I'll give any son of mine the same respect.

 

i can't help it, i've only ever really been with circumcised men, i therefore prefer the look of circumcised me. however, i wouldn't circumcise my male child, knowing what i know now. but for my sexual partners and visual stimulation (porn), i prefer circumcised. vilify me if you like, that's just how it is.