Circumcision (male)
Minty
know)
I was watching a very interesting documentary on the practice of
circumcision.
They interviewed people from the UK and US, and tried for a variety of
religious, ethnic and cultural groups but obviously could not give a
complete representation of the population. There were a hell of a lot
of people with very stong views on the subject, including doctors and
surgeons at both ends of the spectrum.
So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
Minty
serene
>So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
This person thinks it's unnecessary surgery, and would not have it
performed on her baby if she ever had one.
serene
Sagittaria
news:9hi8t1dj7antjbr83...@4ax.com:
Agreed.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
Been living with nothing to show for it;
You get what you get when you go for it.
Silvio
has NEVER been a case reported for a circumcised man), I am in favor of
the procedure.
Elizabeth
Sagittaria wrote:
> serene <ser...@serenepages.org> wrote in
> news:9hi8t1dj7antjbr83...@4ax.com:
>
> > On 22 Jan 2006 18:49:10 -0800, "Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
> >
> > This person thinks it's unnecessary surgery, and would not have it
> > performed on her baby if she ever had one.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> ---->Sagittaria<----
>
serene
Cite, please? And while you're at it, numbers of total penile cancer
cases, for comparison.
serene
EdDig...@aol.com
to be done.
Ed
Elizabeth
Not so, I'm afraid. Penile cancer (a very rare form of cancer) is found
equally among those circumscized in adulthood and the uncircumsized -
according to a medico, Dr John Dean, specializing in sexual medicine,
see NetDoctor.co.uk*). He writes.
"Cancer of the penis is an extremely rare disease and, in the early
part of the last century, was almost unheard of in circumcised men.
However, there is some evidence that circumcision may only offer
protection from penile cancer if done in childhood, and adult surgery
may not offer any protection.
Poor personal hygiene, smoking and exposure to wart virus (human
papilloma virus) increase the risk of developing penile cancer at least
as much as being uncircumcised.
Circumcised men are more at risk from penile warts than uncircumcised
men, and the risk of developing penile cancer is now almost equal in
the two groups. Therefore, routine circumcision cannot be recommended
to prevent penile cancer."
* From the blurb on the NetDoctor site there's this note:
"NetDoctor.co.uk is a collaboration between committed doctors, health
care professionals, information specialists and patients who believe
that medical practice should be based on quality-assessed information
and, wherever possible, on the basis of the principles of
evidence-based medicine.
Over 250 of the UK's and Europe's leading doctors and health
professionals write, edit and update the contents of NetDoctor.co.uk.
In addition to creating written content for the patient these same
health professionals respond to users questions and concerns regarding
general health concerns."
I suppose we should listen to such a body of professionals.
Gordon
Two points
a) It is unecessary surgery with risks.
b) It is doing something which the owner may not wish to have done to them
had they had the option.
Sarah
>So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
I think routine infant circumcision is a Very Bad Thing.
I think adult men should have the choice whether or not to have
themselves circumcised.
I prefer uncircumcised penises for interacting with.
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Jana
"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1137984550....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It comes up as a topic every now and then, and usually gets heated very
quickly. I also noted that for some people (me included) there is a bit of a
'gross factor' that runs in both directions, and seems to be connected to
what a person is used to seeing. I also pretty much believe it can be
overcome with just a little contact with the other kind of penis.
As for myself, I wouldn't consider having a baby son of mine circumcised
just because he was born with a penis.
> Minty
>
Jana
Elizabeth
Gordon wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 18:49:10 -0800, Minty wrote:
>
> > (If this has been discussed on here recently and I missed it, let me
> > know)
> >
> > I was watching a very interesting documentary on the practice of
> > circumcision.
> > They interviewed people from the UK and US, and tried for a variety of
> > religious, ethnic and cultural groups but obviously could not give a
> > complete representation of the population. There were a hell of a lot
> > of people with very stong views on the subject, including doctors and
> > surgeons at both ends of the spectrum.
> >
> > So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
> >
> Two points
>
> a) It is unecessary surgery with risks.
Yes, I once saw a guy with a very badly mutilated penis - a botched
circumcision.
>
> b) It is doing something which the owner may not wish to have done to them
> had they had the option.
Yes, indeed.
Silvio
on Salon.com, admittedly not an exhaustive resource. Upon further
review of more thorough studies, the link between circumcision and
cancer is not nearly so cut and dried, so to speak.
"An annual penile cancer rate of 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 translates to 9
to 10 cases of penile cancer per year per 1 million men. Although the
risk of developing penile cancer in an uncircumcised man compared with
a circumcised man is increased more than threefold, it is difficult to
estimate accurately the magnitude of this risk based on existing
studies. Nevertheless, in a developed country such as the United
States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile cancer
developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a
circumcised man, is low."
The above link is a good summary of the medical pros and cons on
circumcision. I'd still be inclined to circumcise, but there is plenty
of room on both sides of this question.
Sagittaria
news:1137994225....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Ma'am, it appears I am wrong. My original citation was of an
> article on Salon.com, admittedly not an exhaustive resource. Upon
> further review of more thorough studies, the link between
> circumcision and cancer is not nearly so cut and dried, so to
> speak.
Good on you for actually reading the data and letting it change your
mind. And a great big *groan* on your pun. :)
Sarah
>Ma'am, it appears I am wrong.
Oh, I like -you-
Please stay around, because we need people who can think, and who can
accept they can sometimes be wrong.
*beams*
S_C
Jacques Michel
> I was watching a very interesting documentary on the practice of
> circumcision.
>
I have always being extremely surprised by the fact that circumcision
is a common practice in the US, it seems a social aberration to me.
What I mean is: I understand why it exists in cases of religious
prescription (jews and muslim). Religion does this sort of social
things.
But in the US, there is no real religious basis. It seems to be
entirely social pressure. I think that the fact that the practice
perdures says a lot on the social organization of the US. But what it
exactly says, I don't know. Probably that the US has not evolved
towards a culture of the individual as much as it presents itself to
have.
