You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Laci Green explains why guys shouldn’t fear the foreskin — and why parents shouldn’t cut off their child’s foreskin before he’s old enough to give consent:
More on the circumcision debate here and here!
Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.
I was snipped at birth so I don’t know what I may or may not be missing but what I do know is being snipped has had zero effect on my sensitivity and no woman has ever complained about how my penis looks.
If I had a son 14 years ago I would have had him snipped as well. I’m not having any more children so I don’t have to worry about it now.
Edit: I know this is a sensitive topic for many. Down vote away for all I care.
People do all kinds of things to their bodies in the name of religious devotion, group indentity, and self expression, but the thing about all that is that it is VOLUNTARY. Weather there’s any difference or not, it’s just not cool to make a choice like that for someone else when they are helpless to resist.
(There is a difference. You’ll never know so it doesn’t bother you but why would you scar children without their permission if there’s even a chance that there’s a difference? That’s our dicks we’re talking about. Someone wants to cut part of it off. You and I both know we would all fight to the death to keep however much of it we have…)
I don’t feel scared at all. I like how my penis looks being snipped. I’m not the least bit upset at my parents for doing it.
And if they hadn’t, would you still get a circumcision?
The truth is that you’re not in a position to look at this objectively, because to do that you’d have to start wondering if your parents did something wrong or if your body doesn’t work the way it is supposed to.
Nobody wants to think either of those things. But because we all know nobody wants to think their parents messed up their private parts, we know that circumcision as an infant makes it hard to view circumcision without bias.
“why would you scar children” Are you talking physical or mental? Not that it matters. I was snipped and I am not scared in either capacity. I also have plenty of sensitivity. I’m not sure if you know this, but they don’t lob off the whole end, you know, there is still a fore skin left, it just doesn’t cover everything. So all this talk about scaring and people being damaged is probably causing more long term pain and suffer than the actual act.
There’s no dotted line, and no rule about how much to take. Some doctors take or leave the frenulum, the last remnant of the ridged band of specialised nerves running round the inside of the foreskin, depending on their skill or whim. And since as you admit, you’re lucky you were left more, wouldn’t you have been even luckier if you’d been left all of it?
No, not necessarily. Your making an assumption that is not fully supported.
1. Studies have shown that people circumcised have some lower health risks.
2. If it is less sensitive than uncircumcised then I guess that has been beneficial for me in having an easier time exerting control.
So in those two ways, Which I think are pretty important ways, I would have to say you are wrong.
But this is how I feel, you go ahead and feel any way you want.
1. The supposed health benefits – debatable, often bogus, slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means or treated as they arise – are a different issue.
2. No, as above, the large number of specialised nerve-endings in the foreskin confer more feedback, and hence more control. They are concentrated near the tip, and are always removed.
We are talking about facts here, not feelings. You are basing the case for cutting the genitals of 1.2 million babies/year on your own case.
“has had zero effect on my sensitivity ”
You just said earlier in the same sentence that you can’t possibly know that.
Plenty of people have claimed it has robbed them of sensitivity. I am claiming it has not.
The opposite of anecdotal evidence is not anecdotal evidence.
Not everyone is upset they where snipped either.
But plenty are. Here’s 200 to go on with: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
None of them needed to be, so why couldn’t all be just left alone?
You simply don’t have the necessary data to make that claim. Believe it if you want, if it helps you, but don’t try to make it a truth statement. You can’t make a before and after comparison if you never had a before.
Ask people who were circumcised after becoming sexually active, and see what they have to say about it. You may be surprised.
But even then, you’d have to leave out the ones who volunteered to be circumcised, as in the two African studies that so much is being made of, because men who valued their foreskins wouldn’t volunteer.
And you’d have to leave out the ones who got circumcised for something that was impairing their sex lives.
And you’d have to leave out the ones who got circumcised for religious reasons, because they’d factor the “spiritual benefits” into their measure of sexual satisfaction.
And you’d have to leave out the ones who got it done for kinky sexual reasons – and there’s a fair few of those.
It doesn’t leave many.
“what I do know is being snipped has had zero effect on my sensitivity”
This is empirically false. As she states in the video, the foreskin has many, many nerve endings. You have significantly fewer nerve endings in your penis now compared to when you were born.
You could say that you are happy with your current degree of sexual sensitivity, but not that circumcision has had no effect.
For me, it is simply immoral to disfigure any person’s genitalia before they are able to give consent. Genital cutting is wrong.
And I still have plenty of never ending so being snipped had zero effect.
That’s not how neurology works. You just think it had zero effect but you have no experience with what your sensitivity would have been had you not been snipped so I’ll stick with what people who know what they’re talking about say.
I don’t think I would want any more nerve endings on my penis. The ones I have provide plenty of pleasure.
