My wife and I are trying to have a baby. One of the biggest concerns we have if it is a boy is circumcision. I am circumcised and my first reaction is to say "Well I wouldn't go back so it is the right choice". But unfortunately there is more to it than that. Circumcision started, in my mind, to remove sexual pleasure from the male because sex was the road to sin and only for reproduction and should not be enjoyed. Many nerves are removed from circumcision and I have heard sex is more pleasurable for males not circumcised, but unfortunately that is hard to know for sure.
Then there is the idea that it is a part of our culture now and completely acceptable. But what is it really other than male genital mutilation? They say that is is healthier, but I have also heard that the data for that claim is inconclusive.
Female circumcision disgust me and yet many cultures practice it. To them it is normal. I am sure that uncircumcised females in those cultures have "ugly" vaginas to them just as a lot of women have told me that an uncircumcised penis is "ugly".
I have seen a circumcision and it is horrifying. I dont know if I should do this to my future son. There is the part of me that thinks it is normal and I should. Then there is the part of me that sees it as another brutal religious act setup by an ancient brutal god to remove our sexuality that we, for some reason, still practice like idiots. Then we go through all this trouble to "prove" it is healthy to mutilate sex organs to justify the insane act.
What are some of your thoughts on this?
Indeed, breasts feed babies, and millions of years of evolution have honed boy brains to recognize that fact - that boobage is correlated with infant survival - so boys who find breasts irresistible and stimulating are merely demonstrating care and concern for the welfare of the little people their sperm may become a part of.
The same forces that shape boy brains and boobs were also at work on foreskins so it's naive and unfair to suggest that the humble prepuce has no noble purpose. Perhaps it intensifies intimacy and thereby fortifies the parental bond to the benefit of any offspring. We don't know. I don't think anyone's actually asked.
My guess is the ladies are currently giggling their asses of at all the butthurt men in here trying to confirm how their own type of dick is the better one.
Seriously, this is what you think the discussion is about?
We are discussing the practice of routinely removing a part of the body of infants who cannot consent to the practice. I am of the opinion that we should have damn good reasons to do so, and the reasons that I've seen presented so far are seriously lacking in my opinion.
And even if we are talking about which type of dick the better one is, wouldn't you think that you're entitled to make that decision yourself?
You're right, we shouldn't allow people to make decisions that affect the life of other beings just because they are the parents. Therefore, we should also ban abortion.
Oh come on kOrsan, of course parents are allowed to make decisions that affect the life of other beings. The point is that RIC is not properly justified by using the arguments for hygiene and/or std. Suit up, and clean yourself is the answer to those problems.
We don't remove teeth as a preventive measure against dental hygiene issues, yet we do remove a perfectly fine part of another person's body without their consent. I do think that it is an issue, and I think that the accounts of men that regret their circumcision is a proof of that.
Also, depending on where you go and who you'd ask you'd get different ideas about whether a circumcised or uncircumcised penis is better for what kind of sexual activity. I am hardly ever to busy to discuss sex, so we could definitely include that into the discussion, all I want to say about that for the moment is that at the very least I would expect a reasonable person to accept that there are quite a few opposing views on the matter.
Considering the fact that the procedure is irreversible I do not believe that RIC is a justified action for the same reasons as why I believe that I shouldn't be able to alter the sensory nerve of my child.
That's only if you think an embryo is a human being. Science doesn't back that up.
I am not circumcised and I'm glad for it. There is a little more work in it as far as hygiene but when you do it your entire life it's no more trouble than washing behind your ears. As far as spreading disease, maybe you should avoid sleeping with people you either just me or who don't wash well. I'd say do what you feel is correct. I hear crap like, it stunts penile growth, it desensitizes the organ, blah, blah, blah. He'll never know one way or the other and he'll lead the same life. I say talk to your wife and go from there. After all, you'll be waking up to her every morning, not us, lol. Hope this helps.
I've been married to an American and to a Brit.
I have to say that personally, I find the sex waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better with an intact man.
Just my two cents and totally unscientific, but there ya have it.
Also it seems a bit hypocritical to be pro male-circumcision but anti female-circumcision.
America is the world leader in routine neonatal circumcision, so I think we are a little biased. (I never even saw a human foreskin in my medical text books. True story.) Every country except for America accepts it as a religious practice, not a medical benefit. Even still, this is what the AAP has to say on it: "Because neonatal circumcision poses both potential benefits and risks and because the procedure is not necessary for a child's well-being, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Task Force on Circumcision affirms that "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
I've heard quite a few similar opinions on the subject, perhaps people should engage in a scientific experiment to test the validity of these opinions? Making college students have sex for money for an experiment should not be a problem, right?
"Sex for money"? College students? Try a Kit Kat bar --
Without wishing to, ahem, "blow my own trumpet", as it were, I've had comments that would confirm your findings.
It stands to reason: an uncircumcised penis is not just more sensitive for the man, but it means one is able to "connect" more fundamentally, which leads to mutual pleasure.
A circumcised man is much more likely (so I understand) to be more of the "thrusty" type of lover - vigorous and leaning more towards brutal, since he needs more friction in order to be satisfied.
FInally, a woman weighs in - thank you, Misty - I agree, and have letters of reference from satisfied ladies who concur!