We should also study how the whole story began. I can't check now, but
I think the practice is relatively recent (around 1900) and was
originally a way to ensure chastity. I think that the original idea was
that circumcised men would get less sensations, therefore enjoy sex
less and be less enclined to "fail to the weakness of the flesh". If
people are interested, I can try to find some reference (unless someone
beats me at it). So the disclaimer: I have a good memory, but I may
recall wrongly here.
Something else about circumcision (male and female excision, an
horrible practice). Studies of female excision or infibulation (did I
say it is an horrible practice?) have shown that the motor behind it
were women, much more than men. I wonder if this is also the case for
circumcision in the US.
Elizabeth
Sarah wrote:
> "Silvio" <mr0...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> >Ma'am, it appears I am wrong.
>
> Oh, I like -you-
>
> Please stay around, because we need people who can think, and who can
> accept they can sometimes be wrong.
>
> *beams*
Yes, indeed. A rare bird.
ponysteel
circumcision, having been circumcised as an adult who previusly had a
completely normal functioning foreskin. I grew up uncircumcised and
without foreskin problems, except for the sheer presence of that
useless little flap of skin. During my first marriage, I remained
uncircumcised (my first wife was not in favour of circumcision, not
that she had any first hand knowledge of the subject!) However, when I
remarried at age 40, my present wife, who had previous sexual
experience with both cut and uncut partners, encouraged me to consider
circumcision. She explained how the woman experiences additional
stimulation of the clitoral and labial areas during intercourse with a
circumcised man, due to the frictional contact of the very tight shaft
skin with these areas. She also explained how the flared-out glans of a
circumcised penis can be flet more noticeably inthe vagina on both the
inward and outward strokes. Add in the better hygiene, more attractive
appearance and the comfort and self esteem experienced by the man and
the case seemed irrefutable. One evening the same week, one of my wifes
female medical colleagues was visiting and the subject came up over
dinner. She enthusiastically endorsed everything that my wife had said
- and more! That did it and I arranged to be circumcised two weeks
later. I was cut by a consultant urologist who had been a senior at the
hospital where my wife had originally spent some of her student time.
Afterwards, sex was transformed for both of us. For me the new
sensation was so much better that I wished that I had been cut as an
infant. Where previously, I had experienced the feeling of moving
within my own foreskin, I now had intimate contact with my wifes vagina
in both directions and the tight pull of the skin against the sulcus
seemed to enhance the sensations further. In every way, life as a
circumcised man is better and twenty years my wife and I still enjoy
frequent intercourse as much as ever. Over the years though, regular
stretching during intercourse etc. had caused a little loose skin to
develop and wrinkle into the sulcus when flaccid, so I have recently
had a second circumcision to tighten things right up again. Now things
are ultra-tight, which is the type of cut which provides the most
benefit and we are both delighted with the outcome. You may hear a few
anti-circ views here Minty, but they usually come from those with no
experience of life "on both sides of the knife" or from women with
limited experience of sex with both cut and uncut men. Those who know
the difference will almost always prefer cut! As for cut men - we are
mostly very happy to be so. Personally, I would not have a foreskin
again for a kings ransome!!
Ponysteel
Elizabeth
ponysteel wrote:
> Hi Minty, I am in a position to comment authoritatively on
> circumcision, having been circumcised as an adult who previusly had a
> completely normal functioning foreskin. I grew up uncircumcised and
> without foreskin problems, except for the sheer presence of that
> useless little flap of skin. During my first marriage, I remained
> uncircumcised (my first wife was not in favour of circumcision, not
> that she had any first hand knowledge of the subject!) However, when I
> remarried at age 40, my present wife, who had previous sexual
> experience with both cut and uncut partners, encouraged me to consider
> circumcision. She explained how the woman experiences additional
> stimulation of the clitoral and labial areas during intercourse with a
> circumcised man, due to the frictional contact of the very tight shaft
> skin with these areas.
That may have been her experience; it certainly isn't mine.
She also explained how the flared-out glans of a
> circumcised penis can be flet more noticeably inthe vagina on both the
> inward and outward strokes.
Another experience I haven't had with the circumcised men I've had sex
with.
Add in the better hygiene,
Not necessarily true for all circumcised men. Good hygiene can be
practiced by any man, circumcised or uncircumcised.
more attractive
> appearance
I disagree with this. To me an attractive penis is an uncircumcised
one. By the way, I've seem abominable mutilations in the name of
circumcision.
and the comfort
Can't speak to this, being female.
and self esteem experienced by the man
My guy is uncircumcised and does not suffer lack of self esteem.
and
> the case seemed irrefutable.
Maybe to you.
One evening the same week, one of my wifes
> female medical colleagues was visiting and the subject came up over
> dinner. She enthusiastically endorsed everything that my wife had said
> - and more!
What a shame.
That did it and I arranged to be circumcised two weeks
> later. I was cut by a consultant urologist who had been a senior at the
> hospital where my wife had originally spent some of her student time.
> Afterwards, sex was transformed for both of us. For me the new
> sensation was so much better that I wished that I had been cut as an
> infant. Where previously, I had experienced the feeling of moving
> within my own foreskin, I now had intimate contact with my wifes vagina
> in both directions and the tight pull of the skin against the sulcus
> seemed to enhance the sensations further. In every way, life as a
> circumcised man is better and twenty years my wife and I still enjoy
> frequent intercourse as much as ever. Over the years though, regular
> stretching during intercourse etc. had caused a little loose skin to
> develop and wrinkle into the sulcus when flaccid, so I have recently
> had a second circumcision to tighten things right up again. Now things
> are ultra-tight, which is the type of cut which provides the most
> benefit and we are both delighted with the outcome.
I'm glad you enjoy your sexual life, but your cases for circumcision
remain debatable.