That’s fine, you are allowed to not want more nerve endings, however it is still objectively true that if you did have more (if you were uncut) you would have more pleasure.
I’m sorry, I’m glad what you’ve got left is good enough for you, but you really don’t know what you’re missing. The rolling and flexing of the foreskin provides an entirely different *kind* of sensation to friction against the glans. It’s not just a question of intensity, but of variety of sensation.
FWIW I was circumcised in my mid 30s for medical reasons. It thankfully has made zero difference to sexual enjoyment – pretty much the same before as afterwards.
Was in a lot of pain for about 10 days afterwards, No way I’d have gone through it for aesthetic or other non medical reasons and the hygiene argument is rubbish – 5 seconds in the shower is the difference having a foreskin makes.
Totally agree that it should not be performed as a standard or on children unable to consent but some of the rhetoric about loss of sensation…well personally I’ve not seen any of it. Hardly a scientific rebuttal I know but the only argument you need is that you don’t perform an unnecessary medical procedure on a person without their informed consent.
Even if your experience is probably anomalous I agree with what you’re saying – we really should focus on the fact that this is something that is done *without consent* on an unsuspecting child.
The first rule for doctors is: do no harm. Of course that doesn’t apply to non-medical people like rabbis and imams who don’t give a shit. They are criminal child abusers.
How would you know? You’ve never had the experience of an uncut penis to compare it to.
How can you possibly know that it had no effect on your sensitivity if it was done at birth and you’ve never experienced sex with an intact penis? You can’t make a comparison if you’ve only got one data point.
Well, Kevin, if they’re in a position to make comments they’d have to be an absolute boor to criticize, don’t you think?
“I don’t know what I may or may not be missing but what I do know is being snipped has had zero effect on my sensitivity”
You contradict yourself.
Misogyny in 3… 2… 1…
I’m so glad I only have a daughter. I tried talking to my husband about it when I was pregnant and I just ended up hurting his feelings.
I think I experienced what someone with ADHD must experience while watching that video. All the sharp cuts and lack of transitions were really aggravating.
All the sharp cuts and lack of transitions were really aggravating.
Unfortunately that seems to be really common for a number of Youtubers – try watching Phillip DeFranco sometime, if he were recorded on vinyl I’d swear the needle was skipping.
Its like there is an incessant need to remove all natural cues made by people giving a speech, which is pretty much what they’re doing when they talk to at you via the camera. While that would work for audio, taking out the pauses and breathing works when you can’t see the person, its jarring and subconsciously wrong when you can see the person.
Its a shame because the information provided by Laci in this video was interesting and important to consider, but I think the quick cuts and lack of natural pauses do make it difficult to focus on what’s being said.
I have ADD and found the video very easy to follow. I had to pay very close attention, but I had less trouble than usual doing so.
Maybe there’s something to that?
How do you circumsize a whale?
Four skin divers.
Three of my uncles were born at home and were not circumcised. All of them had so many UTI’s that they got circumcised in their late 20′s and early 30′s. The pain was bad but none of them had any regrets for doing it an it did not lessen sensitivity. Foreskin made sense when we ran around in the African grasslands and forests buck naked … not so much any more.
Ahh so it’s all about anecdotal evidence for you eh? What a failure of critical thinking you are. In that case let me add some contrary anecdotal evidence for you: I’m uncircumcised and have not one, ie. zero, problems in my life.
Thats probably because you have such a small penis.
But since you want “empirical” evidence, here you go.
A study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal finds that uncircumcised boys have a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) than circumcised boys, a condition that could lead to kidney damage and scarring if left untreated. The risk of infection was higher in uncircumcised boys regardless of how much of their urethral opening was visible.
The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised.
Damn it, sucks when you screw up the argument with facts.
Quit that. Might just have to stoop to down voting you because we don’t like that.
You can have your own beliefs, but you can’t have your own facts.
Funny thing about ‘facts’. They have to be used in context.
That’s a fact.
Damn you and your facts!
The risk of UTIs in young boys is approx 1-2%. They are highly treatable (in first world conditions at least with antibiotics and analgesics for about a week) and usually not recurrent. Using circumcision to prevent UTI’s is akin to using a hammer to crack a nut.
There is a good argument for using circumcision in places with high rates of HIV like Africa as part of an overall strategy but the arguments that work there do not apply to most people in Europe or North Americas. Certainly not a justification for circumcision as standard.
Despite epidemiological evidence that circumcision reduces the occurance of uti and std, you still maintain your “belief” that the procedure has no value? Cognitive dissonance and motivated reasoning in action.
That evidence is shaky at best. The studies done in Africa perforce require two populations, those who are circumcised and those who aren’t. Why did those men get circumcised? Do they perhaps have ideas about sex that lead them to have fewer partners or that make the more likely to use condoms?
