Seriously why is circumcision still done today

No one has said your a bad person and no one is implying that you shouldn’t like your unit just because it is cut. But your argument that you PREFER it, I think is not valid.

Prefer - Definition

1. to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than. Prefer Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

Key words there are "things" (plural) and "choose". Since you were cut at birth you haven’t had both and haven’t been able to choose. So based on this you cannot say your PREFERENCE is being cut. Being cut is simply what you have and what your stuck with and what you have to accept. Or in your case what you do accept and what you are happy with.

On the other side of the fence a guy who is uncut CAN say that his preference is being uncut. The skin can be pulled tight all the way back and held down and the feeling of being cut can be experienced by someone who’s uncut. If for what ever reason this feeling is preferred or the look or the state in general, the person can go get the circumcision done and become cut. Despite this the fact remains that the vast majority of the men in the world remain uncut. Out of the minority that become cut in adult life the majority of these become cut out of necessity due to medical reasons. (forskin too tight ect ect.)

Mutilated - Definition

Mutilation - Wikipedia

Mutilation is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.

Mutilate - definition of mutilate by The Free Dictionary

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

circumcision does alter the appearance as well as function of the penis. Whether it degrades or improves simply depends on your views towards circumcision.
circumcision does deprive of a part (forskin) whether it is essential or not, again depends on your views towards circumcision.
circumcision does leave the penis disfigured (not in its original state) and the disfiguration is irreversible.
circumcision does excise and alter parts. Again whether or not the result is "imperfect" depends on your views towards circumcision.

Saying that you haven’t been mutilated due to circumcision is no different to having the attitude of "If I don’t remember it, it didn’t happen". You may not care or you may chose to not acknowledge it but it still did happen.

Krod,

First off, I am an adult of greater than average intelligence. Please do not break this down into a game of semantics and insult my stated intelligence. (thank you)

I’ve read more than one blog, forum post or like where a guy has been pissed as hell that he did NOT get circumcised as a baby, and had to go through the agony of surgery as an adult, and HAPPY being circumcised. ( was it his choice to get phimosis? What about the following?:

"Up to 10% of males will have physiologic phimosis at 3 years of age, and a larger percentage of children will have only partially retractible foreskins. One to five percent of males will have nonretractible foreskins by age 16 years.")

http://emedicin e.medscape.com/ … 777539-overview

(BTW, what are the percentages when it comes to complications from infant circumcision?)

It just amazes me how, when an "uncut" guy has expressed "happiness" about being cut as an adult, many responses are similar to, "I’m glad you’re happy with it, but don’t MUTILATE your child by circumcising them".

Example, below:

Madnez "My Circumcision Log" 5-27-09

"2 months have passed in the meanwhile: no regrets at all!

- no more odors, really clean all the time
- great look
- I already last longer
- girly loves it as well
- no more pains regarding tightness

So.. end good, all good. Happy with it every time I take a pee."

Response:

TLC Tugger: 5-28-09

"I’m glad you’re happy. So you would call the healing time about 2 weeks, right? I ask because a lot of people try to claim the adult heals slower from circumcision than the infant. I think the only difference is the infant just can’t tell you whether the penis still feels out of sorts at a particular time. You certainly didn’t have to heal in a FILTHY DIAPER, so that’s a plus (in addition to having a choice and having a say about the style of surgery performed)."

Many in your crowd can’t/won’t admit that someone may be better off being cut. In fact, sex may feel better. (it may not also)

But, none of you guys now how my dick feels to ME. I suggest you ask Madnez how sex feels, and if he somehow is missing out now that his dick has been amputated/mutilated. (pssst, I’m not missing out on anything)

But, it’s your way or the highway on this issue, isn’t it? There is nothing that will change your mind on this, right?

Also, I CAN prefer to have an cut dick, because I LIKE the looks of my cut cock BETTER than uncut. (..a PREFERENCE by your stated definition)

This ought to be fun….. :)

First thing is I don’t understand how everything thats said you feel is a direct attack on you personally and your so valued “intelligence”. You are obviously very passionate about this issue and you are letting your emotions get in the way of the facts.

At no point did I say anything about cut being better or worse both in terms of itself (the issue) and to the individual. Nor did I make any reference to sex feeling better or worse.

This is what I said in a previous post.

Forskin being too tight is a medical reason just as phimosis. I have no issues with circumcision being done for necessary medical reasons. I stated this several times. If it has to be done then it has to be done. But you cannot possible justify it being done to a baby “just in case” there is reason for it being done later in life.

