My nephew’s penis

[phage]

>Believe it or not, my ultra right-wing, conservative,

>religious sister and I have a great relationship. But she

>helped me realize there are some matters that are really

>none of my business. She also acknowledged that there are

>parts of my life that are "off limits" to her beliefs.

>

Thanks for the feedback, but my family has a more “it takes a village” communal approach to raising children. I helped raise my niece. I mean really helped – not just babysat occasionally. Just as I would never dream of ignoring the responsibilities my family places on its adult members, my niece would never dream of making me feel like it is none of my business. Ultimately, she will make the decision she feels is right, but I want her to have all the facts.

 

I’m not quite sure what it would feel like to have part of my life off limits. My sisters know absolutely everything about my life and never hesitate to comment, guide and instruct me on the proper way to live it. Obviously the reverse is true too and I bring my unique perspective to their otherwise normal hetero lives. (Everything I know about breeder sex is from my sisters. ) It can definitely make things difficult – just try bringing home a new boyfriend! But on the other hand, if I die tomorrow, nobody is going to be shocked when they clean out my house and find the dildo collection!

[phage]

My niece is having a baby boy. Even more outrageous than the fact that the little breeder is making me a granduncle (I couldn’t stand even writing “great-nephew” in the title of this thread.) is the fact that she is going to have the little guy circumcised!

 

I have been trying to convince her to skip the mutilation but am not having any luck. Generally, my family defers to me on all matters penis related. They recognize that the gay guy undoubtedly has the most experience in this area and certainly has put the most time and thought into it. However, on this one she is clinging to her heterosexual American female bias towards the clean lines of a circumcised member. She is convinced that the other boys will make fun of him and the girls will gag upon first sight.

 

I tried explaining that being uncut was actually very sexy and might be a particular bonus if the kid turned out to be gay. She was unmoved. Apparently, it’s wonderful and fun to have a gay uncle, but it’s a wholly different matter when we are talking about the fruit of her loins.

 

I tried to explain that the practice was declining or already rare in the rest of the civilized world except where linked to religious beliefs. Still unmoved. She is a typical American princess and not at all concerned about what the rest of the world is doing with their penises.

 

Last, I tried the argument that she would be robbing him of the increased sexual pleasure that comes from having a more sensitive, uncircumcised penis. This got her attention but she demanded facts to back up my assertion. (Sounds like some of you guys.) I told her that my general belief is that it has to do with the head of the penis being exposed throughout a man’s life and the desensitizing effect that has. I also made some inane comment about wearing her clit on the outside of her body and what that might do to it. Although horrified by the visual, she remains unconvinced.

 

The bottom line is that I realized I was full of shit. I have it in my head that an uncircumcised penis is a more sensitive penis, but I don’t have anything more than a few anecdotal encounters to base that on. The truth may be that I just think that uncut cocks are hot looking and therefore better in some way.

 

I doubt there are any serious empirical studies to quote, but does anyone have any solid information on this subject? I’m looking for ammunition to save my nephew’s (all right…great-nephew’s) foreskin.

[HooBoy]

You can get some solid arguments for your case from Dr. Dean Udel at http://healthcentral.com

 

Good luck!

 

HooBoy

[Guest JT]

Hi Phage,

 

First, congrats for becoming a grand-uncle...oops I mean a GREAT uncle!

 

 

>The bottom line is that I realized I was full of shit.

 

No way! You must be kidding! :o

 

 

>I have it in my head that an uncircumcised penis is a more

>sensitive penis, but I don’t have anything more than a few

>anecdotal encounters to base that on. The truth may be that

>I just think that uncut cocks are hot looking and therefore

>better in some way.

 

 

You don't need any scientific data to back up your claim. You are the PHAGE --- the EATER! That's all you need to tell her. If she still needs more evidence, just tell her you're the MACROPHAGE --- a BIG EATER. Your personal experience of cock-eating should by itself make you the indisputable authority on this matter! (Okay, don't tell her that the word phage can also been bacteriophage --- virus that infects bacteria. I'm afraid that may not go too well with her!)

 

>I doubt there are any serious empirical studies to quote,

>but does anyone have any solid information on this subject?

>I’m looking for ammunition to save my nephew’s (all

>right…great-nephew’s) foreskin.

 

Show her tons of pics of gorgeous naked, uncut men! That would at least distract her long enough such that you can pretend the circumcision has been performed on her son. You can also show the doctor those pics, perhaps he will change his mind! ;-)

 

JT

[OneFinger]

This may not be a popular approach but here's how we handled the cut vs. uncut situation in my family.