Been away for a couple of days but seeing as you went there…
I did not say that circumcision had no value in preventing UTIs, I said it was like using a hammer to crack a nut – excessive and unnecessary. Circumcising 100 newborn boys to prevent 2 of them getting a condition generally treatable much more simply by antibiotics and analgesics is overkill. I stand by that. It would be less expensive for the healthcare system overall, less risk of post operative infection and less traumatising for the newborn – especially the 98 who it didn’t end up helping. That’s before you consider the ethical issues around performing an unnecessary medical procedure on a person without their informed consent.
It is neither cognitive dissonance or motivated reasoning (are you throwing some big words around to show off possibly?). Indeed I could accuse you of the same things.
If circumcision significantly reduces the risk of getting and/or spreading HIV, that does not mean that circumcision is a good idea. Using a condom is a much more effective way to avoid getting and/or spreading HIV. I suppose that you could make a case that circumcision is a good idea in areas where condoms are not widely available. (Although I have to wonder exactly where it is that people cannot access condoms but can still access the sort of sanitary hospital setting that’s necessary to perform a circumcision safely.)
But even if circumcision is a good idea in those specific circumstances, that does not mean that is a good idea in general. Even if circumcision proves to be a valid strategy for fighting AIDS in parts Africa, that does not mean that neonatal circumcision is a good thing for the rest of the world.
It should probably also be mentioned that the studies claiming that circumcision reduces the risk of contacting HIV are kind of problematic in some regards.
For instance, see:
The WHO declared that VOLUNTARY ADULT circumcision should be part of the strategy, etc. and that only after a closed-door invitation-only meeting that observers report was a rubberstamp job. (A detailed circumcision manual came out suspiciously soon afterwards.) Some of the top circumcision honchos have vested interests (one manufactures circumcision devices, another thinks he was “destined” to promote circumcision by his descent from a ritual circumciser).
That “60% lower” figure has been chanted like a mantra since the studies were done, but it amounts to 73 circumcised men who didn’t get HIV out of 5,400 (the difference from another group left intact). Several times as many dropped out of the study, their HIV status unknown to the researchers. Finding you were HIV+ after a painful and marking operation to prevent it would be a good reason to drop out. There are many, many other problems with those studies.
A ‘circumcision cartel’ … LOL, give a break.
The only problem with these studies is that you dont accept their results. I believe they call that motivated reasoning.
If you look at any of the recent studies claiming to show benefits of circumcision, you will almost always find one or more of the following names: Robert Bailey, Stefan Bailis, Ronald Gray, Daniel Halperin, Godfrey Kigozi, Jeffrey Klausner, Brian Morris, Stephen Moses, Malcolm Potts, Thomas Quinn, David Serwadda, Dirk Taljaard, Aaron Tobian, Maria Wawer, Jake Waskett, Helen Weiss. Every so often a paper is co-signed by most of them (the others must have been busy at the time).
In the scientific world that’s a very small number, and you won’t find anything like it in any respectable field of scientific endeavour. Why, for example should the SAME people be studying circumcision as prevention of HIV, relative safety of different methods of circumcising, and effects of circumcision on sexual functioning? These people just like circumcision!
^^ Foreskin made sense when we ran around naked ^^
Clothes, bedding, and air are what the foreskin protects the glans from. Those things cause drying and friction that dulls the sensations. But it’s more significant that the foreskin includes thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings and affords WHOLLY DIFFERENT modes of stimulation. Frictionless rolling / gliding action is just awesome beyond description and cut guys will just never know. It’s like they are blind to part of the color spectrum.
Cut guys can use non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo some of the damage. It’s quit beneficial: http://Foreskin-Restoration.net/forum/showpost.php?p=37559&postcount=3
As someone who has seen both sides of circumcision I can honestly say is makes no significant difference one way or the other.
Now when you say “seen” do you mean you’ve personally undergone the procedure as an adult who’s already used his penis in the undamaged state at least once?
According to his earlier post, yes.
Yes as Allein mentioned from my post above I was circumcised for medical reasons in my 30s. Not something I usually shout from the rooftops but it seems to be fairly uncommon for adult males to undergo it so gives me an interesting perspective on the discussion!
You can honestly say that, but you can only know that it seemed to make no significant difference to you. Others’ mileages can and do vary widely.
Yes of course I can only speak for myself. However advice given by the Mayo clinic and other reputable medical groups would support this – (from Mayoclinic.com) “Circumcision doesn’t affect fertility, nor is circumcision generally
thought to enhance or detract from sexual pleasure for men or their
So your choice of cutting off your foreskin as a sexually mature adult didn’t change anything for you? But we’re talking about cutting off an infant’s prepuce without his permission before it is sexually mature, not finished growing to its maximum size,before puberty’s reproductive brain chemistry is stablized, right? Can you see that there is a neurological difference between infant and adult prepuce excision?
