Comments on Dept. of Erections

I like a circumsized man... but better yet, I like the fact that a circumsized guy is going to lower my chances of catching something god awful such as AIDS or HIV!

So Dad looks like a circumcised dick?

I absolutely despise this argument: "Many parents fear their boys would feel awkward in the locker room if they were not circumcised." AKA, lets just let a cruel majority be our reason for not making any progress whatsoever.

When I was growing up, I heard interacial marriage is bad because what about the kids (I'm only 32.) Or in regards to gays having children, think about the kids. Kids are resilient and sometimes what makes them different is what makes them "cool."

Andrea, are you really even at risk for AIDS?

I'd like my son circumsized so that he will always remember the covenant with god.

RE: "Looking like dad"

D:

@5 Don't you know that Dr. James Dobson would totally back this up, since to prevent your son from being gay, you're supposed to shower with him so he can see that you have a penis, just like his, only bigger?

Have we learned nothing from the saga of the Sneetches?

Frankly, I don't get the anti-circ crowd. My cut dick works just fine, is easy to clean, and provides my partner with lower odds of getting cervical cancer. Are you uncut dudes trying to convince people that your orgasm is centered in your foreskin? I've read the hysterical yammering of the anti-cut crowd and it sounds like a tempest in a teapot. I could see if it outrageous numbers of cut men were anorgasmic, but I don't hear about it. And maybe I'm a statistical outlier but my orgasms are, holy shit, hang on, cause I'm not sure the house is going to be standing when I'm done. What gives, eh? Would a foreskin improve on that? I don't get the bitterness and anger.

What is so bad about circumcision? My boyfriend says he's happy that he was circumcised. If I ever have a baby boy I will probably bow to the experience of his father on whether or not he should be circumcised-- I assume he'd know better than me.

I am circumcised and happy with my penis, thank you. I have no recollection of the event.

The larger issue aside, how many of you guys really saw your dads naked often enough when you were kids to form an opinion? I mean, I don't remember lounging around the pool deck in the nude with my mother with much frequency. Or, y'know, ever.

I love morons to think the conclusion of a meta-analytical study on statistics of std infection rates is that if they have a cut dick they have less of a chance of infecting someone with HPV or AIDS. Idiots.

You infect someone if you are infected. Just because your cut, it doesn't mean you have cooties.

Jesus, our public schools have completely failed people in uderstanding basic critical/analytical thinking. A causal relationship is not implied, meant, or could be construed from ANY of these studies linking circumsicion and stds. About all they show is a disturbing trend dealing with public health in the third world. THats it.

@10: I think that's kinda the point. If someone's going to be performing cosmetic surgery on my donger, I think I'd like to be asked.

I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that circumcisions are thought of as bad, all the news snippets i've read over the last few years have been decidedly pro-circ.

I'm glad its declining. I'm uncircumcised and never understood the point. Now I don't consider sex to be any better for me than anyone else, though. But it still seems like a wholly unnecessary and painful way to start someone's journey of life. Not to mention, a baby can hardly decide for themselves. I'm sure if we left this to be decided when a boy turns 18 almost no one would have circumcisions.

The study's that say it lowers HIV rates are dubious at best and have only been performed in 3rd world countries where condoms are rarely if ever used. On a more personal note, I'm sick of having these studies thrown in my face as though I am some kind of unclean leper.

With all of that said, I've thoroughly enjoyed sucking on a few uncircumcised cocks in my day. So can't we all just get along?

I don't know where you guys are getting the idea that circumcisions are thought of as bad, all the news snippets i've read over the last few years have been decidedly pro-circ.

I'm glad its declining. I'm uncircumcised and never understood the point. Now I don't consider sex to be any better for me than anyone else, though. But it still seems like a wholly unnecessary and painful way to start someone's journey of life. Not to mention, a baby can hardly decide for themselves. I'm sure if we left this to be decided when a boy turns 18 almost no one would have circumcisions.

The study's that say it lowers HIV rates are dubious at best and have only been performed in 3rd world countries where condoms are rarely if ever used. On a more personal note, I'm sick of having these studies thrown in my face as though I am some kind of unclean leper.

