Circumcision - An expectant father's decision

[BWE]

I'd certainly have far less fun with a labia-less vagina
hmmm.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What?

[TySixtus]

HNA how do you know a what a good portion of women enjoy? This is what I was talking about. Some women love a good pounding. And contrary to what you may believe, those of us that are cut have no problem getting the job done. It's not like we have this deadweight of dick-shaped flesh that can't feel anything. I mean the arguments here are approaching bizarre.

The bottom line is that the foreskin doesn't touch any parts that I know of in a woman that aren't touched otherwise with a cut dick. Yes, it cuts down on the lube. But if you're using a condom you need to use lube anyway, and the shit comes in a bottle for 2 bucks.

Comparing a foreskin to labia is also a bit silly. Some women have innies and almost no labia to play with. So what's the problem?

[BWE]

Some women love a good pounding.

At least they tell you that, eh?
:p

[His Noodly Appendage]

Ty:

If a > b, it does not follow that b=0.

People are asserting that an intact dick is better, not that a cut one is useless - so the fact that a cut one is still useful is not a rebuttal.

And your bottom line is bizarrely irrelevant. Sexual pleasure is not equal to parts touched. It's not what you have, it's what you can do with it - and intact men can do more things.

It's not just the quantity of available lubrication that's the point. Close your eyes, and rub them with your hands. Now try it with your eyes open. No matter how much lube you might slather on, the sensation will be very different.

[TySixtus]

And your bottom line is bizarrely irrelevant. Sexual pleasure is not equal to parts touched. It's not what you have, it's what you can do with it - and intact men can do more things.

Well if it's not "what I have" and I don't have a foreskin, I guess "what I can do with it" is the deciding factor. I agree.

And what on earth do you mean that "intact men can do more things"? Do they have access to some hidden techniques? Is it like getting the strategy guide for Street Fighter 4 so they can do Ryu's fireball easier? Really HNA you''re going overboard here.

It's not just the quantity of available lubrication that's the point. Close your eyes, and rub them with your hands. Now try it with your eyes open. No matter how much lube you might slather on, the sensation will be very different.

Okay. But since I've never had the sensation it's not really bugging me. Which is one of the points I was making.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Slightly at cross purposes here, I think.

A penis with moving parts has more options available. Just as the penis can receive the rubbed-through-eyelids stimulation through the mobile intermediary of the foreskin, so too can the vagina. And the degree of mobility can be set by the user, giving a whole lot more options. And again, the techniques an intact man is likely to use have greater variety - not relying on friction, they're going to be more interested in techniques that don't involve hard thrusting with a long stroke length.

Oh, and of course, the presence of the foreskin makes the entire shaft a lot more mobile, so some positions do indeed directly affect clitoral contact.

(again, disclaimer, I'm not the one advocating on the basis of others' pleasure)

And indeed, a man without eyelids might well be quite satisfied by relieving tired eyeballs with a rub from a well-lubricated palm; never having felt the alternative, the fact that it was all he had available probably wouldn't bug him. But a man with eyelids would be justified in thinking him sorely deprived, no?

[TySixtus]

A penis with moving parts has more options available

I find it interesting that a guy with a foreskin is lecturing me as to what I'm capable of with my no-foreskin having dick.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Would it be similarly interesting that a guy with working finger joints might lecture someone as to what they are capable of without them?

It's simple mechanics. Moving parts equals more physically possible actions.

[TySixtus]

Does a foot with a sock on it have physically possible actions with regards to fitting in a shoe?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Neither condoms nor socks add mobility - they reduce it. That you consider them equivalent to a foreskin makes me wonder if you realise how they work.

Do you have a good enough understanding of the mechanics of the gliding mechanism to be able to explain it to someone else?

[TySixtus]

I imagine it's not rocket science.

I'm simply saying that a piece of skin (however nice it might feel) doesn't somehow give the owner access to new angles.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Okay, so that's a no.

Basically, it's a toroidal linear bearing.

The foreskin is a double-walled sheath - the shaft skin continues up past the end of the glans, then does a U-turn back down the inside and attaches back to the shaft past the corona.

