To cut or not to cut?

[BaronArtz]

And yours is the typical attitude of men who haven't been circumcised. A great big "Why?"

 

Why? Because my uncut penis is more sensitive and sex is therefore more pleasurable. That's what I'm thinking. I find circumcised penises 'rougher'.

[Rudynate]

Why? Because my uncut penis is more sensitive and sex is therefore more pleasurable. That's what I'm thinking. I find circumcised penises 'rougher'.

 

I meant "why" to circumcision.

[+ purplekow]

Why? Because my uncut penis is more sensitive and sex is therefore more pleasurable. That's what I'm thinking. I find circumcised penises 'rougher'.

I like it rough, so there you go. There are enough medical reasons to strongly consider circumcision, but probably not enough to justify making it a standard of practice for which the parents would need to opt out.

I have found men who are uncut are more sensitive to touch, but not necessarily in a good way. It is likely that this is related to my being more familiar with cut cocks, such as my own, and the touch of lips, tongue, hand and especially facial stubble to the glans needs to be considerably less aggressive with uncut man than with cut men and I am accustomed touching it with a bit of roughness.

Either way, I love cock in all its shapes, sizes, colors and configurations. So bring on what you got and we will have fun from there.

[+ Funguy]

I'm definitely no poo-pooing immunizations. I agree that they should be mandatory in order to enroll in school. But let's get real, although whooping cough causes misery, the largest number of people who've died from whooping cough in the U.S. is 20 (in 2012) over the last 60 years, and most of those were babies.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks/trends.html

 

Strangely, over 100 times that number die of cervical cancer, anal cancer, penile cancer, and HPV-related throat cancers, yet HPV vaccines are NOT required for school. They should be required by the 7th grade.

 

I promise - my last word on the subject of immunizations - yes, the article you quote from 2012 does state only 20 pertussis-related deaths and, yes, most were infants. But even since then pertussis is on a significant rise, women are now encouraged to get the vaccine in their 3rd trimester so they can pass some immunity to the newborn, all caretakers (parents, nannies, grandparents, etc.) as well as frequent visitors are now being strongly encouraged to get the vaccine to protect the little ones before they are vaccinated.

 

In addition, the article only mentions mortality. Morbidity is terrible - it is not necessarily the breathing issue that might kill the infant but there is a toxin produced by the bacteria which causes brain damage and the cost of this complication in terms of money AND poor outcome is disastrous. So, yes, a whole lot of misery.

 

And, by the way, have you had pertussis? As an adult I had it and the cough and headache for 8+ weeks is horrible, not just an inconvenience.

[Rudynate]

I promise - my last word on the subject of immunizations - yes, the article you quote from 2012 does state only 20 pertussis-related deaths and, yes, most were infants. But even since then pertussis is on a significant rise, women are now encouraged to get the vaccine in their 3rd trimester so they can pass some immunity to the newborn, all caretakers (parents, nannies, grandparents, etc.) as well as frequent visitors are now being strongly encouraged to get the vaccine to protect the little ones before they are vaccinated.

 

In addition, the article only mentions mortality. Morbidity is terrible - it is not necessarily the breathing issue that might kill the infant but there is a toxin produced by the bacteria which causes brain damage and the cost of this complication in terms of money AND poor outcome is disastrous. So, yes, a whole lot of misery.

 

And, by the way, have you had pertussis? As an adult I had it and the cough and headache for 8+ weeks is horrible, not just an inconvenience.

 

 

A friend of mine who is in his 70s had it this past winter.

 

I have a vague memory of a pertussis epidemic in the mid -50s. I was in pre-school (back then it was called "nursery school") and it was the dead of winter. There were some days when absenteeism was really high, and I remember hearing the teachers discussing it: "Where's Suzy". "She has whooping cough." "What happened to Tommy?" "Out with whooping cough," etc., etc.

[liubit]

I am circumcised myself, a procedure I underwent as an infant. Of course, nobody asked me, it was totally my parents' decision, but I do not care. I have lived a very active and healthy sexual life, "mutilated" or not. As for partners, I do not have a preference: cut or uncut will do, as long as they are clean. I am glad I feel that way, because I have lived both in the US and in Europe. In the US, almost all my partners were cut. Now in Prague, most (if not all) of my boys are uncut...If I disliked one of the two conditions, I would have missed half the fun!!! Like purplekow, "I love cock in all its shapes, sizes, colors and configurations". Oh, and playing with foreskin does have a certain thrill....

[MsGuy]

Much ado about not very much.