You may hear a few
> anti-circ views here Minty, but they usually come from those with no
> experience of life "on both sides of the knife" or from women with
> limited experience of sex with both cut and uncut men.
My experiences with sex with both cut and uncut men are certainly not
limited.
Those who know
> the difference will almost always prefer cut!
Nope, not me.
As for cut men - we are
> mostly very happy to be so. Personally, I would not have a foreskin
> again for a kings ransome!!
Well, that's nice for you.
suzee
> Minty wrote:
>
>>I was watching a very interesting documentary on the practice of
>>circumcision.
>>So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
>
> I have always being extremely surprised by the fact that circumcision
> is a common practice in the US, it seems a social aberration to me.
>
> What I mean is: I understand why it exists in cases of religious
> prescription (jews and muslim). Religion does this sort of social
> things.
>
> But in the US, there is no real religious basis. It seems to be
> entirely social pressure. I think that the fact that the practice
> perdures says a lot on the social organization of the US. But what it
> exactly says, I don't know. Probably that the US has not evolved
> towards a culture of the individual as much as it presents itself to
> have.
It has become a social pressure sort of thing, but was started in part
as a `health' measure. And partly because of the story you write below.
>
> We should also study how the whole story began. I can't check now, but
> I think the practice is relatively recent (around 1900) and was
> originally a way to ensure chastity. I think that the original idea was
> that circumcised men would get less sensations, therefore enjoy sex
> less and be less enclined to "fail to the weakness of the flesh". If
> people are interested, I can try to find some reference (unless someone
> beats me at it). So the disclaimer: I have a good memory, but I may
> recall wrongly here.
That's pretty much it. It was Dr. Kellogg, the cereal guy who mainly
pushed it.
> Something else about circumcision (male and female excision, an
> horrible practice). Studies of female excision or infibulation (did I
> say it is an horrible practice?) have shown that the motor behind it
> were women, much more than men. I wonder if this is also the case for
> circumcision in the US.
I'd say it's about equal in the US.
sue
Fred....@tds.net
the U.S., I am circumcised. We researched it quite extensively, and
basically found that there is no good evidence for circumcision
presenting any health benefits. There are some smaller scale studies
that show lower risk of STD transmission, fewer infections, etc.
However, population-based studies contradict these findings, as there
are no significant differences in prevalence of those conditions
between populations the routinely practice circumcision (like the U.S.)
and those that do not (like Europe). There is no literature suggesting
that there is any consistent harm from it, either, so I would not voice
an objections to people doing it for religious or cultural reasons.
Anecdotal reports are all over the map, so it is hard to place much
faith in them. Some people report greater sensation with circumcision,
some less. This should not be surprising with sexual matters. Some
people like the feel of things in their rectums, some don't, some like
their nipples peirced, some don't, etc. Sexual preferences vary
immensely. With regards to sexuality, anecdotal reports are very useful
for finding new things to try out, as if you throw enough stuff at a
wall some of it will stick. However, for a permanent irreversible
decision I think it is irresponsible to use anecdotal evidence. Pierced
nipples heal, sore assholes recover, but foreskins do not grow back.
The most consistent argument that we encountered was the locker room
argument: won't the kid feel strange when his penis does not look like
the other kids' penises or his dad's? In regard to other kids' penises:
40% of kids in the U.S. are not being circumcised, so this argument no
longer holds water. He won't be the only one. As for looking like mine:
avoiding a 4-minute conversation is a poor reason to genitally mutilate
a child. I think I can explain it to him.
If people will humor me, I would like to rant a little bit about
medical practice.
<rant>
In the U.S., most of the pressure for circumcision comes from the
medical community. Medicine is not science. It benefits greatly from
science, but most medical practitioners (worldwide, not just the U.S.)
have very poor scientific training. Medicine is an applied field. It
has the similar relationship with science as engineering has to
physics. As a result, when there is some preliminary finding related to
health, medical practitioners are often quick to recommend it
universally. Even after study replication failures or serious
qualifications, the information is out there and medical practitioners
will continue to advocate it for decades. Positive findings are much
more widely publicized than negative findings. M.D.s also like simple
rules of thumb that can be applied without thinking too much about the
specifics of the case. Medical practitioners also have more political
power than scientists, so they often get laws to pass that have little
or no scientific support. Some examples:
1. Until the middle of the 20th century, many M.D.s were telling
patients that ejaculating too frequently led to anemia. Loss of semen =
loss of blood.
2. Most states in the U.S. have mandatory child car seating laws that
go well in excess of the literature. There has never been a case of a
non-infant being seriously injured from an airbag, but I have had
pediatricians tell me that airbags are dangerous to kids ages 14 and
under.
3. No matter what your cardiovascular condition (HTN, high cholesterol,
etc.), doctors will often recommend moderate drinking: either cut back
or increase slightly to 1-2 glasses of red wine daily. The true
literature is too complex to encapsulate in such a recommendation.
There is a linear relationship between decreased heart risk and alcohol
consumption, but the noticable benefits don't seem to occur until the
patient is drinking enough to reduce the lifespan from accidents
(around 7 per day). Risk of major stroke can go up (from an increase in
HTN) at the same time risk of heart attack goes down. There are
definitely some people that a little extra drinking can help, but it is
a small group. I should also note: I am not condemning casual alcohol
use. I really enjoy my beer, wine, Bourbon, Scotch and Gin.
4. Pediatricians still will often recommend sanitizing countertops, and
generally maintaining as sterile an environment as possible. This is
despite huge amounts of research that show that low-level exposure to
relatively benign pathogens is essential to building and maintaining a
good immune system. Kids with dogs (a particularly unsanitary type of
pet; my dogs think dirty diapers are a treat, and they love to kiss
people!) have fewer allegies and less athsma. One study even found that
immunocompromised people who live in houses that use disenfectant wipes
have a decreased lifespan.