The two layers slide over each other like a pinch of eyelid/elbow/neck skin will between thumb and finger, as you pull back on the shaft. The entire shaft of the penis can thus move a good few inches with no movement of the shaft skin whatsoever relative to the vagina/hand/etc holding it. You could superglue the thing in place, and still have a full range of motion.

No, the angle of entry doesn't change. But again, that's not the only factor.

[TySixtus]

No, the angle of entry doesn't change. But again, that's not the only factor.

I never said it was. But to go futher, it doesn't allow you any different range of motion you get with a cut one.

I'm not denying the fact that there is more feeling in there, etc. I'm simply saying your caricature of having to jackhammer away at some chick's box is pretty simple and silly.

It might be hard for you to imagine because you have one, but really -- sex is fucking great. I have no problems with it. I'm sure a foreskin would be nice but it doesn't keep me awake at night. And I've never felt limited as to what I could do in the sack. I have the same range of motion as anyone else. The rest is history.

[Brianna]

How do you guys know what is like anyway, one way or another?

who here has had sex intact and cut?

[TySixtus]

I have no idea what it's like to have sex with a foreskin. And I'm not suggesting that I know what it's like, either.

[Brianna]

I have no idea what it's like to have sex with a foreskin. And I'm not suggesting that I know what it's like, either.

:dunno: I don't care either way, I am just saying. :)
It sure sounded like you guys were arguing about it.

But what do i know?

Btw, Hi to you.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Brianna: subtracting a known quantity is far easier than adding an unknown one.

Far easier for a sighted man to imagine blindness than for a blind man to imagine sight.

Also, it's easy to keep the foreskin retracted by holding the shaft at the base, and thus disable the gliding mechanism. An interesting place to visit, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there.

[TySixtus]

Far easier for a sighted man to imagine blindness than for a blind man to imagine sight.

It most certainly is not. To truly "understand" blindness you have to be blind. But anyways, you having a foreskin doesn't mean you know what the rest of us poor philistines do in the sack. And I'm telling you you're exaggerating.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I'm not the one that made the claim. The claim was made by a few women in the thread who have actually tried both and prefer intact penises. You asked how it could make a difference, and I gave you a mechanism. I'll happily leave the degree of difference to those on the receiving end.

But on the owner's end, knowing all the sensation that the foreskin directly provides, and having experienced both frictional and non-frictional stimulation, I can assure you that you're missing out. No matter how much enjoyment you currently get out it, there's a significant amount more that you're not getting.

[Brianna]

I am guessing it is all in their heads. I've had both. penis intact erect looks the same as penis cut erect. I have felt no difference.



Meanwhile this conversation has completely downgraded. I think I need to have more sex. For science. yeah that is it! :D

P.s. I think that sex is way too emotional and based on how you feel with the partner you are having at the time to compare one penis to another based on what we physically feel. Size counts to a point. So does the motion in the ocean and how I feel about the person I am having sex with.

When was the last time any of the women speaking up in this thread been with anyone else besides the person they are currently with? People have a hard time remember yesterday much less five to ten years ago.

[TySixtus]

I can assure you that you're missing out. No matter how much enjoyment you currently get out it, there's a significant amount more that you're not getting.

And I get a sense that there is some sort of churlish glee in your revealing it to us poor deformed losers.

[VoxRat]

... It most certainly is not. To truly "understand" blindness you have to be blind. But anyways, you having a foreskin doesn't mean you know what the rest of us poor philistines do in the sack. And I'm telling you you're exaggerating.I don't think the Philistines circumsized.

[His Noodly Appendage]

No glee whatsoever, Ty.

I won't be tactful to those who insist that it's no big deal, and that RIC is therefore perfectly acceptable. Anyone willing to see a child get fucked over just to protect their feewings, will get their precious feewings trampled on, hard.

But beyond that, I just think it sucks.

[Barbarian]

Basically, it's a toroidal linear bearing.Made me look.

[Barbarian]

I don't think the Philistines circumsized.Surely they didn't, otherwise Saul would not have had the opportunity to demand 100 Philistine foreskins from David in exchange for the engagement with Mikal (caveat emptor, names and indeed story not checked against the KJV). Or was that a joke Saul played on David, akin to "bring me 100 foreskins of Orthodox rabbis"?

[Lanakila]

I've had sex with both kinds of penii. Frankly I didn't notice a difference. It doesn't have to do with me anyway. I've mostly seen and been around cut ones being an American woman in her 40's.

