Circumcision is Unnatural and should be class as Child Mutilation.

Yeah, its all up to personal preference. Most men are either circumcised or uncircumcised because their father was one or the other.

I always thought it was a Jewish thing, but then I heard that most Americans are circumcised. My wang is still stock. No modification. Personally I'm grateful that my parents decided not to have me circumcised.

About the hygiene thing, my parents taught me from very early on to wash it. My mum actually used to say " If you don't wash it it'll drop off!"

I don't think its very common in Australia to be circumcised, all my friends at school except one were uncircumcised and it was a pretty large group. But I mean we're born with it, so it's meant to be there right?

Originally posted by Torgo

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by TechUnique

 

Another thing one might want to ponder is the lack of physical stimulation an uncircumcised man has during sex. Removing the foreskin allow greater friction during sex and thus greater pleasure.

The foreskin contains the most nerve cells on the penis, and it works in tandem with a vagina to ease irritation caused by needless friction for both parties, so I'm kind of confused as to how you came to that conclusion. Oh wait:

BTW I am happily circumcised.

...nevermind.

No, uh... I did the research. Medicine disagrees. Besides, what good are nerve cells if you can't stimulate them in the first place. It would be hard for you to tickle my feet and make me laugh with my shoes on.

Originally posted by la2
Oh please, does this really matter?

I have been circumcised for medical reasons, and i'm glad i was.

OP should turn on the news sometime and see whats going on in the world right now, some of the crap people post on here is completely laughable!!!!

Wow , just because I spent a few minutes typing up this thread I automatically show no care for the very important events unfolding before our eyes as we speak?

Grow up fellow brum.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

The foreskin "can" be pulled back, but you won't get any more pleasure than the limited amount one would have anyway. The more skin you have, the less stimulation you have. No foreskin makes for a more stiff and rigid penis, and that means more friction once inside, and that means more bliss.

One of the reasons some men don't like condoms is because it makes for less friction and less pleasure. All that unnecessary skin does the same thing.

As for cleanliness, there are hordes of medical testimony on that.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

I would argue that your penis has been rubbing on the inside of your clothes since you had your op and therefore has become desensitised over time. Can't prove it but I know for a fact when my helmet is knocking about on the inside of my boxers there is some serious chaffing going down.

reply to post by Fromabove

Besides, what good are nerve cells if you can't stimulate them in the first place. It would be hard for you to tickle my feet and make me laugh with my shoes on.

When an uncut guy is happy, the end tip of the hood pulls back on itself leaving the under hood skin exposed covering part of the shaft.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Yes, ATS need a 21st thread about circumcision. It's a personal decision. Don't want one, don't get one for you or your male progeny.

Once again, we get this misuse of the term ''personal choice'' to selfishly justify something that affects somebody else.

It's easy to say it's a ''personal choice'' when you're not the one who will go through life with a chopped-up willy !

Is it a ''personal choice'' for someone to have their daughter circumcised ?

Female circumcision is quite rightly classed as ''female genital mutilation'', and it's about time that people start to realise that circumcising both boys and girls constitutes genital mutilation.

reply to post by Big Raging Loner


What is true is that my penis is seemingly very easily stimulated without much effort at all. Since my boy doesn't have a jacket on he's more sensitive to his surroundings. But you learn to live with it I suppose. But the best part is the ease of cleaning and the lack of the serious fungal diseases that a woman can give a man. But easy stimulation with hardly any effort, it's like riding in the park with a high performance race car. Ready to go at a moments notice.

I am on the "This cant be right cutting up a child right after birth" side.

Surely common sense sees that this should not be practiced, why on earth would we cut anything off this beautiful body we are blessed with. There is no sense to this butchery.

reply to post by Fromabove


To each there own and it is important to appreciate the awesome member you've got whatever it looks like!

But in regards to ease of washing. It's really, really easy to wash an uncircumcised penis. I would say if you can't do that give up, or suffer the cheese, I mean consequences!

reply to post by Fromabove


Then would you care to present your research to the rest of us, especially the parts that "medicine" agrees with you? Something like:

"With intravaginal containment of the normal penis, the male's mobile sheath is placed within the woman's vaginal sheath. It is impossible to imagine a better mechanical arrangement for non-abrasive stimulation of the male and female genitalia than this slick 'sheath within a sheath.' Circumcision destroys this one sheath within a sheath . . . I would hazard a guess, that dyspareunia [painful intercourse] is more common in the women whose husband is circumcised . . . one would be foolish to discount the circumcised male's immobile penile skin sheath as an ancillary item contributing to vaginal, abrasive discomfort . . . The male with a penis already moderately obtunded by circumcision may be less apt to use a condom, which he feels may further decrease his genital sensitivity . . . because most American males lack a facile prepuce, the period of foreplay and dalliance may be abbreviated in the rush to the intra-vaginal method of penile stimulation. Both these factors conceivably could be of significance in increasing the rate of venereal disease, including AIDS . . . "

(Say No to Circumcision! 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Leave Your Son Whole (2nd edition), by Thomas A. Ritter, MD, Hourglass Book Publishing 1996)

CIRP

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

What is true is that my penis is seemingly very easily stimulated without much effort at all. Since my boy doesn't have a jacket on he's more sensitive to his surroundings. But you learn to live with it I suppose. But the best part is the ease of cleaning and the lack of the serious fungal diseases that a woman can give a man. But easy stimulation with hardly any effort, it's like riding in the park with a high performance race car. Ready to go at a moments notice.