 

When I brought up the subject to my pregant sister, she offered this alternative to the discussion. She promised not to interfere with how I lived my gay life if I promised not to interfere with the decisions she made concerning the foreskin status of her children.

 

Believe it or not, my ultra right-wing, conservative, religious sister and I have a great relationship. But she helped me realize there are some matters that are really none of my business. She also acknowledged that there are parts of my life that are "off limits" to her beliefs.

 

My belief is that cut or uncut is really a parental decision. I personally prefer uncut, But, since I'm not the father, my opinion is meaningless.

[+ deej]

Nicely said.

[Guest Kevin 2]

<Generally, my family defers to me on all matters penis related.>

LMAO..Sorry but that was funny as hell.

I tend to agree with the One Finger(sister) that it's the parents choice to decide. My sister wanted her son cut and her husband said NO because he was uncut. Later when the poor boy was 9 y/o and wouldn't keep it clean(yikes) she had him cut then(double Yikes!) However she did warn him if he didn't...she would ..and Yikes she did! :o

[Guest 7Zach]

In my family, it was done as a matter of hygiene. But when I think about it, I think about which place I would rather be if I were a penis - out in the cold, rubbing up and against cotton all day - or in a warm, dark, somewhat moist place, snug in a rug. That's got my vote.

[Guest BenDover]

Well. Phage, that was beautifully said. The cut/uncut penis discussion was interesting. But I really got off on hearing about your relationships with your sisters and family. That is too cool.

[Guest Merlin]

Any uncut guy can testify that the head of the uncut penis is MUCH more sensitive than the head of a cut one. How do we know? Because cut guys can wear clothes. For an uncut guy to peel back the forskin and wear clothes would be extremely uncomfortable. The clothes touching the head would be painful. It is even uncomfortable to wash it with a washcloth. Even washing with the fingers is somewhat uncomfortable. Some cut guys are so sensitive that they don't like to be sucked. But once the penis becomes erect, the head is much less sensitive. I assume that the erect penis is still more sensitive than the uncut, erect penis, but I have no way to know that. There must be medical resources on the internet which will confirm this.

[Guest Kenny]

Contrary to the majority opinion here, there are some guys who PREFER cut. They actually find uncut dicks unattractive. As for you and your niece, you gave your opinion, she rejected it. So be it. If you keep badgering her, she should simply tell you to Fuck Off. It's not your decision, it's the parents'.:-)

[trilingual]

From an aesthetic standpoint, I don't really care if someone's cut or uncut, although if they're uncut they'd better be clean and heir foreskin had better skin back when they're erect. I'm cut (goes with the territory when you're Jewish) and I can tell you that there's nothing non-sensitive about my dick when I'm having sex. On occasion it's so sensitive (especially right after cumming) that it's almost unbearable. Also, I have known a few guys who decided to be circumcised as adults after converting to Judaism. Being nosy, I asked them if they noticed much difference in their sensitivity before and after, and their responses all were that they didn't feel there was much difference at all. None of them were sorry they'd done it.

 

I do have one friend in Germany (non-Jewish) who was circumcised for medical reasons a few years ago and is now unhappy, mainly because it makes him stand out in locker rooms/swimming pools/etc. He's using one of those stretcher things to try to regain a foreskin; at last report he was satisfied with how it was working. However, I suspect that a new re-stretched foreskin won't have the glands in the original foreskin that provide lubrication. And that's all I know on this subject!

[+ Charlie]

I would tell her to read the book "As Nature Made Him" by John Colapinto, to see what can go wrong with a "routine" circumcision. (It's the story of the boy in Canada who was raised as a girl after the doctor accidentally burned off the baby's penis during a standard circumcision procedure in a hospital.)

[trilingual]

I do object to the virulently anti-circumcision types who (probably) include the author of the book you mention. Of course, I can imagine she has strong feelings if her child died as a result of the surgery, but it isn't possible to extrapolate from that experience, and one has to keep a certain degree of perspective. Literally millions of boys and men are circumcised every year, and the rate of complications, to my knowledge, is extremely low, at least in places where circumcision in practiced in sanitary environments.

 

Whether or not to circumcise one's son is obviously a personal decision that can be based on a lot of factors. But the "anti-mutilation" crowd has more than a whiff of the ayatollah syndrome, being positive they know more than any of the rest of us do about what's good for us and insisting we follow their dictates. Thanks, but no thanks!

[+ Charlie]

The book is not anti-circumcision (it's really about sexologists and is violently anti-gender-assignment-theory), but it does contain a cautionary tale about "routine" surgeries. I am circumcised myself, and I greatly prefer it that way.