I am totally against the standardized circumcision of infants and, in fact, anyone who does not require it for medical purposes – or at least can give informed consent to the procedure. I’m no pro-circumcision flag waver. But the scare stories like loss of performance, sensation etc are just as unsupported by evidence as the health and hygiene arguments given for circumcision.
I can see that if a nerve ending is not there its not going to send a signal to the brain. But the research suggests that most circumcised adults do not experience any loss in terms of satisfaction with their sex lives. So sexual satisfaction / experience etc should be left out of the equation.
There’s only one anti circumcision argument you need – its NOT OK to perform an unnecessary medical procedure on a newborn infant or anyone who is not able to consent to it. Anything else is filler.
” But the research suggests that most circumcised adults do not experience any loss in terms of satisfaction with their sex lives”
When you say “…the research suggests that most…”, would that be 51%, or much greater, or is there any other suggested figures that may or may not be in dispute with non procircumcision research which includes intact men (which claims the near opposit, of coarse)?
Best I could find is this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm which suggests near equivalency (98%-99%) with satisfaction in circumcised and non circumcised groups.
Remember I’m not arguing that circumcision is a good thing in itself – though I know some do argue this, I’m not. I’m just pointing out that some of the arguments against it are false or exaggerated at best. I’d never have a son of mine circumcised for any reason other than specific medical need.
As someone who was circumcised as an infant and practiced foreskin restoration therapy as an adult, I can honestly say it makes a big difference to the amount of physical stimulation needed to become erect, and now my glans is kept covered, protected and moist and all the keratinized skin on my glans sloughed off and it looks all shiny and new and a bit more sensitive, and the feeling of having my shaft skin roll over my glans is exquisite. When I was circumcised I had no idea how sex was supposed to feel, so a circumcised mans oppinion is based on having a flawed penis from infancy.
Funny, I thought about using blindness as an analogy as well.
Colour-blindness, 2D vision, one-eared hearing are all good analogies for circumcised sex. In each case you will find sufferers who don’t know what they’re missing and will stoutly deny that they are missing anything at all.
then you occasionally find people who have experienced both 2D and 3D vision in their lifetime, to continue your analogy, If they told you there was practically no difference would you believe them?
No. i would say they had learnt to compensate for their lack. On the contrary, people who have sight restored to one eye experience the new 3D vision as amazing:
“Errol Morris, the filmmaker, was born with strabismus
and subsequently lost almost all the vision in one eye, but feels he gets along perfectly well. “I see things in 3-D,” he said. “I move my head when I need to – parallax is enough. I don’t see the world as a plane.” He joked that he
considered stereopsis [3D vision] no more than a “gimmick” and found my interest in it “bizarre.”
“I tried to argue with him, to expatiate on the special character and beauty of stereopsis. But one cannot convey to the stereo-blind what stereopsis is like; the subjective quality, the quale,of stereopsis is unique and no less remarkable than that of color. However brilliantly a person with monocular vision may function, he or she is, in this one sense, totally lacking.
“With prismatic spectacles and exercises, Sue Barry recovered stereo vision after a lifetime of using her two eyes separately:
‘I went back to my car and happened to glance at the steering wheel. It had “popped out” from the dashboard. I closed one eye, then the other, then looked with both eyes again, and the steering wheel looked different. I decided that the light from the setting sun was playing tricks on me and drove home. But the next day I got up, did the eye exercises., and got into the car to drive to work. When I looked at-the rear-view mirror, it had popped out from the windshield.’
Her new vision was “absolutely delightful,” Sue wrote. “I had no idea what I had been missing.” ”
- Oliver Sacks, The Mind’s Eye
I think you’ve found the point where the analogy breaks down! Interesting post though.
“Foreskin made sense when we ran around in the African grasslands and forests buck naked … not so much any more.” Don’t put those words in your mouth, you don’t know where they’ve been. They’re the words of a 19th century San Diego lung-doctor called Peter Remondino. He also said we should circumcise black men to protect white women’s virtue. http://www.circumstitions.com/remondino.html
“Circumcision, which substantially lowers HIV risk in men, also dramatically changes the bacterial communities of the penis, according to a study led by scientists at the Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen) and Johns Hopkins University and published Jan. 6 in the scientific journalPLoS ONE.
And these bacterial changes may also be associated with earlier observations that women whose male partners are circumcised are less likely to develop bacterial vaginosis, an imbalance between good and harmful bacteria.
Yes of course, when you cut part of the body off, the bacteria about that part of the body change. If you cut off the toes, the bacteria there will change too. The stuff about good and harmful bacteria is pure speculation.
