CIRCUMCISION?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 4:45 AM GMT
    Ok Guys...

    Please share your thoughts on whether you think baby boys should be circumcised or not? As men, are you disgusted and grossed out by uncircumcised men? Or do you think it is no big deal?

    Men that were circumcised at an older age, please tell us what you prefer to be? What feels better? To be cut or uncut?

    Thank you for your help in answering these questions.
  • commoncoll

    Posts: 1222

    Aug 16, 2010 4:47 AM GMT
    I circumcised my son when he was born. It seem more hygienic and due religious and personal preferences. I have never seen a foreskin in real life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:22 AM GMT
    I was just told by someone in the Chat Room, that in his opinion since boys are born uncircumcised, they should be left that way.....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 7:42 AM GMT
    lifetime saidOk Guys...

    Please share your thoughts on whether you think baby boys should be circumcised or not? As men, are you disgusted and grossed out by uncircumcised men? Or do you think it is no big deal?

    Men that were circumcised at an older age, please tell us what you prefer to be? What feels better? To be cut or uncut?

    Thank you for your help in answering these questions.


    well, i had circumcision when i was 18 because i had to but the doctor cut only half of the skin 'cause he said it will be very hard for me now to get used to it.
    so i have only half foreskin but i have to tell you it feels much better than before, so i say cut them.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Aug 16, 2010 12:30 PM GMT
    there are dozens of these threads already... sigh
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 12:35 PM GMT
    in before southbeach.....lolz

    diz will not end well icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 1:07 PM GMT
    It's unnecessary. Barring serious medical reasons, it should be left up to the individual when they are older to decide whether or not they want to be circumcised. Simple as that. For those who do so for religious reasons, I say you have no right to foist something so permanent and unnecessary upon someone else without their consent. They may grow up and decide they don't want your belief system.
  • pure_motion

    Posts: 156

    Aug 16, 2010 3:11 PM GMT
    lifetime said

    Men that were circumcised at an older age, please tell us what you prefer to be? What feels better? To be cut or uncut?



    I was circumcised two years ago, because I liked the look better. To be honest, apart from looking a little different, there's not much difference in feeling. An orgasm is an pretty much still an orgasm, despite an inch or two of skin.

    I just think it looks prettier icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
    viveutvivas saidThat is very ignorant of you, and babies are not your religious property to abuse at will. icon_mad.gif


    That's kinda harsh, to call someone ignorant if only you disagree with his choice...

    And while children are not property per se, most states view the matter as a custodial issue: while the children are in minority (under age) parents can legally make a great many medical and religious decisions for their children, including circumcision.

    That being said, I really am glad my folks left me uncut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
    Love UC men..I dont believe boys should be circumsized except for religious reasons.They should have the choice when they turn 18.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    BuckYou said
    well, i had circumcision when i was 18 because i had to but the doctor cut only half of the skin 'cause he said it will be very hard for me now to get used to it.
    so i have only half foreskin but i have to tell you it feels much better than before, so i say cut them.


    It feels better than before because you had a problem foreskin that needed surgery, silly. icon_rolleyes.gif


    yes but, i only had problems when i was getting hard. now it feels better in general, having the head half out, sometimes all out because the skin roles over than having it all covered.
  • Sparkycat

    Posts: 1064

    Aug 16, 2010 4:32 PM GMT
    It's genital mutilation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 4:37 PM GMT
    WickedRyan saidLove UC men..I dont believe boys should be circumsized except for religious reasons.They should have the choice when they turn 18.


    "except for religious reasons"

    jeez what a good argument. Religion already adds so much useful stuff to our lives.

    Like as if any 18 year old would go "yea, let's do that, cause then Jesus will love me more" when you ask them "would you like to have your foreskin cut off"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:13 PM GMT
    "Please share your thoughts on whether you think baby boys should be circumcised or not? As men, are you disgusted and grossed out by uncircumcised men? Or do you think it is no big deal?"

    Way to frame the discussion.

    *rolls eyes*
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:15 PM GMT
    gonna play the devil's advocate here for a few more minutes...

    - In the end, the baby really won't remember its (circumcision) wound

    - the baby really cannot make an informed decision

    - there may medical/hygiene reasons why the parents and/or doctor counsels the parents toward circumcision

    --- Does such a decision by one's parents on behalf of their kids really change their lives so drastically?