[Guest starfucker]

There are many websites (pro and con) to be found with a net search but it seems that your sister has already made up her mind on the issue. What about the father's opinion? It angers me women often makes this choice as if they knows what is best for anatomy that they don't possess. Circumcisions are torturously painful. Do parents think this a good show of love and nurture for their newborn sons?

 

If your sister is worried that he will look different than the other boys she should know that boys don't spend a lot of time examining and commenting on anothers penis. The U.S. rate for circumcision is dropping and the boy certainly wouldn't be the one only in his class with a foreskin. As for cleanliness that's a matter of taught personal hygiene, just as we learn to wipe our ass.

 

Your sister would be doing best by not mutilating the boy at infancy. If he is unhappy with his natural state he can change it later.

[Guest]

This book had almost nothing to do with circumcision. Circumcisions are not usually done by burning off anything. The theme of the book was that nature, not nurture determines sexual preference and gender identity. The parents tried to bring the child up as a girl, and he felt terribly out of place until late adolescence when he found out the truth, then "changed back" to male anatomy and identity (including changing from female to male hormones). The guy never fit in socially until he accepted the role his brain had intended, apparently by the time of birth.

 

Now for my opinions on circumcision. It's a big ado about nothing. It makes really little difference to the boy or man either way. There is no credible evidence that uncut men are more sexually satisfied than cut men (in fact, I've met a couple of men who were cut later in life--there was no deleterious effect on sexual response).

The circumcision is not torture. These days, the penis is usually anesthetized, and anyone who's seen them done these days knows that the baby stops crying by the time he's in Mom's arms. Besides, young boys often cry when Moms pull the foreskin back to clean the head of the penis. Is the Mom torturing the boy because she didn't have the boy circumcized? Of course not.

Some pro-circumciscion proponents point out that uncut boys have more kidney and bladder infections, penile infections including yeast, phimosis (trapped penis heads), and that cut men do not get penile cancer as some uncut men do. Also, cut men get fewer STD's. Most of these probelms, though, are not terribly serious or easily preventable.

Basically, I've found that cut heterosexual men prefer to have cut boys, and vice-a-versa. And gay guys who like uncut men have fits over seeing baby boys getting cut. Well, I personally don't care whether a guy is cut or not (nor do I find it makes a difference in how well they perform), as long as the member is clean. And I also feel people spend too much energy worrying about the issue. One might as well pitch a fit because a Mom pierces a girl's earlobe without her consent.

[Guest starfucker]

<< One might as well pitch a fit because a Mom pierces a girl's earlobe without her consent.>>

 

Piercing an earlobe and male circumcision are certainly not an equal comparison. Slicing off an earlobe and circumcision would be.

 

Since anesthetics can pose serious complications when administered to infants they are seldom used during hospital circumcisions. The parents do not witness the procedure. If they did the circumcision rate would dramatically decline in this country.

 

Ignorance = condonation.

[trilingual]

You've gotta be kidding. Do it later? It's much more uncomfortable and takes longer to heal as an adult than as a baby.

 

Anesthesia: they don't do it under general anesthesia. A local anesthetic is applied, then snip! The whole thing only takes a couple of seconds.

 

Mutilation: 99% of us who are circumcised don't consider ourselves mutilated. When I see guys who've put things through the end of their dicks (not to mention other parts of their body) that's MY idea of mutilation. So is female "circumcision," which is deliberately intended to destroy a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. Totally different from male circumcision.

[Guest]

><< One might as well pitch a fit because a Mom pierces a

>girl's earlobe without her consent.>>

>

>Piercing an earlobe and male circumcision are certainly not

>an equal comparison. Slicing off an earlobe and

>circumcision would be.

>

>Since anesthetics can pose serious complications when

>administered to infants they are seldom used during hospital

>circumcisions. The parents do not witness the procedure.

>If they did the circumcision rate would dramatically decline

>in this country.

>

>Ignorance = condonation.

 

Hmmm. I'm afraid you're showing some of your own ignorance here. A small amount of anesthesia is routinely placed at the base of the penis to numb the nerve to the penis. There is certainly no risk of "serious complications." This is standard practice, per guidelines from American Academy of Pediatrics, Family Practice, and Obstetrics. Perhaps you should get your facts straight before forming your opinions, let alone accusing others of ignorance.