With all of that said, I've thoroughly enjoyed sucking on a few circumcised cocks in my day. So can't we all just get along?

I meant to say circumcised in that last paragraph, sorry for the double-post :(

as someone with a wiener who has experience w/ both kinds of wieners, i prefer the cut ones. i would definitely get my kids cut. and one of my straight friends whose parents didn't get him cut decided to do it when he was a teenager because he built up way too much of a complex about it. it may be giving into a "cruel majority" to doing it to your little baby, but i know that he had a lot more pain (physically and emotionally) from not having it done.

as someone with a wiener who has experience w/ both kinds of wieners, i prefer the cut ones. i would definitely get my kids cut. and one of my straight friends whose parents didn't get him cut decided to do it when he was a teenager because he built up way too much of a complex about it. it may be giving into a "cruel majority" to doing it to your little baby, but i know that he had a lot more pain (physically and emotionally) from not having it done.

It's pretty interesting to me that people rarely, if ever, compare our practice of male circumcision to the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) in other parts of the world. The argument I usually hear if I dare bring it up is that FGM involves the complete removal of the clitoris, and therefore the total cessation of female sexual pleasure.

That's not always the case, however, as several types of FGM are in practice, and some of them involve only the removal of the clitoral hood. To my mind, the male circumcision and FGM are similar in that:

1. Both are considered by their advocates to make the person "cleaner."
2. Both have their roots in religious tradition.
3. Both reportedly decrease the sensitivity of the sexual organs.

This is not to ignore that FGM is usually practiced as a control method for female sexuality, while men generally are free from such attempts to control their sex lives. And it's not to ignore that sexual fluids can get trapped in the foreskin, and increase risk of transmission of STDs. (But let's face it, condoms are safer than cutting, no?) But it seems to me that the similarities are more compelling than the differences.

It also seems that the main difference between the two is that we in our culture accept male circumcision and decry female genital mutilation. Me, I oppose both.

Let the outrage begin.

As someone who has sucked A LOT of cock in his day (really, I am quite a whore) I vastly prefer circumcised cock. Uncut is OK, as long as they keep it clean - but they hardly ever keep it clean.

Unlike some sluts, I am not into dick cheese. Not in the least.

@8

I don't get the bitterness and anger.

Well, circumcisions are occassionaly botched, and that's just cause for anger. Otherwise, the anti-circs are just another silly bunch of victimization junkies.

When I was a kid - back around the time of the Mexican-American War - being circumcised or not was a dead giveaway of whether you were from the city or the sticks.

And by sticks I mean the type those army films used to be made for: "The Parts of a Toothbrush" and "Hygiene: How to Bathe."

I realize that's far from true now. Some people like to keep their kids 'na'chul.' But I think there may always be the stigma of an uncircumcised dick being somehow less clean. And frankly guys? I've seen some foreskins that weren't very appealing. To each his own.

It's odd though. This is really the one thing your parents do that's almost certainly permanently forced upon you. Can't grow another foreskin and adult circumcision is one of those things you'd really, really want to have done.

If you want to know why people don't want to circumcise, here is anti-circ central. Note that there is actually of very good and reasonable argument here (along with people freaking out).

There are about 7,000 web links in the 'stickies.'

http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44

I'm married to an uncut man, and can't really see the need for it...seems kind of cruel to me.

I've dated both cut and uncut men. My uncut man and I were together 7 years. The entire time, he NEVER let me look at it in it's natural state. He always had to pull the foreskin back to make it look circumsised. He was incredibly self-conscious. And I felt really bad for him. But nothing I could do or say would make him comfortable in his own foreskin.

My current beau wasn't circumsised as a child. But he also hated it. So when he was 26 he had it done. He is very happy with his decision (as am I because I love his penis!). I can agree with both sides of the controversy. Really, it should be left up to the child. But then what if he wants it circumsised? How long would he have to wait to be able to have it done? It's not a cheap procedure after the fact.

I don't ever plan on having kids. But if I had a boy, I'm sure I would have it circumsised.

