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?
I didn't (and wouldn't use the expression "love 'em and leave 'em" so I have little idea what you are referring to. So, you didn't know I would say that. Becauase I didn't say it.
HOWEVER, males can be asymptomatic carriers, and because of that you can only say you've never infected any females if you are either a virgin or gay. Which are you? I'm gay friendly and virgin friendly, so if you're a Promise Keeper, just go ahead and say so!
Ok, so you're worried about the spread of HPV because the foreskin remains intact, right? then explain to me how the foreskin remaining intact, which is on the head of the penis and thus covered by the condom, will raise the chances of infection. If a condom is used every time, then the infection would be due to contact that isn't with the foreskin/uncircumcised area. The infection wouldn't be due to the foreskin, nor would it increase the rate of transmission if a condom continues to be used during sexual contact.
Your theory only protects people while using condoms. You're hopelessly out of touch about actual sexual practice if you think what should be is always the cas.
but if we're as neurotic as you are about contracting it, then shouldn't a condom always be used?
But my point was that if I had ever donated HPV to a girl, I would have known it, so no, bring a virgin or gay does NOT have to be my only two alternatives, caring enough to maintain sufficient contact after sex, that if anything were to present itself, I would have known it, is at least a third alternative, and there may well be more.
Actually, I haven't noticed that you're particularly friendly to anyone, at least in public - possibly your friendliness with gays and virgins is a private thing --
How would you have known it? Other than you getting an accusatory phonecall from a royally pissed off girl? assuming you to be an asymptomatic carrier, for the sake of argument.
Or a call or personal visit from a concerned, but understanding girl who realized I had no knowledge, hence no culpability regarding the matter --
But again, there's no indication that an uncircumcised male ALWAYS carries the virus, any more than there is that a circumcised male NEVER carries it, and once we start lopping off body parts on the grounds that at some point in the future, they may or may not acquire and pass on a disease, where does it end?
Have you noticed that you're really the only one who is so vehemently defending circumcision? I wonder why that is? Have you THAT strongly identified with your own? Sounds almost like a religious experience --
I'm starting to imagine your home, decorated with statues of circumcised phallic symbols on mantles, book case shelves and end tables. Possibly a small shrine near the entrance. The dining table centerpiece? I think I've seen more of Unseen than I care to - scary.
You know when you see homophobic preachers on tv speaking about how evil gay sex is, and it's a little ironic because they're spending more time thinking about gay sex than the gays themselves do? Take the hint.
Hitchens talks about it here (from about 3:20)
It's personal decision, for sure. Obviously, you don't have to worry about the religious reasoning behind it thanks to your atheism, but there have been numerous conclusive studies that provide evidence that circumcised men are less likely to become infected with STDs and pass them on to their partners. On the other hand, how hard is it to give permission to a healthcare worker to excise off a piece of your innocent newborn's flesh? In the end, it's really up to you and your wife. Also-- good luck on the having a baby gig! Have fun practicing!
An unerect uncircumcised penis looks like a giant nematode. There's the smegma issue, that scuzzy pasty dead skin mixed with sweat stuff that can propagate under the foreskin. If you screw an uncut guy ladies, you might want him to go to the bathroom and make sure to wipe all the sh*t off. Unfortunately, if you like the taste at all, most of the taste will be gone at the same time.