</rant>
Delila
"Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
>
>
> I have always being extremely surprised by the fact that circumcision
> is a common practice in the US, it seems a social aberration to me.
In the past couple of decades it has become a little less common, but the
majority of baby boys are still snipped.
> We should also study how the whole story began. I can't check now, but
> I think the practice is relatively recent (around 1900) and was
> originally a way to ensure chastity. I think that the original idea was
> that circumcised men would get less sensations, therefore enjoy sex
> less and be less enclined to "fail to the weakness of the flesh".
It was supposed to make masturbation harder, which it does in a way. Uncut
men don't need lube, for instance.
> Something else about circumcision (male and female excision, an
> horrible practice). Studies of female excision or infibulation (did I
> say it is an horrible practice?) have shown that the motor behind it
> were women, much more than men.
Yes, it's women who perpetuate the practice. I think all circumcision of
children should be banned. I was tupid enough to have had it done to my son
when he was born, becasue I was enamoured with everything American. Now I
could kick myself.
D.
Delila
"ponysteel" <ironh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1138010097....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for you testimony, but there are also plenty of men who were
circ'ed as adults for various reasons, who did not like the results. I'm
glad that it worked out for you.
D.
Delila
<Fred....@tds.net> wrote in message
news:1138029282.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> 4. Pediatricians still will often recommend sanitizing countertops, and
> generally maintaining as sterile an environment as possible. This is
> despite huge amounts of research that show that low-level exposure to
> relatively benign pathogens is essential to building and maintaining a
> good immune system. Kids with dogs (a particularly unsanitary type of
> pet; my dogs think dirty diapers are a treat, and they love to kiss
> people!) have fewer allegies and less athsma. One study even found that
> immunocompromised people who live in houses that use disenfectant wipes
> have a decreased lifespan.
You're absolutely right. Kids raised in over-clean homes do tend to have
weaker immune systems. I never believed in sterilizing bottles and nipples
for my kids when they were babies and caught a lot of flack for this from my
mother-in-law, but I was right. Babies need to be exposed to normal,
every-day germs in order for their immune systems to develop properly.
D.
Jacques Michel
> 4. Pediatricians still will often recommend sanitizing countertops, and
> generally maintaining as sterile an environment as possible. This is
> despite huge amounts of research that show that low-level exposure to
> relatively benign pathogens is essential to building and maintaining a
> good immune system. Kids with dogs (a particularly unsanitary type of
> pet; my dogs think dirty diapers are a treat, and they love to kiss
> people!) have fewer allegies and less athsma. One study even found that
> immunocompromised people who live in houses that use disenfectant wipes
> have a decreased lifespan.
While what you say is true, here again the story is a bit more
complicated. Between the 19th and 20th century, increased hygiene
conditions resulted in much increased life expectancy at birth. Then,
during the second half of the 20th century, allergies increased to a
worrying level and the type of study you cite were published.
A particular case needs to be noted: former East Germany. The
population's changing conditions after the reunifications made it a
very interesting test case. For all its pollution, East Germany had
noticeably less allergies than Western Germany. It was theoretised that
increased use of kindergarten (where the kids were more exposed to
other kid's germs) was the reason.
The problem is that Eastern Germany levels of allergies raised to meet
the Westen ones in less than 10 years, far too fast for it to be
explained by the Kindergarten hypothesis. I don't think anybody found a
convincing explanation yet.
All this from the top of my head, but I suppose that you will be able
to find sources to correct me if I am wrong. ;-)
OBsex: maybe allergies are caused by lack of sex with varied partners.
It certainly is consistent with the "lack of use of your immune system"
hypothesis.
suzee
> Fred....@tds.net wrote:
>
>>4. Pediatricians still will often recommend sanitizing countertops, and
>>generally maintaining as sterile an environment as possible. This is
>>despite huge amounts of research that show that low-level exposure to
>>relatively benign pathogens is essential to building and maintaining a
>>good immune system. Kids with dogs (a particularly unsanitary type of
>>pet; my dogs think dirty diapers are a treat, and they love to kiss
>>people!) have fewer allegies and less athsma. One study even found that
>>immunocompromised people who live in houses that use disenfectant wipes
>>have a decreased lifespan.
>
>
> While what you say is true, here again the story is a bit more
> complicated. Between the 19th and 20th century, increased hygiene
> conditions resulted in much increased life expectancy at birth. Then,
> during the second half of the 20th century, allergies increased to a
> worrying level and the type of study you cite were published.
I think there's a little difference in `sanitation' vs personal hygiene.
Diseases can be caused by contaminated water supplies infested with
choloera and other bacteria, for example. Once again, it's the old `if a
little bit of cleaning is good, a lot of cleaning must be better'
mentality. That is, increased use of antibiotics have only made some
bacteria stronger and more resistant to the old medications.
sue
Lusus Naturae
>But in the US, there is no real religious basis. It seems to be
>entirely social pressure. I think that the fact that the practice
>perdures says a lot on the social organization of the US. But what it
>exactly says, I don't know.
What it says, Jacques, is that Usans of the last century
believed very strongly in medical science. Most Usans of that
period did not dream of questioning the recommendation of a
qualified physician. And physicians of fifty years ago
routinely recommended circumcision.
As it turns out, they based their recommendations on sketchy
evidence which has since been discredited? But who knew?
--
Lusus Naturae
Lusus Naturae
> There were a hell of a lot
>of people with very stong views on the subject, including doctors and
>surgeons at both ends of the spectrum.
>
>So I was wondering where the good people of SSG stood on the subject?
If anybody stands on my circumcision, I certainly find that I
have strong views on the subject.
--
Lusus Naturae
Jacques Michel
> Jacques Michel wrote:
> >
> >
> > While what you say is true, here again the story is a bit more
> > complicated. Between the 19th and 20th century, increased hygiene
> > conditions resulted in much increased life expectancy at birth. Then,
> > during the second half of the 20th century, allergies increased to a
> > worrying level and the type of study you cite were published.