And that study was carried out by Cindy M. Liu, Bruce A. Hungate, Aaron A. R. Tobian, David Serwadda,
Jacques Ravel, Richard Lester, Godfrey Kigozi, Maliha Aziz, Ronald M. Galiwango, Fred Nalugoda, Tania L. Contente-Cuomo, Maria J. Wawer, Paul Keim, Ronald H. Gray, Lance B. Price
- FIVE of the authors are in the list I gave above – members of the “circumcision cartel” if you like.
Science is a human endeavour and scientists are as capable of being blinded by their culture as anyone else.
The issue is, the pain is never going to allow an adult to consent. Also, by the time you are adult enough to know the meaning of consent, you are either busy playing with it yourself, or have someone else play with it for you. Point is, you’d hate for it to be out of action for days, or maybe weeks.
And even though circumcision itself has no medically positive value, you cant disagree with how the underside of the foreskin does provide a damp place for critters and vegetation to grow, so maintaining hygiene is an important chore. Removing the foreskin removes that hassle.
Not really, there are endless folds around the area that provide perfect places for critters and vegetation to grow. If you’re washing that area properly then washing under the foreskin adds no real hassle compared to that.
Then let the person being circumcised make that choice. It’s wrong that they have no say in the matter, that they’re having bits of their penis cut off without their consent. They are the ones who get to decide, not the parents, not the doctor.
So, best do it to a child who can’t withhold consent, eh? Plus, adults can ask for anaesthetic. And I hardly think the hassle of cleaning that one bit is significant to cleaning the rest of your body to a similar standard – you do do that, right?
If it has no medically positive value, then why do it? If the chore is that much of a hassle, I promise, men would line up to get circumcised.
(Not that we cut off the labia to make it easier to clean, and really, I don’t wanna fuck some guy who can’t rinse off his penis now and again.)
Washing my ears is a hassle too, Should I just chop them off for simplicity’s sake? Athlete’s foot fungus is annoying, so I guess I’ll chop off my toes too. Hell, it’s a chore to wash my hands all the time…
Of course adults would never consent to any of that. I guess we should just mutilate children before they can complain. Problem solved!
Plenty of adults DO get themselves circumcised, e.g. for religious reasons, regardless of the pain. And they’re now boasting that a new device for adults is painless.
“Also, by the time you are adult enough to know the meaning of consent,
you are either busy playing with it yourself, or have someone else play
with it for you.”
Exactly! Hardly anyone who knows how good a foreskin is to have will ever consent to having it cut off.
Chore? Hassle? pull back, rinse, pull forward. Done. Jeez.
Leaving aside the pros or consol circumcision, I am seriously tired of women holding forth on this issue. If a circumcised (or uncircumcised) man wants to give me some opinions about this particular issue I.’mhappy to listen, but I’m tired of righteous women presuming to tell men the best configuration for their junk.
That’s the point of this— don’t touch what nature gave you and you decide. Women are included my friend, because we have the vaginas that pop babies out and since they are our children, we make those decisions. Hopefully, some women will read this and let their children make their own decisions.
Speaking as a woman, I’m fine with men telling other men to leave their baby daughters’ genitals alone, and even to suggest to the girls’ mothers that “no man will want to marry them” isn’t true.
Except it’s not women telling men what to do with their junk here so much as it is women telling parents not to chop of bits of their kids’ junk.
There are plenty of men who are willing to give their opinions on circumcision as well. While I think that a (cis) man’s opinion on this topic generally has more weight than a (cis) woman’s, I don’t think that there’s a problem with women expressing their opinions either, so long as their voices don’t overpower men’s.
I do think this is being debated heavily by women, because usually it’s the mother who makes the final decision about circumcising her son. Being that this is the case, I don’t know how this conversation could continue without them. Of course the men’s perspective is, by far, what matters more than anything, but it is the women giving birth who need to be convinced.
Yeah, and men should just shut up about female circumcision too. It’s tiresome to hear righteous men complaining about something they’ll never have to face, right?
The hygiene aspect of uncut penises only happens in the US, due to medical bad advice, and not as much anymore as doctors now do not tell parents to peel back the foreskin and wash there. The medical advice in Latin America where the majority are not circumcised is to leave the penis foreskin alone. Do not peel back. No one there has urinary infections due to foreskin. Once you’re sexually active or the foreskin peels off from the head naturally then it makes sense to wash it well with water when you shower; same as with a vulva. There is also the pleasant smell no one talks about, which it smells just like the vulva, which men go nuts over it. Well, so is the case with women raised to appreciate and respect sex, they too get turn on by the natural smell. By all means wash it daily or the bacteria responsible for it can get crazy and produce an odor not so pleasant, again just like the vulva sometimes. If it get to that crazy smell applying some neosporin for one day will take care of it. Now you know…
Eh, from Latin America here. Just wanted to point of that urinary infections requiring circumcision in older boys and men do occur there.
Q. How does circumcision cure a urinary tract infection?
A. Micro organisms in the urinary tract causing the UTI are not affected/cured from circumcision. UTI’s in males and females never require a surgical excision, only antibiotics.
