What kind of circumcision do you have?

It may behoove us to remember why the medical profession in the United States decided in the 1870's (less than 100 years after one of their own bled Geo. Washington to death) to recommend circumcision to parents of boys. They understood that circumcision made sex (masturbation in this case) more difficult (no natural free movement of the penis under the foreskin) and less enjoyable (glans penis, a sensitive internal organ was changed into an external and much less sensitive organ.) Therefore, they concluded, to keep little boys from enjoying the sin of masturbation, circumcision was a good way to thwart the desire. Without that decision by a group of religious doctors, all you circumcised guys and your dads would have been left alone at birth. The very reason that they recommended circumcision was to deaden the glans and make sexual activity LESS pleasurable. Even Cutted cannot deny that as the reason for the US position. It makes sex less enjoyable, they said! So who cares what kind of a circumcision you guys have, the religious nuts of 1870s are still running your lives, and your parents made a bunch of surgeons richer by $300 or so at your expense. The least you could do is break the chain and make sure that your sons' sex life is better than yours. And Cutted, we all can't be as un-needful of sex as was Jesus!

 

Fastswitch - How would you know how good my sex life is? Seems pretty good to me, and my partners agree. A recent study of 4500 African sexually experienced men who were uncut and rated their sexual enjoyment and then were cut and examined at six month, one year and two year intervals, found that the exact same percentage (98.5%) rated their sexual enjoyment as very good. They found no difference in their sexual enjoyment before and after being circumcised. So the myth of less sexual enjoyment with a cut penis v an uncut one has been put to rest.

It is true that some quacky doctors in the 1870s in the U.S. and in Britain concluded that circumcision was a good means of preventing masturbation, but there always was a strong health and cleanliness reason for performing the operation as well, to prevent infection from generating under the foreskin, as well as STDs.

Most cut guys in the U.S are entirely happy with the look and feel of our penises. Why hid its best part under a roll of skin?

 

Basically, it all comes down to a matter of choice.

Once a boy passes through puberty & enters manhood, when his penis becomes pretty much as developed as it's going to get (say, about 16), then he should have the choice as to whether he wants to be circumcised or not.

However, to make such an irreversible lifetime choice on a boy's behalf mutilate them while they're still a baby, with absolutely no say in the matter is, in my opinion, nothing more than child abuse of the worst kind and should be outlawed along with all other forms of child abuse.

 

The only problem waiting until the boy is over 16 or so is that it becomes more difficult medically to do it at that time, since the boy is getting spontaneous nighttime erections which could pop the stitches, etc. It is also more expensive and perhaps more emotionally difficult to have your package messed with at a time when your sexuality is awakening.

I have counselled a number of young men who are faced with undergoing circumcision during their teenage years due to phimosis in order to have a normal sex life later on, and it is difficult for them.

True, baby boys have no choice in whether they are cut or not, but parents are legally charged with making responsible decisions about their baby's life - their religion, their home life, whether or not they should have their tonsils out, what inoculations against diseases to get, etc. Whether or not to circumcise a baby boy is one of the decisions a mother and father have to make about the new life they have brought into the world. All that should be required is that they make an informed choice.

 

I agree with you. But, If my parents didn't get me circumcised early in my life, there's no way that I was going to put myself through pain and misery at 16 lol. I don't even remember the day I got circumcised (Thank God!). My older brothers (late 20s,early 30s,) got themselves circumcised, and my uncle in his 60s got himself circumcised. That's crazy! lol.



I wonder why they waited so long to make such a decision. They might us well have stayed uncircumcised IMO.

 

They may have gotten circumcised in their late 20s or early 30s because they had problems retracting the foreskin over the glans, and when they got sexually active it was not as pleasurable as it could be if they were circumcised. It would be like sucking on a lollipop with the wrapper on.

Or they had problems with infections under the foreskin, or their girlfriends or wives preferred the cut look and feel. Your 60 year old uncle may have wanted to be circumcised all his life for the same reasons, and finally decided to have it done. Don't regret that it was done for you as a aby.

 

Thanks for shedding light on that thought. Trust me, I don't regret getting circumsised lol. Im glad that it was done at a time when I was innocent.

 

Most males have it done as babies because later on they get night erections which could pop the stitches if the circumcision was not done well. It is a simple operation when done on a baby, and local anaesthesia is applied to the penis in almost all cases, so it is no more painful than getting a tooth cavity filled after the local anaesthesia is applied.

And you have three examples here of men who chose to have it done to themselves when adults.

At age 12, a boy is just coming of age sexually, and it may not be a good time to mess with his "package" unless he has phimosis, or inablility to retract the foreskin, and this problem may clear up by the time he is 18 or so.

 

I think circumcision as a matter of course is highly questionable at best and criminal at worst. Apart from for medical reasons, I can't understand it. I know that some religions and cultures expect it; it is far,far less common in th UK than the USA. Can anyone convince me?

I am, as you might expect, as I was when born...

NB

 

Read some of my recent posts.

 

Cutted, if you are Los Angeles #1 lawyer, why are you so seemingly religiously devoted to getting us all circumcised? Are you Muslim? Are you Jewish? Are you out of work, disbarred? What is your agenda, and what motivates you. You have far too much energy in this matter to be 'spreading goodness and light." Your methodology is such that you take agendas with you into the counseling room, which is breach one in anyone's ethics. You have so flattered yourself with supposed expertise, so depended upon spurious studies and 'research,' and so shown your own bias that I cannot believe any counseling association would license you or grant you permission to act in their behalf. And as for being a graduate of any counseling program or school - I just don't believe you! Please tell us of your credentialing to 'counsel' as you put it. Let us all know of your scholarly history and the written exams and thesis you have completed. I have never spoken of any but my own experiences and a bit of amateur reading. Lift the veil of secrecy, Cutted; expose your genius and it's source. Or retreat into a milieu of amateurish experience in sex counseling where the rest of us reside. Why the desire for 'expert' status when trolling amongst a bunch of horny yet happy sex players. Your advice is worth no more than that of any of the rest of us - unless you expose the source of your wisdom. Come on, Cutted, hang your diplomas on your public wall!