I'm tired of hearing the misinformation about the circ studies in Africa. They weren't metaanalytical studies--the early studies on circumcision WERE metanalyses, but that metanalysis prompted actual clinical trials. They just completed two different clinical trials (one in Uganda and one in SA) wherein one group of men elected to have a circumcision while the other group did not, and subsequent rates of infection were then tracked. The infection rate was almost 60% lower in the circumcised group than in the uncircumcised group--as a comparison, that's more effective than many vaccines, say the meningitis vaccine, or even the HPV vaccine, which is 100% effective if given before a certain age to an ideal population, but only 44-50% effective when you look at overall rates of abnormal paps, etc..
And yes, a condom is still a more effective way of preventing the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, and there's no evidence that circumcision reduces HIV transmission via anal sex, and with a lower reservoir of HIV to start out with, it doesn't make sense to use it as health policy here. But to argue that the study results aren't valid is just plain wrong. And circumcision not only reduces the rates at which men get infected in those trials, it also reduces the rates at which infected men transmitted it to their partners, which is a kind of double protection.
Personally, I also find it insulting when people compare FGM to circumcision without noting the key distinctions that a) even hygeinic and sterile female circumcision, even of just the clitoral hood, results in scarring that markedly increases rates of miscarriage and maternal death during pregnancy. b) the vast majority of circumcised men still orgasm and receive substantial pleasure from stimulation, while the vast majority of circumcised women are anorgasmic as a result of the clitoredectomy. While there are some complicatoins associated with circumcisoin, they are also offset by the small benefits associated with being circumcised.
I don't care if people get their kids circumcised or not, but I'm sick of the histrionics surrounding it.

Just wanted to add...I dated another guy who was uncut (for only a few months) and his foreskin actually tore. Yes, TORE, right along with the condom. As in, the blood on the sheets wasn't from me. So not only was there the threat of pregnancy, but also of stds. Luckily, I was perfectly clean. Although, I know it hurt him like hell. And yet he was too embarrassed to see a doc about it. He just let it heal and carried on.

Never have I had a circumsised penis tear in me. So I'd say there's one point for that side.

Don't forget that hospitals make money selling foreskins for things like this: http://dermagraft.com/faq.html Shouldn't I get a cut of their profits?

@26
You sound very knowledgeable about the subject, so, uncharacteristically, I won't bitch too much, but I do have a couple of counter points:

First, who exactly are you talking to who compares male circumcision to female genital mutilation? Because I NEVER hear that argument, but I often hear yours.

Second, please explain how cutting off the clitoral hood could result in miscarriage or maternal death in pregnancy. To my knowledge the clit is pretty much a non-issue in pregnancy (unless you're a hyena, which is some really fascinating shit).

And again, I don't support either practice, and I'm certainly not defending FGM. I'm just pointing out what I deem to be a cultural hypocrisy. I believe your information (mostly), I just don't happen to agree.

This is to address comment 29:
I hear the comparison to FGM all the time. And comment 19 said earlier in the thread said something like "yes, FGM and circumcision are different, but the similarities are more compelling than the differences." So I was basically trying to say that, yes, there are similarities in people's motivations for having it, but the differences between the two are so huge (in terms of their outcome for people who undergo the surgeries), that it seems disingenuous and dangerous to compare the two.

FYI 80% of the FGM that occurs is clirodectomy (partial or total) combined with removal (partial or total) of the labia minora. 15% is the more serious type, infibulation. Less than 1% involves only the removal of the clitoral hood.
I'm not sure why exactly stillborn rates increase with even removal of the clitoral hood, it could be that even exterior scar tissue reduces the elasticity of the vagina. Another possible explanation is that the prevalence of HSV2 (Herpes) is much higher for cut vs. uncut women, even when they undergo the removal of the clitoral hood, and that may be contributing to the stillborn rate.

Ultimately, the question for male circumcsion seems to be: a) do we support parents having the right to do permanent, irreversible surgery on their children when the potential for bad outcomes is small but the benefits are not large (and can theoretically be accomplished in other ways--although things like phimosis typically require circumcision)

And for me, I say yes. I think my parents did all sorts of things to me as a youngster that have permanent consequences (most of them good, I think), and I think that unless one can PROVE likelihoood of substantial harm from those choices, I think parents should have the right to make them.