>
> I think there's a little difference in `sanitation' vs personal hygiene.
> Diseases can be caused by contaminated water supplies infested with
> choloera and other bacteria, for example. Once again, it's the old `if a
> little bit of cleaning is good, a lot of cleaning must be better'
> mentality. That is, increased use of antibiotics have only made some
> bacteria stronger and more resistant to the old medications.
>
Increase use of antibiotics has little to do with cleaning and it is
true that the relatively low level of diseases has a lot to do with the
availability of clean water for a very low price. The romans did the
same, to the same effects. And it is also true that trying to live in a
germ-free environment is generally a bad idea. I never put that in
doubt.
Nicolai Lang
<WATERT...@SPAMpeoplepc.com> wrote:
> In the past couple of decades it has become a little less common, but the
>majority of baby boys are still snipped.
Maybe in your end of the world ;)
I am circumsized, so are my husband. Unfortunately.
We had it both done in our teens, due to phimosis (stricture of the
foreskin).
Would wish we still had it though.
Here in Denmark it is most usual to retain the foreskin. And in case
anyone wonders, I think it is molestation to do it to kids, unless
there is a medical reason (and better hygiene is not a valid one in my
opinion)
Med venlig hilsen
"Babylai"
--
http://skriftestolen.dk - del dine inderste fantasier anonymt
http://babylai.dk
http://infantilism.org
http://voksenbaby.dk
Minty
Fred....@tds.net wrote:
> Anecdotal reports are all over the map, so it is hard to place much
> faith in them. Some people report greater sensation with circumcision,
> some less. This should not be surprising with sexual matters. Some
> people like the feel of things in their rectums, some don't, some like
> their nipples peirced, some don't, etc. Sexual preferences vary
> immensely. With regards to sexuality, anecdotal reports are very useful
> for finding new things to try out, as if you throw enough stuff at a
> wall some of it will stick. However, for a permanent irreversible
> decision I think it is irresponsible to use anecdotal evidence. Pierced
> nipples heal, sore assholes recover, but foreskins do not grow back.
>
Ah, then you haven't heard the claims of the TLC 'Tugger'?
> The most consistent argument that we encountered was the locker room
> argument: won't the kid feel strange when his penis does not look like
> the other kids' penises or his dad's? In regard to other kids' penises:
> 40% of kids in the U.S. are not being circumcised, so this argument no
> longer holds water. He won't be the only one. As for looking like mine:
> avoiding a 4-minute conversation is a poor reason to genitally mutilate
> a child. I think I can explain it to him.
>
Yes, some of the American men that were interviewed said that their kid
would get teased in the locker room for having a foreskin. (They also
estimated circumcision was at about 90% in their state.)
I'd say that if kids want to tease eachother - which they almost
invariably do - they'll always find something to make fun of; being
short, being tall, being fat, being thin, having spots, being hairy,
not being hairy, being clever, being thick, having glasses, having a
foreskin...
However, it's the frequency with which 'hygeine' is stated as a reason
that makes me boggle a little. Isn't it simpler just to wash properly?
Yes, I do realise that not everyone in the world has the option of
regular washing, but these were well-to-do people with big houses and
presumably plenty of running water and soap, suggesting this as a
reason for surgery. I mean, blimey, what do they do if they get dirt
under their nails - clean them or rip them all off?
The penile cancer thing, to me, seems a similar issue. You can't get
cancer in something that's been removed. Breast cancer is a lot more
common. Perhaps we should surgically remove all breast tissue? (This is
not a serious medical suggestion! Hope not offensive to anyone? Just
analogy.)
I was interested to hear the comments of the chap who's had so much
pleasure from his circumcision; I hadn't heard that point of view
before. Glad it worked out for you (genuinely), but were you aware
there are whole organisations of men tying contraptions to their dicks
to stretch the skin? There was this one guy on the telly who gave the
alternate opinion that sex is so much better with than without. (And he
had a great home-made model to demonstrate, made from a sock and a test
tube.)
It's probably clear that I don't much like the idea of circumcising
babies. Grown men of course are welcome to have whatever surgical
procedures they like done to them. (And to be honest, there are much
more extreme things out there than a bit of skin being trimmed. Like
getting a Prince Albert, let alone the body modification fans*... And -
no offense to transsexuals - some people have the whole thing removed.)
However, I will state one thing that did make me think. One of the
doctors (Orthodox Jewish chap who'd done thousands of them) said that
with babies the cut heals extremely rapidly and with a minimum of
discomfort, whereas it is a much more lengthy and difficult procedure
for adult men.
I have no idea if this is true.
And Muslims have it done at age 10, I believe. Is that an acceptable
compromise to some?
I thought the general trend here might be towards non-cutting,
Americans notwithstanding.
Minty
* http://www.bmezine.com/hard.html (Not for the squeamish. Kind of wish
I hadn't looked.)
Sagittaria
news:1138029282.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> We have two boys and decided not to circumcise.
We had a girl, but didn't know the baby's sex until birth so we still
had to make the decision just in case. My husband wasn't sure which
way to decide, but luckily they only asked me. :)
> As for looking like mine: avoiding a 4-minute conversation is a
> poor reason to genitally mutilate a child. I think I can explain
> it to him.
Good answer. And since when is a young boy's penis going to look
like an adult's anyway?? There will be substantive differences
besides the foreskin.
><rant>
> In the U.S., most of the pressure for circumcision comes from the
> medical community. Medicine is not science. It benefits greatly
> from science, but most medical practitioners (worldwide, not just
> the U.S.) have very poor scientific training. Medicine is an
> applied field. It has the similar relationship with science as
> engineering has to physics. As a result, when there is some
> preliminary finding related to health, medical practitioners are
> often quick to recommend it universally.