[+ FreshFluff]

Conceptually, I'm agnostic on the issue. Assuming that the studies regarding sexual satisfaction and sensitivity dealt with men who were circumcised before puberty rather than those (who I suspect are only a handful anyway) who experienced sex pre- and post-circumcision, all they can prove is that circumcision doesn't prevent sex from being enjoyable. They can't possibly prove that the level of enjoyment and sensitivity are the same because there's no basis for comparison.

 

Sure they can. Ask each group to rate how much they enjoy sex (using a variety of different questions) and compare the two populations. You can also use behavioral measures, such as how long it takes each group to orgasm. The same method is used to compare happiness levels across different populations.

[Rudynate]

My usual way of dealing with a thread that I don't find interesting is to ignore it.

[Guest]

They can't possibly prove that the level of enjoyment and sensitivity are the same because there's no basis for comparison.

They can (and have) queried those who were circumcised as adults, and those men report no loss of enjoyment or sensitivity. In our urology clinic, we often get requests from teens and adults requesting circumcision without a medical need. I must inform the referrer (i.e. primary care provider) that due to financial reasons, we are unable to schedule these unless it's medically necessary, because insurance won't pay. Doing it later, as I'm sure we're all aware, greatly increases cost, risk, and recovery time.

There is no "right" answer to this question. I personally don't care much whether or not a man is circumcised or not (as long as it's clean, of course). Although I very slightly prefer cut men, this preference is way, way down in terms of what I find important. It is so unimportant to me, that I wouldn't think of asking. There is little I find less important to me than whether or not a man is cut.

[Guest]

My usual way of dealing with a thread that I don't find interesting is to ignore it.

 

Judging by the number of responses you've made on this string, then, I take it you find this thread VERY interesting!

 

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000315835/polls_very_interesting_2020_131972_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

[+ Funguy]

My usual way of dealing with a thread that I don't find interesting is to ignore it.

 

LOL - sure do have a lot of posts for something you don't find interesting...tho I agree it has run its course.

[Rudynate]

LOL - sure do have a lot of posts for something you don't find interesting...tho I agree it has run its course.

 

No I find it a topic of abiding interest. But some indicated that they were fatigued by the topic. I offering coaching in how best to deal with a thread one find's tedious.

 

Message board threads have lives of their own. If people keep posting to it, it clearly hasn't run its course.

[Rudynate]

Judging by the number of responses you've made on this string, then, I take it you find this thread VERY interesting!

 

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000315835/polls_very_interesting_2020_131972_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

 

You bet. And in spite of your protestations, you must also.

[Juan Vancouver]

How is the son going to be effectively taught how to clean it? This is not just a matter of parents educating themselves. As a baby, his primary caregiver will need to keep it clean for him. As he grows older, he can be shown how to do it himself. But handling their son's penis for the purpose of keeping his foreskin clean is going to look and feel (emotionally, not necessarily physically) a lot like jerking him off. The older he gets, the more uncomfortable and inappropriate such touching will become.

 

I had to read this paragraph many times to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting it. After many reads I am still a little stunned by the its implications.

 

What a strange culture this is in which sex is constantly -and vociferously- talked about, (in the guise of hatred of homosexuality, for example) but the simple parental act of teaching one's children the most basic hygiene procedure is seen with horror of the child (as if the child would have any concept of it) possibly believing this amounts to rape. Dear Queen Victoria is indeed victorious in this instance. Is the fear of our body so pervasive that we prefer to chop things off instead of explaining little Billy why daddy is circumcised and he isn't, and also teach him how to -every single time- clean, stretch and become acquainted with his genitals? Little Billy has absolutely no pre-conceived ideas about what is appropriate touching and where is the line into rape. An adult, who isn't afraid or ashamed of his or her body is perfectly capable to teach the child and instil the love and appreciation of his or her own body.

 

I remember clearly when my mom taught me to clean. Then she taught me to dry out carefully, then stretch and make sure everything was in shipshape. She also taught me to brush my teeth and tie my shoelaces. She patiently did the whole routine every single time I had a bath since I remember. Once I started bathing myself -at first supervised by her- I simply followed the habits that were so ingrained in me. Sure, as a teenager I might have gone through a hate of showers phase, but the habits she created in me never left.

 

So is true for a good couple billion men.

 

Sure, if your son is 15, by all means stop "teaching him". It's too late and that's not appropriate. But as an infant, as part of the normal life skills training every child goes through, you MUST repetitiously show him or her, again and again, without squirming, what is the right way to clean.