Most guys get easily stimulated by thought alone.

Guys that are uncut can have a chug properly anytime without having to have a wet hand. Or chug in a cut way when you have more time.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

It's incredible how many people will accept something as ''OK'' because it is a social norm, without giving it any kind of critical thought.

The only reason people are justifying mutilating a baby's penis is because it's quite commonplace in our society. Even so that, by most accepted standards of morality and logic, the practice is completely unethical.

Children are not property, so stop cutting them up.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

No misuse there, dude. It's how I see it, as a personal choice. Sorry you don't "like" this. Oh, and my other personal choice is also the circumcised variety. Care to tell me how wrong that is too? To liken this to female circumcision is flat out ignorant. One removes the ability to climax; the other doesn't. But keep stretching. Exercise is good for you.

reply to post by TechUnique

I don't know what kind of world you grew up or are growing up in, but my parents decided all sorts of things for me. Like I said before. If you're not circumcised already and don't want to be, don't be and make sure your own kids aren't. If you're not circumcised and wish you were or If you're circumcised and wish you weren't, see a plastic surgeon and make the decisions for your own newborns. But stay out of other peoples' business because it's none of yours.

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Bingo. It's a question I ask every woman I meet (from all over the world) and have followed many online discussions about. The anecdotal, overwhelming consensus among English-speaking women anyway seems to be circumcised. Some say they don't care but prefer circumcised, but most just prefer circumcised. A few love the uncircumcised ones.

And on that note, I think I'm through typing the word circumcised for the year. Bye.

reply to post by ~Lucidity


You grow up a bit and realise that most other kids have both their ears but your parents decided it was better for you to only have one.

They made that decision for you.

Is that right?

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
No misuse there, dude. It's how I see it, as a personal choice. Sorry you don't "like" this.

I don't care whether you believe it is a ''personal choice'' or not.

I am merely correcting you on your false and illogical belief, and your dishonest defence of child mutilation along these grounds.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
To liken this to female circumcision is flat out ignorant. One removes the ability to climax; the other doesn't.

It's not ignorant, as they are directly comparable. They both involve the removal of smegma-secreting glands.

Both are justified because of claims of hygiene and lowering the risk of infection.

The ignorance is on your part, in your reference to the extreme forms of female circumcision that are often intended to primarily curtail female sexual pleasure, rather than for any alleged health benefits.


Male circumcision has always been commonplace in Western culture, whereas female circumcision has not.

This is the only reason that people accept the mutilation of a child's penis, because they are desensitised ( excuse the pun ) to the procedure being carried out in society, whereas mention of vaginal mutilation engenders a much more negative reaction, due to it being rather uncommon in the West.

Ignoring cultural biases, and looking at the matter logically, will inevitably lead people to the conclusion that cutting up bits of your non-consenting child's genitals is unnecessary, selfish, barbaric, and unethical.

It is cosmetic surgery, nothing more and nothing less...one which robs a child of experiencing sexual pleasure to it's fullest when they are older, over one third of the most sensitive nerves getting chopped off. It has absolute no benefit and the rest of the civilized world agrees, in the UK only 1% or under of people have their child circumcised and the medical community would prefer it be none as it is an unnecessary procedure...circumcision for non jews is just a weird American thing in the end. What i find terrible though is just how much the myths regarding it are perpetuated within the American medical community and society in general.

As a parent, what the hell does it matter what I do with my child? As long as I raise him to be a good friend and neighbor and to contribute to society in a positive light, what does it matter if he's circumcised or not? I don't understand people's need to be intolerant of others. It's not your job to judge.


"Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding." - Gandhi


edit - Before someone tries to come in here attacking me, I'll repeat myself: It's not your job to judge. Your stance on what is tolerable differs from the next, which differs from the other 6 billion people on Earth.

Originally posted by newBodyoldSoul
It's not your job to judge.

But its your job to mutilate your child's sexual organs?

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by Big Raging Loner

 

The foreskin "can" be pulled back, but you won't get any more pleasure than the limited amount one would have anyway. The more skin you have, the less stimulation you have. No foreskin makes for a more stiff and rigid penis, and that means more friction once inside, and that means more bliss.

One of the reasons some men don't like condoms is because it makes for less friction and less pleasure. All that unnecessary skin does the same thing.

As for cleanliness, there are hordes of medical testimony on that.

edit on 24-2-2011 by Fromabove because: (no reason given)

Well, the difference between a foreskin and a condom is pretty important.

A condom is a nonliving sheath of rubber and latex that flattens contours and gives the sensation of going at it with a plastic grocery bag. Complete with crinkles, if you've decided that the proper size is "too small" (seriously guys, yer not fooling anyone when you go up and buy elephant magnums)

A foreskin is living skin, and is packed with something along the lines of 60% of the total nerves in the penis.

Put basically, an uncut penis has the tactile sensitivity of your fingers, while a circumcised one is about as sensitive as your elbow.