Some circumcision MD’s just say circumcision is required to scare ignorant young people.
I think the point is that it reduces the risk, though the difference is probably pretty small and most likely not enough to warrant circumcision as a preemptive measure. The risk is already pretty low to begin with.
Yes. it’s like saying having teeth causes tooth decay so teeth excision prevents cavities. It’s true, but in a psychotic way.
Girls get more urinary tract infections than boys, but we don’t go cutting parts off them.
The point is not that they occur because they occur regardless of circumcision, so the question is why do they occur and in what volume or percentage in order to validate circumcision as oppose to just wash the fucking thing on a regular basis. Infections occur also in vulva/vagina but no-one is promoting cutting off the labia. Same thing here. Just wash it, and don’t be a pig sticking your dick in any hole and expecting it not to get infections.
Hygiene can often be a counterintuitive thing. It’s my understanding that certain areas should not be excessively cleaned with anything other than plain water, because just about anything else – soaps, detergents, antiseptics, etc – wrecks the skin’s natural defences against infection; they change the pH levels and remove the natural oils. The best, apparently paradoxical, advice for ending recurrent fungal infections of the skin, for example, seems to be to stop using even soaps to clean those particular areas (mostly sweaty, hot, poorly-ventilated areas like gaps between toes, the groin, etc), and just use water.
Vulva are commonly referred to as self-cleaning organs, and standard advice for hygiene does indeed seem to be to just leave them the hell alone, unless you’ve got some infection serious enough to need medical attention – I’d be astonished if the glans and foreskin hadn’t developed in a similar way. For starters, they get washed out with urine on a regular basis, which is actually pretty clean stuff and somewhat inhibitory to microbe growth, since it’s a waste product.
You got this right I believe my friend. Just a good rubbing with water is all you need, sounds gross but the results speak for themselves. Now if you’re gonna be sticking your bishop in multiple vaginas or anuses without condoms then maybe some antibacterial agent like soap may be a good idea. Monogamy makes more sense to me however.
to snip or not to snip. I have 1 husband and 2 sons. inevitably the question was posed amongst our family and friends when I was pregnant with #1. Ultimately we decided to circumcise the first born son mostly so he would look like dad and partially because Dad has an uncle who had to be circumcised for health reasons as an adult and was in excruciating pain. Once you do the #1 son you might as well do #2.
Why would anyone care if he looks like dad? If my husband has blue eyes and my son has brown eyes, is that a problem? Is it a problem if one has curly blonde hair and the other straight black hair? If one has a birthmark and the other doesn’t? If boys have different penises than their dad, they’ll probably notice and ask why at some point, but it’s not like they’ll get upset or neurotic about it unless we teach them to. I doubt it’s that big a deal to them unless we make it so.
With a Gomco, Winkelman or Mogen Clamp, or a traditional barzel, it’s sliced – and a Mogen may take more than just the foreskin, which has led to successful claims worth millions and the Mogen company going out of business.
* With a Plastibell or PrePex it’s crushed and allowed to die.
* With an Accu-circ it’s chopped.
– but never “snipped”.
2 “so he would look like dad”
3. “Dad had an uncle…”
Any children of mine would have a relation who had to have a double lung-transplant for health reasons. I think the maternity ward might draw the line at that…
4. “You might as well…” (facepalm!) Or as badly.
I circumcised my son. It was what I wanted. Doctors allow it.
That doesn’t mean it is right, that the child wanted it, or that the doctors should be able to allow it.
It is right because it is legal and personal morality is subjective. If you think different don’t circumcise your children, or try to make it illegal.
How would you feel if I went up to you right now and chopped part of your penis off without asking? If your moral beliefs are at all consistent you wouldn’t care.
Morality is subjective. Attacking people may be right for you. Defending myself and getting you thrown in jail is what is right for me. Since the law is on my side I will win.
Moral relativism, eww…
Somebody has been reading high school philosophy textbooks recently.
So you’re saying circumcising a baby is right because he can’t defend himself? Thought so.
I circumcised cut the legs off of my son. It was what I wanted. Doctors allow it.
It is right because it is legal and personal morality is subjective. If you think different don’t circumcise cut the legs off of your children, or try to make it illegal.
I circumcised cut the legs off of my son. It was what I wanted. Doctors allow it.
It is right because it is legal and personal morality is subjective. If you think different don’t circumcise cut the legs off of your children, or try to make it illegal.
Now please explain to me why my statement is different, if at all. (Yes, I know that cutting the legs off of your infant children is likely illegal. It’s an analogy, roll with it.)
Sometimes doctors cut the legs off of babies for medical reasons.
Don’t get away from the question! I’m not talking about a surgery necessary to save a life, I’m talking about your whimsical decision to chop of someone else’s skin without their consent for no good reason whatsoever.