Very good insight. I've learned this myself, but only since beginning
to work for a health information company....
> There are definitely some people
> that a little extra drinking can help, but it is a small group.
Out of curiosity, what group are you referring to here?
--
---->Sagittaria<----
I’d like to get some sleep before I travel,
But if you got a warrant, I guess you’re gonna come in.
Silvio
Delila wrote:
> It was supposed to make masturbation harder, which it does in a way. Uncut
> men don't need lube, for instance.
This I do not understand. I am "cut", and do not "need" lube, though I
use it about 70% of the time. I can see where there would be a little
less friction for an uncircumcised man, but I cannot understand how the
difference would be that significant.
BTW, here was my source for my original point on circumcision and
penile cancer:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html
It does appear that Cecil was wrong about this, though the Amerian
Pediatric Association guidelines do indicate a substantial decrease in
cancer risk for circumcised men, though whether that risk offsets the
risk of a surgical complication is an open question.
Delila
"Nicolai Lang" <nnews04...@hjorth.com> wrote in message
news:erhat11ftnbfu32fq...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:49:28 GMT, "Delila"
> <WATERT...@SPAMpeoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> In the past couple of decades it has become a little less common, but
the
>>majority of baby boys are still snipped.
>
> Maybe in your end of the world ;)
I mean in the US.
D.
Jacques Michel
> Delila wrote:
>
> > It was supposed to make masturbation harder, which it does in a way. Uncut
> > men don't need lube, for instance.
>
> This I do not understand. I am "cut", and do not "need" lube, though I
> use it about 70% of the time. I can see where there would be a little
> less friction for an uncircumcised man, but I cannot understand how the
> difference would be that significant.
>
The idea is the following:
-if you are not circumcised, the skin can glide on the shaft of the
penis. So you can masturbate with no friction between the hand and the
skin (because the hand does not move on the skin, the skin moves with
the hand), and you feel "movement" between the skin and the shaft of
the penis.
-if you are circumcised, there is not enough skin to move around, so
you can't do that.
This was the original idea, but of course the end results depend a lot
on your final anatomy and preferences. And when people want to
masturbate, they find a way in any case, so the idea does not work.
To give you an idea: I am not circumcised, and when erect, I put my
hand around the middle of the shaft and move it all the way between the
glans and the pubis without my hand moving at all from the particular
piece of skin I hold (so no friction). It stretches a little bit at the
ends, but I have a relatively short foreskin. And no, I don't
particularly like to masturbate like that, but it is possible.
Jacques Michel
> I'd say that if kids want to tease eachother - which they almost
> invariably do - they'll always find something to make fun of; being
> short, being tall, being fat, being thin, having spots, being hairy,
> not being hairy, being clever, being thick, having glasses, having a
> foreskin...
>
Yes, they always find a way to tease. But the problem is a bit
different here: if you are the only uncut one, you will have the whole
group turn against you about a matter to which boys are very sensitive.
I would not want to be the only boy in a class of 20 and having the
whole class pointing at me that I am gross and dirty.
Of course, the ones who are wrong are the boys who tease anyone who is
different, and the education system is trying to work against that. But
the urge of a group to bond at the expense of a member who is excluded
is probably something which is very, very deeply ingrained in humanity.
It is not because it is wrong that it does not exist.
> However, it's the frequency with which 'hygiene' is stated as a reason
> that makes me boggle a little. Isn't it simpler just to wash properly?
>From my personal experience, I would also say that I do not really
understand the hygiene problem. But maybe you have even more experience
in those matters than I do? ;-)
> And Muslims have it done at age 10, I believe.
I know 2 muslim famillies with little children personaly, and they had
the operation done when their boys were babies. I can ask what the
religious prescriptions are if you wish, but I think it is "as early as
possible, not later than 10".
Gordon
So, let us find out the rate at diseases hit men at greater than 9 per
million?
It surely must come way down the list.
Fred....@tds.net
> "Fred....@tds.net" <Fred....@tds.net> wrote in
> news:1138029282.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> > that a little extra drinking can help, but it is a small group.
>
> Out of curiosity, what group are you referring to here?
The real data are not clear enough for alcohol to be all that medically
useful. Alcohol seems to clear out excess blood cholesterol, but at the
same time it raises blood pressure. It is like a physiological game of
whack-a-mole. It is the combination of high blood pressure and
cholesterol build up that usually kills people, with cholesterol more
threatening to the heart and blood pressure more threatening to the
brain, so you are often trading heart attack risk for stroke risk.
Theoretically, this would mean that people with low blood pressure and
high cholesterol might benefit, but this is just a logical conclusion,
with no empirical support so far.
Sagittaria
news:1138102974.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'm all about logic. Thanks for the reply.
--
---->Sagittaria<----
Day after day it reappears
Night after night my heartbeat shows the fear
Ghosts appear and fade away
ponysteel
benefit to everyone, but it is good for us and I hope for most.
ponysteel
the skin" are usually members of one or other of the ant-circumcision
"foreskin restoring" clubs, where they will have been subject to all
sorts of propaganda designed to convince them that all their sexual
problems (most of these guys are sexually inadequate for one reason or
another!) are connected with the fact that they are circumcised. They
are told that if they "Restore" their foreskin, everything will
miraculously turn out fine. These poor individuals are usually
psychologically disturbed and make easy prey for the "Foreskin freaks"
What they really need is proper therapy, not a "fauxskin" To get some
idea of the vehemence of these "Skin freak" predators, go and have a
look at some of the stuff posted by "Jim", PaulB", "Korydon" and a few
others on the Fathermag circumcision forum (including the moderator of
that forum). These guys are completely mad!
Ponysteel
Minty
Jacques Michel wrote:
> > However, it's the frequency with which 'hygiene' is stated as a reason
> > that makes me boggle a little. Isn't it simpler just to wash properly?