If, for instance, someone can do a study showing that partial removal of the clitoral hood does not increase rates of infection, bacterial vaginosis, or lead to attenuation of sexual response or anorgasmia, or increase in HSV2, or painful intercourse, etc. etc., than I wouldn't oppose people doing it to their children. That isn't the case.

one last comment: @19 you said both reportedly decrease sensitivty, but after reading up on it quite a bit, it seems that for some people, removal of the foreskin increases sensitivity (because the foreskin is too tight or constricting), and for others, removal of the foreskin decreases sensitivity. Some of the people who report decreased sensitvity also claim that it increases overall satisfaction because they can last longer. So there's no clear consensus on its impact on sexual pleasure.

Um, can't we just teach our boys to clean their goddamn dick? Are we really so lazy and squeamish that we can't teach basic hygiene to our kids? If it's a serious health issue, I have no qualms about getting one of my children cut, but for cosmetic reasons? Why? Should I make my teen daughter get a boob job if she's too flat because she might be depressed about it later on in life?

This is very good news for the millions of babies who have responsible parents who refuse to mutilate them. It is also good news that people will not be controled by tradition and social expectations. The fact that it is getting more difficult to control people means we are becoming more civilized.

When you have an uncircumsized penis, the studies show, you are more likely to allow the HPV or HIV virus to 'hang around' under the forskin when in a protracted mode. You have an environment where the viruses can live for an elongated period of time under the foreskin that allows the virus life... and ultimately, passage down the penis's opening.

They would never do a study like this in the US... too risky, too controversial.. so they relay on data collected in Africa, where condoms are rarely used.

The medical benefits are there for a cut dick... and although I don't plan on geting any STD's... And although it is a jewish/muslim tradition, sometimes it just makes sense. (Unlike a bunch of other stuff they do).

So, if I have my choice, I vote Cut.

@ Tbone
Thanks for the info. Noted.

However, the arguments about "cleanliness" predate the research and are really religious in origin. None of the guys I ever dated (almost all cut) were cut because of disease prevention, and I doubt you were, either.

I think the self-esteem arguments are crap, and I agree with 32 on not surgically altering a child's anatomy to achieve a "better looking" (to whom?) body part.

So what's left to support it? Tradition (which is the implicit argument of most pro-cut people on this comment thread), and STD transmission. I hope to teach my sons a lot of things, and two of them will be personal hygiene and sexual safety. So thanks for the clarifying info, but my kids are still not having surgery in their infancy to make their cocks look cute.

Jesus fuck. Sometimes I get dirt under my fingernails. This doesn't mean I cut off my fingertips at the knuckle, or rip the nails out of their beds. It means I wash my fucking hands.

Female circumcision also linked to lower HIV infection rate.

Here is a less well-known article (http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138)
that shows female circumcision was linked to lower HIV infection rate (in Tanzania at least). This counters whoever said female circumcision increases infection rate.

Did you hear about the baby that was born at Swedish with no eyelids? They were able to make him some using the foreskin from his circumcision. The operation was a total success. Except he was a little cockeyed.

I think uncut guys are totally HOT. It's my preference. And it does hurt the babies so why do it?

Now, men, weigh in on this for me please:

Do you take pride in the fact that you look like your dad every time you see your penis?

'Cause I don't necessarily feel pride ... or anything at all for that matter, about my vagina looking like my mothers.

Do you care if your dick looks like your dad's, or would you prefer that they made the decision to either not have or have you circumcised as a child based upon what was best for your heath?

If ya'all are gonna holler about your dicks being uncut, then keep 'em clean!

Are you afraid of HIV? USE A CONDOM.

uciyxg cxnawvtsm atjb dweypgxrc hyamx golruthd rkbmtywa

Las Vegas
[url=http://condosforrent-las-newyears-vegas.gebook.org/] condosforrent las newyears vegas [/url]