I'm sorry I had my 2 sons cut but at the time didn't really know any different. If I'd had it to do over I'd have left them intact. Their father was involved in the decision though.

Telling a guy his penis is fucked up do to nothing he can help or had anything to do with can put them on the defensive. It's not necessary to do this to convince someone that circumcision is stupid in this day and age.

[Barbarian]

OK, after not so serious posts, here's my serious take.

I find it hopeless to argue about deterioration of sexual functions due to circumcision, not because I think there's no such thing, but due to the fact that one of the parties could only concede the point together with conceding that not only his sexual functions were damaged, but that he did that to his son(s) too.

What I would argue for is this: circumcision is a religious practice split off from religion such that its roots are no longer easily traceable. You can see this from the fact that the alleged health benefit of circumcision changes pretty radically every few decades, which shows that there is no such benefit at all and proponents jump from fad to fad in order to keep feeling justified. A century ago circumcision prevented masturbation (why would they think that if it does not alter sexual functions?), then it aided hygiene by reducing the need to wash, with a short interlude of protection from some rare form of cancer and right now it's preventing the transmission of AIDS and is recommended as a prevention measure in Africa by the UN, no less. (I can barely wait for this last fad to be proven a hoax, although by the time it'll be reversed, much damage will be done.) Parallel to all this, it also prevented stigmatization by peers, had a better appeal for women and enabled better sexual function by allowing intercourse to go on longer / be somewhat wilder on account of reduced feeling (unpublished anecdotal evidence, courtesy of anonymous IIDB circumcision thread participants). It has all the hallmarks of a practice desperately looking for a palatable explanation.

In short, I suggest cut - mostly American - men to be happy that Jews practiced circumcision and not, for instance, subincision. The mind stalls and boggles at the possibilities of claimed health benefits from that one.

Background story: my firstborn was born in the glorious U.S.A., where I worked on a huge IT project in those years. In the hospital the staff treated me like some sort of imbecile because I was a foreigner and therefore was not assumed to speak their language; after having a long and complex discussion with me, they just shook their heads and rebooted to "they don't speak English, on account of being foreigners" - my English was good in those days, Virginian hillbilly good really. So when it came to filling out all kinds of forms, some hand mysteriously ticked the "do you want the baby to be circumcised? " yes-box. I started to argue that I am not signing this shit, but they kept explaining in baby-talk that it is nothing bad, it's just circumcision, but in the end they had to give me a new form to fill out. Much later I noticed that someone did check the same checkbox on that form too (probably thinking that he was helping the barbarian that I am with proper American hygiene or whatever) sometime after I have signed it.

Thanks the IPU we had a baby girl and there was no FGM tick box on the form.

[Lugubert]

Especially when we're bombarded with ads for dick pills and told how our dicks should be bigger or longer or whatever the hell.
USAmerica is a strange place. Advertising prescription drugs or products supposed to alleviate a medical condition to the general public is fortunately illegal in Sweden.

[4321lynx]

I've had sex with both kinds of penii. Frankly I didn't notice a difference. It doesn't have to do with me anyway. I've mostly seen and been around cut ones being an American woman in her 40's.

I'm sorry I had my 2 sons cut but at the time didn't really know any different. If I'd had it to do over I'd have left them intact. Their father was involved in the decision though.

Telling a guy his penis is fucked up do to nothing he can help or had anything to do with can put them on the defensive. It's not necessary to do this to convince someone that circumcision is stupid in this day and age.

Following Barbarian, here's my serious take.

The plural of penis is penises. ;)

I looked around the dictionaries & see that the alternative plural, nearer the Latin, is penes, pronounced peneez.

I have never seen/heard anyone use that, not even picky-picky old pricks like me. :D

[dancer_rnb]

No glee whatsoever, Ty.

I won't be tactful to those who insist that it's no big deal, and that RIC is therefore perfectly acceptable. Anyone willing to see a child get fucked over just to protect their feewings, will get their precious feewings trampled on, hard.

But beyond that, I just think it sucks.

You might be tactful to those of us that agree with you.