>
> From my personal experience, I would also say that I do not really
> understand the hygiene problem. But maybe you have even more experience
> in those matters than I do? ;-)
>
I gather that if the foreskin is not retracted when washing, there can
be a residue build-up of dead skin cells and stuff underneath. And if a
guy really doesn't wash for ages, there can be a bacterial infection.
(Someone correct me if this is all wrong.) Pretty unpleasant, but in
the developed world, I can't see how it's an issue. Different story for
guys trekking across the desert, with not much water and no change of
clothes, etc.
Being a non-religious UK resident, I've experienced mostly uncut. I
would say that's what 'seems normal' to me, but to be honest, there is
so much variation in size, proportion, colour, consistency, etc. that
it's only one difference among many. I have experienced a few cut ones
too. It doesn't make much difference to me - or at least, it's of less
importance than a lot of other factors. None of my longer-term partners
have been cut.
>
> > And Muslims have it done at age 10, I believe.
>
> I know 2 muslim famillies with little children personaly, and they had
> the operation done when their boys were babies. I can ask what the
> religious prescriptions are if you wish, but I think it is "as early as
> possible, not later than 10".
Ok. I guess it must be something that varies between different
communities, then. The men I heard talking about it said it was part of
the process of 'becoming a man'.
I've thought of another thing I've seen on the subject. Apparently in
uncircumcised penises the skin on the head stays soft and very
sensitive, but when it is circumcised and so always exposed, over time
the skin becomes a bit tougher and less sensitive. A bit less
sensitivity can be seen as a good thing for young men who 'want to last
a bit longer', but can become a problem in middle age.
Minty
JustGB
Minty wrote:
> A bit less
> sensitivity can be seen as a good thing for young men who 'want to last
> a bit longer', but can become a problem in middle age.
>
JustGB
Delila
"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138111967.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> I've thought of another thing I've seen on the subject. Apparently in
> uncircumcised penises the skin on the head stays soft and very
> sensitive, but when it is circumcised and so always exposed, over time
> the skin becomes a bit tougher and less sensitive. A bit less
> sensitivity can be seen as a good thing for young men who 'want to last
> a bit longer', but can become a problem in middle age.
Yes, but the thing is, they generally don't last longer. That's a myth. I
was married to a cicumcised man for 20+ years and he always finished too
soon. I've heard that's a very common problem in the US (don't know about
other countries), where most men are still circumcised. There are now many
young men in the military who take anti-depressants for the sole reason of
lasting longer during sex, not because they're depressed. pretty sad,
that...
D.
Jacques Michel
Minty schrieb:
>
> I gather that if the foreskin is not retracted when washing, there can
> be a residue build-up of dead skin cells and stuff underneath. And if a
> guy really doesn't wash for ages, there can be a bacterial infection.
> (Someone correct me if this is all wrong.) Pretty unpleasant, but in
> the developed world, I can't see how it's an issue. Different story for
> guys trekking across the desert, with not much water and no change of
> clothes, etc.
>
You know, if this were a real problem, I imagine that foreskins would
have been selected away a long time ago. Yet most mammals have them.
Jacques Michel
Delila wrote:
> "Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1138111967.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > I've thought of another thing I've seen on the subject. Apparently in
> > uncircumcised penises the skin on the head stays soft and very
> > sensitive, but when it is circumcised and so always exposed, over time
> > the skin becomes a bit tougher and less sensitive. A bit less
> > sensitivity can be seen as a good thing for young men who 'want to last
> > a bit longer', but can become a problem in middle age.
>
>
> Yes, but the thing is, they generally don't last longer. That's a myth. I
> was married to a cicumcised man for 20+ years and he always finished too
> soon.
But do you have a statistically significant sample of uncircumcised men
to compare? Maybe uncircumcised men last even less?
BTW: a sure way for a man to last as long as you wish is for him to
practice oral sex. ;-)
Minty
It was a statement, but it wasn't *my* statement. Just reporting what
I've heard men say about it.
Minty
Nanook
>
> Fred....@tds.net wrote:
> > Anecdotal reports are all over the map, so it is hard to place much
> > faith in them. Some people report greater sensation with circumcision,
> > some less. This should not be surprising with sexual matters. Some
> > people like the feel of things in their rectums, some don't, some like
> > their nipples peirced, some don't, etc. Sexual preferences vary
> > immensely. With regards to sexuality, anecdotal reports are very useful
> > for finding new things to try out, as if you throw enough stuff at a
> > wall some of it will stick. However, for a permanent irreversible
> > decision I think it is irresponsible to use anecdotal evidence. Pierced
> > nipples heal, sore assholes recover, but foreskins do not grow back.
> >
>
> Ah, then you haven't heard the claims of the TLC 'Tugger'?
I'm personally not interested in restoring but I happen to run an ISP
that happens to host a website for a customer who is:
And also has a mail list for people who are restoring, to join it
send e-mail to:
In the subject line put the word "subscribe".
To remove yourself from the list send e-mail to the same address,
but put the word "unsubscribe" in the subject.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
Nanook
> Silvio wrote:
> The idea is the following:
> -if you are not circumcised, the skin can glide on the shaft of the
> penis. So you can masturbate with no friction between the hand and the
> skin (because the hand does not move on the skin, the skin moves with
> the hand), and you feel "movement" between the skin and the shaft of
> the penis.
> -if you are circumcised, there is not enough skin to move around, so
> you can't do that.
This is not necessarily so; there are "tight" circumcisions and "loose"
circumcisions that leave more of the skin. If you happen to have the latter
then there is still enough skin to move around.
Nanook
Actually low alcohol consumption can decrease blood pressure (low being
1-2 drinks for men, 1 for women per day).
suzee
> In article <1138087932.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Jacques Michel" <jak...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Silvio wrote:
>>The idea is the following:
>>-if you are not circumcised, the skin can glide on the shaft of the
>>penis. So you can masturbate with no friction between the hand and the
>>skin (because the hand does not move on the skin, the skin moves with
>>the hand), and you feel "movement" between the skin and the shaft of
>>the penis.