For reasons such as (It’s cleaner, there is less maintenance and It looks better.) circumcision can be done but you can NOT say that it should be or must be done for those reasons. There is a big difference between the words can and should/must.

This is the basis of the argument of parents letting boys decide for themselves. It is something that can be done but there is no immediate necessary reason for it. Someone before mentioned the similarity to a tatto. A tatto is exactly the same. It can be done but there is no necessary reason, there for it should not be the choice of the parents. If however for what ever reason it is medically deemed necessary (circumcision) then yes the parents have the right to make that choice.

Once again I never mentioned anything about sex feeling worse being cut, which is what I think your trying to imply here. Once again you think I made a direct attack to you being cut. This is what I said in a previous post.

It is irelevant wether you LIKE being cut or not. My argument was that it cannot be your PREFRENCE because you did not choose to be cut over being uncut. You started off being cut and you liked it and thats it. When you prefer one thing over another you start with two or more things and then you make a choice and that choice becomes your PREFERENCE. If that wasen’t clear then it should be now.

In terms of the issue of it looking better that’s your opinion and you have every right to that opinion. However I still stand by this quote.

The original point of this thread was why is circomsision still done today. I believe it’s done for the wrong reasons (Tradition, It’s cleaner, there is less maintenance and It looks better.) I already refuited these arguments in a previous post. I believe it is not nessasary for these reasons and it should not be done. Religion and reasons of medical nessasaty should be the only exeptions. As I stated before I belive it is mutilation and it should not be done. If later in life you chose to do it then do it. It’s you body your free to do what you want.

Krod, it’s so annoying to read valid arguments marred by poor spelling - please use the spell check! ;)

Acid Jazz, please try to leave any judgement of alleged intelligence to others. To misquote Maggie Thatcher, (intelligence) “is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” ;)

Now gentlemen, please continue to play nice.

lil1 :lep:

About sex being better, I just want to say that uncut people can have sex “the uncut way” - just retratc foreskin before penetration and the glan remains uncovered. :)

So, one point for uncuts: they can have sex in two ways.

Lil12Big1,

On an anonymous forum where a person who is being disagreed with is being called “idiot”, etc., a clear statement of irritation is hard to put into words that won’t be grounds for a “time out”. You are correct, let ones intelligence be judged by others. I did gradumate from at least hi cskool. ;)

Krod,

I am glad you pointed out the should/must part of this, and you are correct here.

However, you seem to have completely ignored the statistics in the link I provided in order to get YOUR ongoing “points” across. I would, and did, “prefer” to not to have my boys be one of the +- 5% of boys that, apparently, have a negative impact from remaining “intact”. (ie phimosis, et al resulting in extremely painful adult circumcision)

Again I ask in all seriousness, in order to shift the debate to a more scientific place; what percentage of males who are circumcised have serious adverse impacts? (not including turkey neck and hair on the shaft) (I am talking about infections from the surgery, and maybe worse, in infants only)

And, yes, I have a bit of an emotional response to many posts here, because there is a “my way or the highway attitude” that is quite clear from many on the “uncut” side, and it is very irritating to me, as I have never said anything was wrong with one staying/being intact. Rather, I argue that the choice to circumcise, whether you agree or not, comes down to the parents. (parents who choose such a procedure for their boys should not be vilified as mutilating child abusers as has been expressed by many here)

It seems that any time a member here has an adult circumcision, it is used as an opportunity to slam anyone who has the “gall” and audacity to circumcise their child.

Finally, I still am curious to know how you feel about me vaccinating my child. Is that “ok” with you? Vaccinations have not been around forever, and they do have very serious side effects in a very small percentage of children. It is my “choice”, as a parent, to vaccinate or not. Do you see the bigger point I’m trying to make? Let’s move away from trying to be “right” here and argue the issue and science. Is that cool with you? ;)

Apples and oranges.

Let me get this straight.
Parents leave their son intact at birth. Taking a small chance he will develop phimosis due to remaining intact. A condition that simply causes pain and discomfort and can be fixed with circumcision. Again I state I have no problems with this. (Circumcision used to fix medical problems that develop.)

Parents circumcise their son at birth to prevent the small chance he will develop phimosis. At the same time taking a small chance that their sons penis will be damaged disformed ect ect. Also taking the chance that the circumcision will be too tight and have to be fixed in later life, resulting in another painful procedure no different to having circumcision done to fix phimosis.

Your argument about uncut guys developing phimosis and then blaming their parents for not circumcising them is also childish. How are the parents responsible for the phimosis. They are no more responsible for that then their son developing cancer(anywhere in the body). Bottom line is circumcision is being used to fix problems which don’t exist yet and to fix problems which have a small chance to exist in the first place. Simple conclusion is you don’t fix things that aren’t broken.