 

The earlobe comparison is also clearly off-base. Almost everybody would agree that an amputated earlobe looks bad. I doubt most people really care about the aesthetics of cut versus uncut. Nevertheless, going through porn magazines, one sees that most show the models with the foreskins retracted, whether the models are from North America, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, France, Mexico, or Thailand. Although you might say "Oh, that's just US preferences!" (although circumcision is mainly performed in the US, Israel, and Islamic countries), the foreskins are pulled back in most porn magazines from foreign countries as well. Therefore I don't believe most people on this planet (let alone the US), think that a cut penis looks "ugly."

[Guest starfucker]

<<You've gotta be kidding. Do it later? It's much more uncomfortable and takes longer to heal as an

adult than as a baby. >>

 

You statement that it is less uncomfortable for an infant is a presumption.

 

<<Anesthesia: they don't do it under general anesthesia. A local anesthetic is applied, then snip! The

whole thing only takes a couple of seconds.>>

 

An anesthetic can cause swelling and is NOT always used. The procedure is also frequently not just a snip that takes a couple seconds. If you have the stomach for graphic photos of the procedure, see for yourself......

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

 

<<Mutilation: 99% of us who are circumcised don't consider ourselves mutilated. When I see guys

who've put things through the end of their dicks (not to mention other parts of their body) that's

MY idea of mutilation. So is female "circumcision," which is deliberately intended to destroy a

woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure. Totally different from male circumcision.>>

 

The photo of an escort recently reviewed shows a mutilated penis. You may be so accustomed to seeing mutilation by circumcision that you no longer notice it. The U.S. practice of male circumcision became popular due to the belief that it would stop masturbation.:7 It wasn't intended to destroy sexual pleasure but most men who are circumcised as adults will admit to a loss of sensitivity.

(sensitivity = pleasure)

 

Although 99% unnecessary, circumcision is the U.S. is an accepted part of the cultural norm. I just wish that parents were a little more open minded and informed about the procedure and potential negative effects before they casually sign the dotted line.

 

PLEASE look through this website ......

 

http://www.cirp.org

[Guest Kevin 2]

I have no doubt this procedure is painful either as a child or an adult. However I can say one thing being cut myself I sure don't remember it way back when, I can bet money if I waited til I was an adult I would have remembered it! Saying that and having refered to the website on this procedure I'm quit sure I was a screaming little boy then.

[Guest]

>http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/

 

The Plastibell technique is the least-used (although admittedly grossest) form of circumcision in this country.

 

>The U.S. practice

>of male circumcision became popular due to the belief that

>it would stop masturbation.:7 It wasn't intended to

>destroy sexual pleasure but most men who are circumcised as

>adults will admit to a loss of sensitivity.

>(sensitivity = pleasure)

>

 

Would you mind giving us sources to both of these claims? In the not-so-distant past (70's), pediatricians, obstetricians, and family phyisicans used to promote it for reasons of hygeine. In the 80's the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) put out a statement which mildly discouraged circumcisions, stating something along the lines of "There's no compelling medical reason to recommend circumcisions." The statement was ammended in the 90's to be "more neutral" in the AAP's words, after data came out showing cirucumcised boys have significantly fewer Urinary Tract Infections. The statement now reads something along the lines of "The decision for circumcision must be individualized to the parents' culture, bearing in mind the relatively minor health benefits involved."

I've spoken with a number of men who've been circumcized as adults, and have never heard one who felt their sexual pleasure has decreased as a result. If you've seen true scientific data which states otherwise, please share it with us (i.e. cite journal name and volume/issue number).

[trilingual]

To my knowledge, modern medical practice uses a topical anesthetic when doing infant circumcisions. In the past it was believed newborns didn't experience pain to the same degree as older individuals do, but that's been proved to be untrue so now anesthesia is recommended. However, that wasn't the case when I was a baby, and I certainly don't remember my own circumcision when I was eight days old, yet I don't have any complex about it. So why do certain people make such a big deal about it?

 

I've been active in gay Jewish congregations where some adult male converts decided to be circumcised, and, as I've said, when I inquired, they all said it wasn't as uncomfortable as they'd anticipated and that they really didn't notice any significant difference in sensitivity.

 

As for benefits, there have been some studies in Africa that indicate that circumcised men have much lower chances of acquiring AIDS in heterosexual intercourse than non-circumcised men do. There do seem to be some general benefits, such as lower rates of penile cancer. However, I'm not proselytizing for circumcision. I'm just tired of the ayatollah/Taliban mentality of the anti-circumcision types (just like the PETA types) who know what's best for all the rest of us and insist

we do as they tell us to!

[Guest cp8036]

<..It angers me women often makes this choice as if they knows what is best for anatomy that they don't possess...>

 

But, then again, we have mostly straight white males making laws about women's reproductive rights.... abortions.

 

I am not pro or con abortion.. but just a thought.