How is my version any different?
It is different because I don’t want to chop off legs and because the doctors won’t allow it.
In the hypothetical i made up, you do, and doctors will do it. I suppose it would be fine and dandy under such circumstances to you?
It is also different because legs are not identical to a foreskin.
Yes and sometimes males are circumcised for medical reasons. Nobody opposes that (when they are good medical reasons, as they often are not in circumcising cultures).
It is criminal child abuse and is thus illegal.
It is not criminal in the united states. A doctor at a university hospital offered to perform the procedure and I said yes.
I was speaking in the abstract. The problem is that it is not officially illegal. If you had a medical reason, I understand. Otherwise you are an idiot or a masochist or both. I didn’t have the choice. I detest the 99% of practiioners, both medical and not, who practice this barbaric procedure for non-medical reasons.
That is your opinion. I like more the way the penis looks circumcised. If it is as dangerous as you say, work for it to be made illegal. If it was illegal I wouldn’t have had it done.
I hope that liking the way it looks wasn’t your primary reason – or would you be in favour of other types of cosmetic surgery on newborns too, if it were available?
Cosmetics was my main reason. I was pleased with how my son looked otherwise.
If my son had a benign growth on his body, I would probably have it removed, even if the growth did not pose any risk or harm.
You have an unhealthy obsession with how your young boy’s penis looks. Seriously, WTF?
If a person actually believe that the prepuce is a benign growth on someone elses body, then that superstitious uneducated belief could easily be proof that this person has a benign growth between his/her shoulders, unable to use its brains.
What about other cosmetic procedures on infants? Should it be acceptable to alter eye-lids or do nose jobs or pin ears back to satisfy the aesthetics of the parents?
Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault?
by G. J. Boyle, J. S. Svoboda, C. P. Price, & J. N. Turner
Journal of Law & Medicine
Vol 7 (February 2000), No. 3, pp. 301-310.
So slavery and spousal rape and child beating and infanticide were all “right” in those places and times where they were legal? Is this genuinely the argument you are making here?
“that the child wanted it” or that he will want it when he is a man.
This is more accurate.
Did you ask your son what he wanted?
Isn’t he lucky you didn’t want to feed him on Coca Cola! That’s allowed too.
I can’t speak for all men, but the idea that somehow my penis needs to be MORE sensitive is ridiculous.
It’s your body, think what you like about it. If you are circumcised and happy about it, and don’t want more sensitivity, that’s totally fine. No problem. Glad you don’t claim to speak for all men. Some men like having foreskins. Some don’t. Some hate foreskins and can’t get them cut off fast enough. That’s all fine. It should be up to each individual man.
The foreskin is not just more sensitive, it’s a different kind of sensitive. Cutting it off has been compared with going colourblind.
If you’re circumcised, what you have is not just less sensitivity, but all that special sensitivity confined to a tiny area, the frenulum, a remnant of what was in the foreskin. That’s why circumcised men, but not intact men, call that “the male G-spot” and why they say “if anything, I’m too sensitive” but what they really mean is they have less control.
An insensitive prick doesn’t care if he’s causing pain or pleasure to his partner, just as long as he gets off.
(This comment should be a YouTube video, but I’m camera shy…)
Laci should have ventured further into STDs and HIV, but she totally hit the gas and got out of there! I wondered why. So I Googled “problems with foreskin and condoms” and the rest is history. 598,000 results later…
Turns out, Uncut men may not be more susceptible to STDs because their foreskins incubate infections and such. Maybe it’s because Uncut men don’t like condoms all that much and don’t like wearing them, thus making them more susceptible to STDs. And homosexual men have no reason to wear condoms, other than to avoid STDs. Anyway, the search results say that Uncut men generally have lots of problems with condoms….
Back of condom instructions:
1) Open package
2) Slip condom over penis
3) Roll condom down to base
1) Open package
2) Add lube to inside of condom
3) Pull foreskin back
4) Roll condom down to base (IMPORTANT: because foreskin could bunch and pull condom off!)
5) Move the foreskin back toward the head (to prevent bunching and induce the lovely slippery effect foreskins produce)
6) Add more lube to the outside of the condom (because your fingers moving your foreskin back toward the head might dry out condom)
If you can handle all of that without turning on a lamp or going soft, then you get an award!
Get this, though, a company provides custom-fit condoms for your particular penis. Yes, I’m sure that isn’t a hassle or expensive at all. Like they say, “Necessity is the mother of custom-made penises so your condom won’t turn you off protected sex.” I guess that’s the saying.
All that aside…
Do women really want their men to have MORE sensitivity on their penises? Really? Are women complaining of men lasting too long and having to do a Sudoku during sex? Really? Because I have yet to hear that joke. Who are these women? The only time a woman has politely tapped a man on the back to let him know she’s bored is when he’s not using his penis but his jaw. Any other time he’s done before she’s even ready. Can I get an amen?