    --- One could argue that the parent(s) choice of where to live (school districts) or diet (organics vs. hormone-laden Walmart crap) are just as much a case for "child abuse" than one arbitrary wound for which the pain will have been long forgotten.

    Of course, it would be more *fair* for the parents to wait until the child can make an informed decision about whether or not to be circumcised; but current law does not esteem this as a matter of "children's rights".

    Some may even argue that to *not* circumcise their boys at infancy (particularly if the decision is based upon perceived medical reasons) is abusive, on account that what is forgotten easily by a baby is much more gruesomely painful and inconvenient (during healing) for a young man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:15 PM GMT
    Personally, I think it is more aesthetically pleasing and probably a little more hygienic. As for the morality of it, I don't know. I suppose if we didn't have that argue about, we could debate why we were given an inny or an outy belly button.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:20 PM GMT
    pure_motion said
    lifetime said

    Men that were circumcised at an older age, please tell us what you prefer to be? What feels better? To be cut or uncut?



    I was circumcised two years ago, because I liked the look better. To be honest, apart from looking a little different, there's not much difference in feeling. An orgasm is an pretty much still an orgasm, despite an inch or two of skin.

    I just think it looks prettier icon_smile.gif
    Why anyone would wait till adult hood for that is beyond me. Why would you put yourself through a month or 2 of pain and no sex.

    I say leave it. Its hotter looking and normal. 90% of men in the world have it, its just U.S. and some spots that do it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:21 PM GMT
    Being cut is only more hygenic if you don't bathe regularly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:27 PM GMT
    I personally think the "hygienic" argument is bullshit. If you want to not bathe for days at a time after sex or masturbating, then by all means get circumcised.

    There is one distinct advantage, however, to being circumcised: you are less likely to contract HIV.

    I'm not circumcised there's no way I'd ever want to be otherwise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:29 PM GMT
    viveutvivas said
    BuckYou said
    viveutvivas said
    BuckYou said
    well, i had circumcision when i was 18 because i had to but the doctor cut only half of the skin 'cause he said it will be very hard for me now to get used to it.
    so i have only half foreskin but i have to tell you it feels much better than before, so i say cut them.


    It feels better than before because you had a problem foreskin that needed surgery, silly. icon_rolleyes.gif


    yes but, i only had problems when i was getting hard. now it feels better in general, having the head half out, sometimes all out because the skin roles over than having it all covered.


    I'm uncut and my head is half out like yours when I'm not hard. Again, you can't really compare because you had a problem foreskin, and you still have foreskin even now.


    it depends on how much foreskin you have i think. my last bf was uncut and his penis was completely under skin when not erect.

    yes i have foreskin but not enough to cover my penis and most of the time the skin rolls over making my penis look almost like a cut one even if it's not hard
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:44 PM GMT

    This topic is
    rollercoaster.gif





    ...so all we can say is..

    Litterbox.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 5:55 PM GMT
    utbtm18 said There is one distinct advantage, however, to being circumcised: you are less likely to contract HIV.


    Can you cite a source that does not use a third world country for it's study?

    Thanks from a fellow UC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 6:02 PM GMT
    The trials were funded by the US National Institutes of Health , the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Fogarty International Center. This study was also supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH.
    Contraction of a disease like HIV really doesn't differ overall in the human race. What is studied in third world countries about disease contraction is equally viable in the "superior" West.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Aug 16, 2010 6:11 PM GMT
    I think it should be the father's decision.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 6:11 PM GMT
    Chip2Stan said
    utbtm18 said There is one distinct advantage, however, to being circumcised: you are less likely to contract HIV.


    Can you cite a source that does not use a third world country for it's study?

    Thanks from a fellow UC.

    What bobkelso said about disease contraction holds true. Physiology is nearly identical in the human race.
    Additionally, the inner foreskin has the largest density of Langerhans' cells along with the vagina and the oral mucos-but that is a minimal risk. These cells act as the initial target for the HIV receptor spikes. They can act as the vector for dissemination for HIV.
    Removing the inner foreskin reduces the area most susceptible to contraction of HIV. Initially, HIV-2 strain has most lack of modification in some areas of Africa as that is the origin of HIV. Thus, it makes more sense to study subjects there.
    Circumcision also reduces the chances of injuries from sex-reducing the chance for contracting HIV.