>>-if you are circumcised, there is not enough skin to move around, so
>>you can't do that.
> This is not necessarily so; there are "tight" circumcisions and "loose"
> circumcisions that leave more of the skin. If you happen to have the latter
> then there is still enough skin to move around.
True, my sweetie has a little more than other men I've been with, though
nowhere near as loose as I imagine an uncirced one would be.
sue
suzee
> In article <1138102974.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Fred....@tds.net" <Fred....@tds.net> writes:
>
>>Sagittaria wrote:
>>
>>>"Fred....@tds.net" <Fred....@tds.net> wrote in
>>>news:1138029282.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>>There are definitely some people
>>>>that a little extra drinking can help, but it is a small group.
>>>
>>>Out of curiosity, what group are you referring to here?
>>
>>The real data are not clear enough for alcohol to be all that medically
>>useful. Alcohol seems to clear out excess blood cholesterol, but at the
>>same time it raises blood pressure. It is like a physiological game of
>>whack-a-mole. It is the combination of high blood pressure and
>>cholesterol build up that usually kills people, with cholesterol more
>>threatening to the heart and blood pressure more threatening to the
>>brain, so you are often trading heart attack risk for stroke risk.
>>Theoretically, this would mean that people with low blood pressure and
>>high cholesterol might benefit, but this is just a logical conclusion,
>>with no empirical support so far.
> Actually low alcohol consumption can decrease blood pressure (low being
> 1-2 drinks for men, 1 for women per day).
For some people. In others, it can raise the bp.
sue
Fred....@tds.net
> In article <1138102974.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Fred....@tds.net" <Fred....@tds.net> writes:
> > Sagittaria wrote:
> > > "Fred....@tds.net" <Fred....@tds.net> wrote in
> > > news:1138029282.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> > > > There are definitely some people
> > > > that a little extra drinking can help, but it is a small group.
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, what group are you referring to here?
> >
> > The real data are not clear enough for alcohol to be all that medically
> > useful. Alcohol seems to clear out excess blood cholesterol, but at the
> > same time it raises blood pressure. It is like a physiological game of
> > whack-a-mole. It is the combination of high blood pressure and
> > cholesterol build up that usually kills people, with cholesterol more
> > threatening to the heart and blood pressure more threatening to the
> > brain, so you are often trading heart attack risk for stroke risk.
> > Theoretically, this would mean that people with low blood pressure and
> > high cholesterol might benefit, but this is just a logical conclusion,
> > with no empirical support so far.
>
> Actually low alcohol consumption can decrease blood pressure (low being
> 1-2 drinks for men, 1 for women per day).
I believe you are thinking of cardiovascular risk. I have references
that show even minute amounts of alcohol consumption (less than one
drink per day) raises blood pressure, although it lowers cardiovascular
risk at the same time (and possibly raises cerebrovascular risk). I
would be interested in knowing if any studies exist which are
contradictory.
Delila
"suzee" <suz...@imbris.com> wrote in message
news:43d6ca9f$0$62505$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>
> I've heard that the appendix may have an actual physiological function,
> possibly related to the immune system. I think they're doing research to
> learn more about it.
Yep. Same as the tonsils. We can live without an appendix or tonsils, but
we're better off having them.
D.
Jamie
its no big deal all they want, but to me it is. it's my dick and no one
had any right to mess with it. if my parents had part of my
sisters.vagina cut off when she was a little girl they would have gone
to jail. why is it ok to do the same to a boy? and i know i'm missing
out. i talked to uncut guys and read descriptions on the internet and
what they feel is nothing like anything i've ever felt. their dickhead
is super sensetive to the touch like a girl's clit. some guys describe
almost painful sensetivity. i have no sensetivity at all and my
dickhead is all dryed out.
the worst part is that i'm probably gonna be stuck this way for the
rest of my life. some weirdos hang weights from their dick for years to
try to make a fake foreskin out of what little they have left but
what's the point if it isn't real foreskin? maybe scientists will find
a way to regrow foreskin with stem cells or something. i can only hope.
Gordon
> The real data are not clear enough for alcohol to be all that medically
> useful. Alcohol seems to clear out excess blood cholesterol, but at the
> same time it raises blood pressure.
As I understand it, *moderate* alcohol consumption does not harm and
probably does good.
BTW I also understand from what I have read and heard, (read disclaimer)
that alchcol does not clear out cholesterol, but rather keeps it in the
blood stream, stops it from sticking to the artery walls.
Remember *high* density cholesterol is not as bad as the low type.
Now, how the heck, does this have anything to do with people with the
human male forskin, or not? Get back to the satrt of th thread yes?
Gordon
> And since when is a young boy's penis going to look
> like an adult's anyway?? There will be substantive differences
> besides the foreskin.
Apart from size, what are the other ones?
A childs hands, for example do nott look like adult hands, but they are
the "same".
Sarah
An infant's penis is far, far smaller in proportion to his boy size
than an adult's.
Most adults' penises are surrounded by pubic hair, and no infants'
are.
An infant's penis is generally the same colour as the rest of his
skin, while an adult's penis is usually usually substantially darker.
There's a couple off the top of my head.
--
See the ssg homepage: http://socsexualitygeneral.org/
If you want to contact me directly, please replace TwoUnderscores with... well, two underscores.
Jacques Michel
Why just *imagine*? You could *check*...
suzee
> suzee wrote:
Yours, maybe? <g>
Remember my stats on the poll? In spite of having sex with about three
dozen men, all have been circumsized. So I do have to imagine it.
sue
Delila
"Jamie" <jamie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138161591.0...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I feel for you.
D.
Jacques Michel
Mine is not circumcised, but it is an ocean away, so I don't think it
will do. Any volunteers in the US?