Yes, carving the privates of little boys sounds barbaric, and just plain mean, but is there an alternative for our 21st-century sexual environs and their inherent dangers? Please don’t say it’s custom-made condoms. Ain’t nobody got time for that!
Note: I know, I know. Circumcised men have less sensitivity already, so wearing a condom adds to that insensitivity and might turn them off condoms, too. Granted. But any man that has lasted long enough will tell you that a tiny decrease in sensitivity is worth the genuine smile on his partner’s face, compared to the grimace he sees when she fakes her orgasm. Sometimes he actually goes at the same time as you! It sounds mythical, but it happens!
Wow! What concentrated balderdash. It is NOT proved that intact men are more susceptible to STDs. A study making that claim a few years ago got worldwide headlines, but another, a few months later, refuting it (even the author of the first one admitted that) got none. This is typical of coverage in circumcising countries.
Condoms for intact men don’t need to be “custom made”. They’re just wider at the head, and they’re already here. http://www.circumstitions.com/Condoms.html
Sensiitivity. As above, intact men aren’t just “more sensitive” we have exactly the amount of sensitivity gazillions of years of evolution found (or if you prefer, what a loving God thought) was best. But it’s a different quality of sensitivity. Many women report that circumcised men have to thrust desperately to achieve orgasm – but can’t tell when it’s about to happen and ease off – while intact men can relax and enjoy the journey the two of them are making.
Female condoms. There, I solved it for you.
Uhm… my partner is uncut, and there is definitely no extra lube (or really even process) needed to use condoms. Pull it back, roll it on.
Anyway, if we’re going to play the making-fun-of-people-needing-lube game, how do dry handjobs feel to ya?
Foreskin feels REALLY good. Seriously, it’s the best part. Agree or don’t, but the only opinion that matters is the rational informed opinion of the owner of each penis. HIS body, HIS decision.
The neurological functions of the frenular delta nerves in both sexes prepuces are for causing and sending sexual arousal signals to the reproductive parts of our brains.
The bottom line is infant/prepubescent circumcision on boys and girls can be used to cause very little or a lot of sexual dysfunctions to develop after puberty, without the parents knowledge, depending on how much of the frenulum delta nerves and shaft skin the person chosen to commit circumcision on the infant man or woman, chooses to excise along with the child’s prepuce. Circumcision is nothing more than a subversive form of population control, religious and racial hygiene, ethnic cleancing by the chosen people.
My 6 brothers and I were all cut as infants in the USA, and most of us had excessive amounts excised. My lightly circumcised dad apologised before he died of complications from prostrate cancer(circumcision is supposed to prevent prostrate/cervix cancer), after all the sexual dysfunctions showed up in his grown sons from our routine infant prepuce sacrifices. My dad’s light circumcision didn’t cause him any psychological dysfunctions, but his keratinized glans helped keep him erect long enough to wear out my mother’s vagina causing a total hysterectomy after she turned 50, a common side effect for wives of circumcised men in the USA.
Don’t let some subversive religious superstitious fanatic witchdoctor play god with your sons and daughter’s future success with sexuality. Learn how and teach your children how to grow up with a healthy, functioning attractive prepuce for a life time of pleasure, instead of giving up on them and forcing your misinformed choise on them.
I’m not arguing anything about circumcision, but I’m not sure how well you understand female anatomy if you believe that extended sex leads to the need of hysterectomies which remove the uterus, which is above the vagina.
There are many types of hysterectomies. Extended sex with the same partner/husband over and over again, with his rough keratinized surface of his exposed glans of his circumcised penis causes excessive vaginal erosion leading to more infections/pain leading to total hysterectomies, which includes the uterine prolapse, ovaries, fallopian tubes, cervyx. Gosh, sorry for causing the misunderstanding. I have to be so precise with every little word so no one can put a spin on it.
Is this analogy in the correct order, @LizBert? I’m gay so I don’t have any hands-on experience. In the exterior female prepuce, the urinary tract comes out of the clitoris, the Clitoris is connected to the G spot/ frenular delta nerves which are connected to the clitoral hood, and also is connected to the labias, then as you dive a little deeper, the volva’s connected to the vagina, the vagina’s connected to the cervix, the cervix connected to the uterus, wich is connect to the ovaries by the fallopian tubes.
No, the urinary tract does not exit from the clitoris, the opening of the urinary tract and the clitoris are proximal but not the same thing. Yes, the vagina is the opening into the female body with the cervix, which the opening of the uterus, at the end. I’m not a medical doctor by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m still not sure the extended sex leads to the effects that you are asserting. The vagina is an elastic, muscular structure which is functions allow for the birth of children and the insertion of penises of varying size..
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2014, Patheos. All rights reserved.