 

Fastswitch - I think you have a crush on me. I am now a filmmaker, after having made enough $$$ as a lawyer. I am not Muslim or Jewish, but rather a former Christian who now believes in the nonviolence preached by Tibetan Buddhism. As a lawyer for many years, I was able to analyze a problem well and thoroughly, and suggest ways to resolve the problem. And experience with similar past problems helps in developing the best advice for the client.

As a sex therapist, I have the benefit of having had intercourse perhaps 10,000 times with over 20 different women (no men) over the years. And I am well read on the subject. And each time I address a sexual problem, I increase my base of knowledge which I can apply to the next person who has that problem. And as I get feedback from persons I have helped, I can judge if the advice I have given has been helpful.

Today I replied to two young men who have had problems retracting their foreskins. One followed my advice several months ago, and was helped greatly; the other just realised he had a retraction problem after surfing this forum. And i did not try to convince them to get a circumcision - that would be the last resort.

I also realize the limits of my advice, and often refer persons with sexual problems to doctors or psychiatrists. Sexual problems are often embarrassing, something that men and women never want to confide to anyone. But the anonymity of 'Love and Sex" allows them to unburden themselves of a problem that has bothered them greatly. When they post here, and find that they are not the only one in the world with that probem, and that there are solutions, it is very helpful, as I have found out repeatedly. I would say that I have gotten thanks from hundreds of persons who have followed my advice since I started posting in "Love and Sex" in late 2006. And I will continue to offer my advice in this forum, even though you don't like it.

 

At least you've got the religious part correct. AND, there's nothing wromg with suggesting corrective and reasonable answers to problems written annonymously. But the fanaticism,.... oi! On that I will continue to challenge you. BTW, is 10,000 bragging or embarrassingly modest. I percieve you are slightly older than 'mature.'

 

Basketball player Wilt Chamberlain claimed that he had had sex with 20,000 women. That was not 20,000 different women, but 20,000 separate sexual experiences. So if you have sex three or four times a night for 250 nights a year for 20 years, you get 20,000. Or twice a night for 300 nights for 30 years... I am definitely older than you, and thus wiser, and the fanatics I see in this forum are the NOCIRC guys.

 

I have to agree with you on the fanatics being the nocirc guys. You never seem to hear a cut guy saying "Foreskins are bad! Cut them off! Don't you realise how much better circumcised is?" Where as you constantly have foreskinned guys banging on about circumcision being mutilation and a stupid pointless practise. I haven't got anything against foreskins. But it seems that a lot of foreskinned guys on this forum (not all) have something against circumcision.

 

I'm not against circumcision per se, especially when performed as a medical necessity.

I do, however, consider it as mutilation - which, quite frankly, cannot be denied - after all, any form of unnecessary incision into the skin is mutilation, plain & simple.

What I am primarily opposed to is the performance of such mutilations on anyone too young to have a choice in the matter - and my feelings in this are not restricted to genital mutilation, but any other kind of invasive surgery performed for the mere vanity or culture of the parents, such as ear or nose piercings on babies.

Once the child reaches the age at which he or she is capable of making an enlightened choice, then fair enough, it's their body - but a baby should never be treated as property & be permanently scarred with something that is morally no different from that of the branding of a slave.

 

I don't think I understand this. First I don't know what kind I have. Are there different kinds ? And what differance does it make. I don't think it is mutilation or anything. It may have bummed me out at the time but I don't remember. I never even thought about it until now. I don't think it matters at all.

Peace

 

Silverhippy - There are three different types of circumcisions:
1. a "loose cut" like I have,where only about a third of the foreskin is cut off, so the loose skin sits behind the glans when the penis is soft, and the remaining foreskin can be pulled entirely over the head when soft, and about 2/3 over it when hard. Even when fully erect, some of the foreskin still remains not stretched out on the shaft.

2. A "regular cut", where some of the foreskin remains, as well as the frenulum (the stringy thing in the "inverted v" on the underside of the glans), which helps with arousal when it is stretched. The remaining foreskin is usually absorbed entirely on the shaft during an erection. This is the most common type of circumcision.

3. A "tight cut", where all or most of the foreskin is cut off, as well as the frenulum, meaning that some of the scrotal skin moves up the shaft when the penis is erect. This type of circumcision is rarely done today.

There are also primative types of circumcisions such as a "dorsal slit", where the foreskin is just cut lengthwise for an inch or so, allowing the entire foreskin to remain on the penis, but not covering the glans. Used mostly in South Pacific island tribes.

There are also new types of circumcisions which involve cutting some of the tightness out of the foreskin which prevents retraction of the foreskin in perhaps 5-10% of uncut guys, and restitching the foreskin together in a way that allows full retraction, and allows the male to "wear" his foreskin covering the glans or fully retracted when soft. This procedure is very new and not yet fully tested and available.

I think most guys are happy with their penises, cut or uncut, unless it is uncut and cannot be retracted over the glans at all, which requires surgery if the person wants a normal sex life.

 

I'm not circumcised, I still have all my skin to play with! Where I live we don't use circumcition.

 

Oh ok Thank's. But I still don't know just what kind I have. Oh well I still don't think I care. It still works so I am happy. Thank's for the info.

Peace