Based on what you have said so far in this thread and your general tone towards being cut. I think you made your choice to circumcise your boy/boys for the reason that you like being cut, that you prefer it (as you have stated several times) an so does your wife. (If I’m wrong then I’m wrong but thats the general tone towards which your arguments are based on.)

Your arguments about the phimosis thing and other medical problems came much later in the thread trying to point out reasons why being uncut can be bad. I argue that you have no right to circumcise a boy just because you and your wife prefer it that way. If that was your reason then what would you say to your son if he came to you later in life and had this view.

If the circumcision was done for medical reasons then you could tell him you had no choice. But other wise what could you say.

I also found another quote by you which speaks volumes if you were not circumcised for necessary medical reasons.

Apples and oranges is absolutely right. I’ll assume that both vaccination and circumcision go as planned (no complications/ side effects).
Vaccination. Needle goes in and after it heals there is no trace left of it being done. All the evidence of it being done disappears and is forgotten.
Circumcision. You carry the results of that procedure (better or worse) for life.

I think the point your trying to make is that vaccination isn’t necessary either but you cant compare the two. Even if the vaccination goes wrong and there are serious side effects. You still won’t be left with a external physical injury/scar like circumcision. Yes vaccination is medical thing not vanity so no i don’t have any problems with it.

Childish? I have no right? Does a baby make choices out of the shoot? Nope. As of the end of this sentence I am finished with the discourse with you on this thread KROD. But, nothing personal.

It’s conservatively about 1.5” out toward the tip plus another 1.5” back, times about 5 inches around, so that’s 15 square inches of sexual interface - which I’d like back, please.

-Ron

“Expert” sources will range all over the map on this. I’m OK with the last sentence, but there is really no such thing as pathological phimosis in children. Tight unretractile foreskin is the natural state of a healthy normal child’s penis. The skin gradually separates from the glans through the child’s own curious manipulations. The pathology is our tendency to discourage children from touching themselves.

You’ll see numbers ranging from 1% to 6% for complications requiring immediate medical attention, but that completely ignores the stuff that doesn’t manifest until after puberty like excessive tightness, hairy shaft, jagged painful truncated vein, etc., and merely cosmetic issues like curvature, malopposition, pitting, skin bridges, glans gouges, skin bridges, stitch tunnels, etc. But in fact 100% of infant circs include the complication that the exquisite foreskin is lost. It includes over half his specialized pleasure receptive nerve endings, it protects the glans and mucosa from drying and abrasion, and it affords the awesome frictionless rolling/gliding action.

I would echo that. Further I would utterly ignore the testimony of the male cut by adult choice for 2 reasons: ONE: the desire to cut off healthy normal body parts is a mental illiness (if the foreskin wasn’t healthy and normal then his testimony is irrelevant to the infant circumcision question anyway) and TWO: He has nothing of interest to offer me until decades after the cut. That’s how long it took me to get fed up with lack of sensitivity and look at ways to improve.

It would also be important to note what the circumstances were surrounding the cut man’s choice. Was he bullied or cajoled into it by culture? What other remedies were tried and for how long?

Don’t look at me. I’m delighted when someone with a defect has the CHOICE to seek improvement. It’s irrelevant to the infant circumcision issue. No national medical association on earth (not even Israel’s) endorses routine infant circumcision to fight disease. They say the known risks and drawbacks outweigh any potential benefits.

Try me. Nothing I’ve heard is compelling, and I’ve heard just about anything you can imagine.

I disagree. The skin that would be engaged with the partner is the most nerve-laden part of the penis, and it wouldn’t just slide in and out like the penis does for the cut man. The intact guy’s skin would glide around. As soon as he started a withdrawal motion, he would have the same slinky slack feeling for him and for his partner that cut men the world over are used to.

Thats exactly the point I was trying to make about the PREFERENCE of being cut. I’ve yet to hear any case of any healthy uncut guy who doesn’t have any problems with forskin (phimosis or what ever) decide he doesn’t like being uncut and just gets cut for that reason alone. If that is what happens and that guy is happy with hes decision then hes PREFERENCE would be to be cut, however someone who is cut at birth that says they have a PREFERENCE for being cut is absolute bullshit.

Hey TLC, I’m uncut. Maybe I know how can I have sex, what do you think?

I think any way you have sex WITH your foreskin still attached to you is NOT comparable to having sex without the foreskin and its mucosa and nerve endings.

-Ron