[4321lynx]

barbarian said

In the hospital the staff treated me like some sort of imbecile because I was a foreigner and therefore was not assumed to speak their language

You of course realised that all imbeciles always think foreigners are imbeciles or terrorists.:)

[TySixtus]

No glee whatsoever, Ty.

I won't be tactful to those who insist that it's no big deal, and that RIC is therefore perfectly acceptable. Anyone willing to see a child get fucked over just to protect their feewings, will get their precious feewings trampled on, hard.

But beyond that, I just think it sucks.

You might be tactful to those of us that agree with you.

Like me, for example.

[Barbarian]

barbarian said

In the hospital the staff treated me like some sort of imbecile because I was a foreigner and therefore was not assumed to speak their language

You of course realised that all imbeciles always think foreigners are imbeciles or terrorists.:)Wait, you saying they aren't?

[/on topic]I might have been suspected by US authorities to be sort of a terrorist once, too. I got caught/was held captive for 1 1/2 hours (not sure if the technical term is 'arrested' or 'detained' or something else) together with wifey and 18 days old infant girl for trespassing on government property. This happened amidst the post-Oklahoma City bombing trauma and the security guys took themselves pretty seriously. But it was their fault, because apparently in Virginia if you want terrorists to stay away from government buildings, you post a small sign with the inscription "no trespassing" on the lawn but otherwise have no fence or anything to show where the forbidden garden begins. I was used to the Eastern European concept of security around government buildings, i.e. ten feet tall concrete fences with barbed wire on top, and you can hear the huge dogs growling on the other side. A sign posted on a lawn just did not convey the same message.[on topic]

OK, back to the topic. I invite everyone to contemplate the alternative history where subincision, rather than circumcision, was the preferred ritual covenant procedure of the Jews, then imagine the apologetics that would ensue from its widespread use in today's USA. Facultative: google images of subincision or videos of it being performed if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so. It's done by e.g. Australian aborigines, usually on young adults.

In the spirit of fairness, I would also like to bring up a drawback of being uncut: like so many others, I have caught my foreskin a couple of times with the zipper of my jeans. Circumcision without anesthesia would probably hurt about in the same ballpark. It brings tears to one's eyes.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Look, I'm not running around calling you names or laughing at you.

And the fact remains that the entire reason I object to it is that it constitutes significant harm. As such, I cannot and will not make out that it's no big deal.

Imagine if we were having this conversation about child molestation (as far as I'm concerned, infant genital mutilation is child sexual abuse, but we digress).

I dare say there are lots of people that don't want to be defined as 'victims' or 'survivors', who don't accept that they're damaged as a result, and I get that.

But I will be buggered sideways with a choo-choo train if, even for their sake, I will stand up and agree that the occasional blowjob in the rectory never really hurt anyone.

It's just not going to happen. Sorry about that, and I get where you're coming from, but I'm simply not going to tacitly excuse it by cutting it any slack. I cannot do that, nor would I if I could. It sucks that the damage is compounded by trying to fight it, but my conscience will not let me rate hurt feelings above actual physical abuse.

At least with kiddie-fiddling the damage is purely psychological, and thus dependent on a million fuzzy variables. You really can come out the other side no worse for wear. But circumcision has no such silver lining - the damage is physical and inherent in the act itself. The only way not to be damaged by it is for it not to actually happen.

That's where I stand, and I'm not about to back down while I'm still alive. I ripped great gaping holes in my own marriage over this, but I did save my son. I've pissed off hundreds of people on various forums, but I have saved a handful of other children in doing so. To me, that matters more. If you judge me poorly as a result, so be it - I value friendships and social niceties, but if they must come second, then it's a price I have no choice but to pay.

[4321lynx]

barbarian said

In the hospital the staff treated me like some sort of imbecile because I was a foreigner and therefore was not assumed to speak their language

You of course realised that all imbeciles always think foreigners are imbeciles or terrorists.:)Wait, you saying they aren't?