 

I might be terribly wrong in assuming this, in which case I apologize, but I am guessing you didn't feel you were inappropriately touched by your care giver when you were taught again and again the right way to clean after peeing or defecating. And if children are abused, the right course of action is to punish the offenders, not to avoid hygiene training, just because it's iffy.

 

The "like father, like son" policy only could sometimes be useful if all I am relying on when it comes to educating my child is hoping that he mimics what I do. Sadly, children are known for paying no attention, which means his hygiene routine will suffer.

 

There is another way. Communicating and showing your kid the body is not a shameful secret with which he has to live.

[Rudynate]

I had to read this paragraph many times to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting it. After many reads I am still a little stunned by the its implications.

 

That's pretty funny. My father bathed me until I was probably six years old. In early childhood, parents have enormous permission with their children. And of course that dynamic changes as the child matures and becomes more and more independent. It would be completely appropriate for a father to be helping his 5-6 yo kid with personal, even intimate, hygiene. I agree, if he was still doing it at age 12, that might be a little peculiar.

[Guest]

You bet. And in spite of your protestations, you must also.

 

What protestations? I find this a fascinating topic, since I have professional exposure to the subject...

[Samai139]

Juan--One word to describe your post: BRILLIANT. Thanks.

[Rudynate]

Juan--One word to describe your post: BRILLIANT. Thanks.

 

 

He's a sharp guy, no?

[+ Funguy]

yes

[+ glennnn]

To pick up on a tangent from Juan's post, i.e. the Victorian way men view masculine genitalia, what do you make of the millennial's calling their cock and balls their "junk". It makes me uncomfortable as I see it as a derogatory term. It seems to go along with the whole "got to hide the male body" movement characterized by baggy swimwear, oversized jeans and shorts with the crotch down around the knees. For so many young men, looking good and making the most of your physical appearance seems to be strongly frowned upon. Is this to prove they aren't gay, perhaps?

[Moondance]

Just pretend that you are having a baby boy and have to decide whether or not to have circumcision performed. What would be your choice and why?

 

No pretending necessary. I have a son who is uncircumcised. His mother and I were in complete agreement that a little guidance and education (what are parents for?) was a better choice than surgery. I've never changed my mind about that. To the contrary, I've had a hard time understanding friends who have elected to have their infant sons circumcised so they'll "look like their daddies." (As ridiculous as that sounds, it's the reason I've heard mentioned most often. Oh the irony of guys always wanting their dicks to be different--longer, fatter, banana-curved--but then wanting their sons' dicks to be just like theirs.)

[Rudynate]

To pick up on a tangent from Juan's post, i.e. the Victorian way men view masculine genitalia, what do you make of the millennial's calling their cock and balls their "junk".

 

Comes from hip-hop culture I think. I don't thank anyone would describe hip-hop as being sex-negative.

[+ MasssageGuy]

Interesting read...

 

Male Circumcision: What Would Jesus Do?

"On the eighth day of his life, before the Wise Men visited, Jesus was circumcised. What would he make of the debate raging today over male circumcision?

 

When we think of the birth of Jesus, we think of the traditional images of Christmas: the shepherds, the angels, the farm animals jostling to see the Christ child, the swift removal of his foreskin a week later.

 

No? Scratch that last part?

 

It’s true that the Christmas story is more babe in a manger than bris in the synagogue, but as a Jewish male infant Jesus was circumcised and, chronologically speaking, on the eighth day—and thus before the appearance of any wise men from the east. And yet somehow with all the food, presents, and Santa-fetishizing, the circumcision of Jesus doesn’t get a look in. But as debate about the ethics of circumcising children rages on, perhaps it really should."

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/27/male-circumcision-what-would-jesus-do.html

 

[sincitymix]

Interesting read...

 

Male Circumcision: What Would Jesus Do?

"On the eighth day of his life, before the Wise Men visited, Jesus was circumcised. What would he make of the debate raging today over male circumcision?

 

When we think of the birth of Jesus, we think of the traditional images of Christmas: the shepherds, the angels, the farm animals jostling to see the Christ child, the swift removal of his foreskin a week later.

 

No? Scratch that last part?

 

It’s true that the Christmas story is more babe in a manger than bris in the synagogue, but as a Jewish male infant Jesus was circumcised and, chronologically speaking, on the eighth day—and thus before the appearance of any wise men from the east. And yet somehow with all the food, presents, and Santa-fetishizing, the circumcision of Jesus doesn’t get a look in. But as debate about the ethics of circumcising children rages on, perhaps it really should."

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/27/male-circumcision-what-would-jesus-do.html

 

 

 

well if jesus didn't want to remain circumcised, he could always heal himself yes?