Circumcision

My son is not circumcised. My husband is. You know how "they" (the docs and stuff) give you reasons for and against circumcision and one of the for reasons is how if the father is he may want his son to look like him....luckily my hubby thought that was ridiculous. He was actually like..."I don't think he'll be looking at mine that often to bother him that his is a bit different." ...which I thought was funny.
The only other thing... the cleanliness/disease thing...all you gotta do there is teach your son how to clean properly and inform him about protection, etc. - Simple.

Anyways something I thought was fairly interesting...and sorry this is just for the US... I picked up a baby magazine at doctor last time and there was a list for 2013, dividing the US into four sections and showed the varying circumcision rates for the country. They are quite different. In the west (CA, AZ,... well, ALL of the west... north and south west) was that only 40% circumcised in 2013... Northeast-68%....Midwest 72%.... Southeast I believe was 64% (def lower than northeast but way higher than west.).... on first thought okay, could be a liberal thing with CA and all...but not really as the NE is a higher rate than the SE. Anyways, just thought the difference in rates throughout the country was kinda interesting.

 

I had to undergo a circumcision a couple of years ago due to an old injury constantly getting torn open during sex & masturbation, thus increasing scar tissue & consequentially tightening the foreskin over the years. However, as I was only under local anaesthetic & could discuss the matter as it was happening, I was fortunate enough to have a surgeon who was also opposed to the idea of unnecessary circumcision & was able to minimise the effect by only removing the affected section, thus resulting in only a partial circumcision. However, although just as Cutted has already described, it may initially appear as being uncut, it has still lost a great deal of its sensitivity by not being as moist as it used to be & thus desensitising lots of the nerves.

I consider circumcision at birth to be inexcusable, as the baby has no choice in a matter that will affect him for the rest of his life. If a man chooses to undergo the procedure later in life, then that is his personal decision. However, there are far too many men who think it might be 'cool' to be circumcised, and then live to regret it, as it's not something that can ever be reversed. Sure, there are procedures that can be made to 'restore' the foreskin, but in reality, this in only cosmetic as the foreskin is comprised of an entirely different genetic structure than anywhere else in the body, and once the damage is done, it's permanent. Perhaps one day, with the advent of stem cell research it may be possible to improve the surgical effectiveness, but I doubt it will ever be perfect.

Personally I greatly regret having to have the operation. Sex was far more enjoyable beforehand, and it used to be far more aesthetically pleasing, but it was simply something that had to be done for medical reasons. Anyone who is considering having it done for the sake of vanity - DON'T DO IT - you'll regret it!

 

The latest statistics show that 81% of American men ages 14-49 are circumcised (and the rate is higher for those over 50, closer to 90% for white men whose mothers have gone to college). The newborn rate of circumcision for American boys born in hospitals is 77%. The rate is lower in the West because of the influx of Mexican immigrants, who don't usually circumcise, and Asians, who often don't unless they are Filipino or Korean. White boys in the West are still mostly circumcised.

 

Yeah it's great having stuff like that done to you without being asked.

 

Fixed

 

It is. :sunny:

It saved me the trouble of having it done when I was older. :2thumbsup:

 

i would take any of them

 

Statistics don't really prove anything as they are nearly always open to interpretation.
You claim that the lowering rate of circumcision is due to the influx of South Americans. Well I see the immigration as more of a constant in the equation & can therefore be disregarded. Those same figures suggest to me more a matter of more & more people reaching higher levels of education & finally beginning to move away from the primitive dogma of the Middle Ages.

 

I am against genital mutilation, period. The only exception is when it's needed due to phimosis or a short frenulum or some other thing that requires the surgery.

This side of the border (at least in my experience as a gay man), most like an uncut dick better (I'm talking about gay men in Canada). And it seems that less kids are getting unnecessarily circumcised. I'm glad the trend is going in that direction instead of having people chop off their newborn's pinky toes so they don't hurt them with the furniture when they walk around barefoot.

Now, what's that "the majority likes it, therefore it's good"? That's a fallacious argument (argumentum ad populum).

 

There are two million illegal immigrants in California, mostly from Mexico and Latin America and Asia, and most of them came to the U.S. in recent years with their foreskins intact.

 

Uncircumcised dicks are disgusting. End of story.

 

As I said I had to undergo a surgery for phimosis but if I had been free to decide I wouldn't have had the surgery.
Until I didn't have any health problems I loved my cock as it was, with foreskin.


Inviato dal mio iPhone usando Tapatalk

 

99% of the people i have talked to on the subject love their cock the way they are used to it being.

 

http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/

 

This video is ridiculous. Circumcised penises can do everything uncut ones can. And mine is cut but not, as I have 80% of my foreskin; the only difference it is sits behind the head normally when flaccid, although I can pull it over the head.

 

thats why i didnt even watch the video. you can tell they had an agenda and would twist or out right lie about facts.
you will never change peoples preference.

 

I was circumcised while I was in college to correct phimosis. I was sexually active prior and think I have some pretty decent insight on this matter.

It's not a very big difference. Going from a turtleneck to a crew neck was pretty shocking at first, but once you acclimate your penis is still your penis and all of your favorite pastimes are still your favorites.

Masturbation is generally less pleasurable. It's difficult to explain because an orgasm is still the same orgasm, foreskin or not, but there isn't as much redundant skin to play with, ergo, it's not as fun.

I had less than ten blowjobs before I was cut, so I wasn't a connoisseur exactly, but I can honestly tell you that I have suffered zero degradation of my enjoyment of having a woman take my cock into her mouth and do the things that happen during a blowjob.

I've read a lot of polls and studies where men that were cut as adults report less pleasure during sex, but I think that must be extremely subjective. If it's objective, then the difference is very slight and becomes less and less important with time.

 

i am not saying there is anything wrong with this post or your opinion...just that i dont think you can compare being cut as an adult to that of being cut as a newborn. all the stats can be calculated but none of them mean squat do to the fact that a fresh cut stalk is not the same at a manicured stalk.

 

I'm not sure I follow. I have no idea what it's like to be circumcised as an infant, but my stalk hasn't been fresh cut for over 15 years.

My opinion is merely that the difference between being circumcised and uncircumcised isn't very significant. If you want to leave your boys whole, that's great. If not, I think that's also fine. It's not something I have mourned. I had my son circumcised after all the problems that I had, but those were my own reasons and I wouldn't recommend one way or the other to anyone else. Trust your gut and you'll probably be right.