[/on topic]I might have been suspected by US authorities to be sort of a terrorist once, too. I got caught/was held captive for 1 1/2 hours (not sure if the technical term is 'arrested' or 'detained' or something else) together with wifey and 18 days old infant girl for trespassing on government property. This happened amidst the post-Oklahoma City bombing trauma and the security guys took themselves pretty seriously. But it was their fault, because apparently in Virginia if you want terrorists to stay away from government buildings, you post a small sign with the inscription "no trespassing" on the lawn but otherwise have no fence or anything to show where the forbidden garden begins. I was used to the Eastern European concept of security around government buildings, i.e. ten feet tall concrete fences with barbed wire on top, and you can hear the huge dogs growling on the other side. A sign posted on a lawn just did not convey the same message.[on topic]

OK, back to the topic. I invite everyone to contemplate the alternative history where subincision, rather than circumcision, was the preferred ritual covenant procedure of the Jews, then imagine the apologetics that would ensue from its widespread use in today's USA. Facultative: google images of subincision or videos of it being performed if you have the intestinal fortitude to do so. It's done by e.g. Australian aborigines, usually on young adults.

In the spirit of fairness, I would also like to bring up a drawback of being uncut: like so many others, I have caught my foreskin a couple of times with the zipper of my jeans. Circumcision without anesthesia would probably hurt about in the same ballpark. It brings tears to one's eyes.

I guess we have things in common.:)
Zipped foreskins, (only once), arrests by security guys, mine for almost 24 hours -- beat you there. :D
Mine was not for trespassing but really for being my father's son, to cut a long story short. Two burly UB men doing the questioning, the initials will probably tell you where this happened. They thoght I was he, but it slowly dawned on them that there was a 35 year difference in the ages of the man they wanted & the man they"nabbed".:rolleyes:

[Notta]

When was the last time any of the women speaking up in this thread been with anyone else besides the person they are currently with? People have a hard time remember yesterday much less five to ten years ago.
Well, that would be one of the reasons I would be so interested in testing the hypothesis! My previous data are several decades out of date.....

[Brother Daniel]

FWIW, I can't recall Noodles having said anything in this thread that I find offensive.

And I'm cut.

[David M]

Back to the original question.

If there are any real medical benefits they come after sexual maturity, by that time the person should be old enough to make an informed decision (that shows my age I suppose) on both the possible benefits and dangers and also demand pain medication afterwards.

My advice would be do not circumcise, let your son make his own mind up when he's old enough for it to matter.

[Nohweh]

Why perform an irreversible operation on an infant which is not medically necessary? To satisfy one's notions of beauty or cultural norms? To bow to peer pressure? Those purposes seem selfish, primitive and unethical to me. That's why I'm creeped out by parents who punch holes in their baby's ears.

As for the prophylaxis argument, can you think of any other normal, functioning, healthy part of the body which is removed at birth to improve chances of avoiding disease?

[Matty]

dont some religions remove the frontal lobe at birth tp prevent hte disease known as "thought"
Or does it just seem like it?

[Garnet]

dont some religions remove the frontal lobe at birth tp prevent hte disease known as "thought"
Or does it just seem like it?

Shush you! That supposed to be a secret ritual.

[DMB]

I've had sex with both kinds of penii. Frankly I didn't notice a difference. It doesn't have to do with me anyway. I've mostly seen and been around cut ones being an American woman in her 40's.

I'm sorry I had my 2 sons cut but at the time didn't really know any different. If I'd had it to do over I'd have left them intact. Their father was involved in the decision though.

Telling a guy his penis is fucked up do to nothing he can help or had anything to do with can put them on the defensive. It's not necessary to do this to convince someone that circumcision is stupid in this day and age.

Following Barbarian, here's my serious take.

The plural of penis is penises. ;)

I looked around the dictionaries & see that the alternative plural, nearer the Latin, is penes, pronounced peneez.

I have never seen/heard anyone use that, not even picky-picky old pricks like me. :D

<cough> I used it in this thread. :D

[DMB]

Man I said "dick" a whole bunch of times.

Congratulations! ???

In the words of the immortal Michael Flanders

Ma’s out, Pa’s out, Let’s talk rude!
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!
Dance round the garden in the nude,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!

[David B]

Man I said "dick" a whole bunch of times.

Congratulations! ???

In the words of the immortal Michael Flanders

Ma’s out, Pa’s out, Let’s talk rude!
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!
Dance round the garden in the nude,
Pee Po Belly Bum Drawers!

Dammit, it's not on Youtube

David

[Brianna]

FWIW, I can't recall Noodles having said anything in this thread that I find offensive.



Neither have I.
And I am a sensitive sally.