Yes Circumcised And Glad

I was circumsied at birth and glad it was done, as i find it easier to keep clean and think it looks better, My mum had it done because of the problems many men have with tightening foreskins and stragulation of the penis, I f i had male kids i would have got them done to.

And no it  not a religious thing  as i am an athiest

deleted deleted
26-30
16 Responses Mar 9, 2010

Add a response...

I am circumcised and so happy about it. I really don't like the look of uncircumcised men. Most look like a tiny deformed elephants trunk!

It seems the anti-circ activists love to promote the idea tha circumcision is dangerous and useless. Well is it? First, if we lived in a perfect world<br />
withought harmful viruses etc.and if body parts such as a foreskin never caused a person any problems, then maybe we could consider circumcision harmfull<br />
and useless. Sorry but its not a perfect world. Viruses such as HIV,Herpes and HPV all have an easier time entering the inner surface of the foreskin<br />
either through small tares in the lining or because of the immune response from such cells as Langerhan. Unfortunately an immune response to a virus such as <br />
HIV and Herpes is pretty much the same as the Trojan horse, and once its in its there to stay.<br />
<br />
As we all know, a number of studies show each of these viruses to be more common in the uncircumcised. Circumcision is not a cure all but it is considered<br />
by many to be a preventive measure. Yes condoms provides protection from these viruses, but you are living in a fantasy world if you think for one second<br />
that people always use them.<br />
<br />
Have you ever checked into unplanned pregnancies for example, especially among young people, i think this speakes for itself.<br />
<br />
From day one after an infant is circumcised, benefits start. UTI's are less frequent for the first year of life, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, thrush,<br />
cancer, frenulum tares (which can be very painful involving a lot of blood ) can all be either reduced or eliminated for a lifetime. As for ceanliness,<br />
well, thats a no brainer.<br />
<br />
******, and fermented urine can form under the foreskin within a couple hours especially if small amounts of urine get trapped and start mixing with oils<br />
and shedded skin. Many reports describe the smell as repulsive.<br />
<br />
If anything can be done to help give someone and better defence against any these problems then maybe it should be considered more and parents should start<br />
requesting it more often.<br />
<br />
If those of you who believe it should be the right of the individual to make this decision when he is an adult, instead why not give your son all the <br />
information he needs to partially or fully restore his foreskin, or at least keep the glans and upper shaft covered through stretching, taping etc.. according<br />
to anti-circ activists there are a lot of men/boys doing this and are happy with the results. <br />
<br />
So if you can get all the benefits from your at birth circumcision for the first part of your life, say until your late 20's and 30's then go ahead and try<br />
restoring..(even keeping the head and upper shaft coverered for periods of time will increase sensitivity ) many of these guys say the sensation increases<br />
and sex etc. is better or different at least, many of them also say that restored men (or newly resensitized) are better off than uncircumcised men<br />
because they can compare the differences and appreciate it more than if they were uncircumcised all their lives. Its like having a totally different<br />
feeling penis and /or looking penis..so from then on a whole new enjoyable experience for the rest of your life....almost like a brand new start.<br />
<br />
So being circumcised at birth (best time done) then living for 25-45 years of your life, and getting all the benefits from it then increasing your sensitivity<br />
and appreciating it more, even moreso than an uncircumcised male, then you get the best of both worlds. sounds like the plan to me..<br />
<br />
So don't feel as though you were violated because of being circumcised at birth (withought your permission).. instead realize all the benefits it has provided for you<br />
plus the sex and ************ during your younger years were pretty damn good:) I never heard of a young circumcised guy complain. (If he does its mostly<br />
in his mind...mostly because of the negative untruths the anti-circ groups spread everywhere.)<br />
<br />
Reap all the benefits of being circumcised and regaining sensitivity and appearance later in life and be greatfull..<br />
and pass on a circumcision to any son we have in the future..<br />
Its worked for me:) ask any questions you need to.<br />
take care<br />
Mike

Skin back ye uncut and now grasp.<br />
Don't squeeze it too tight when you clasp.<br />
Now palm to your nose,<br />
You won't smell a rose,<br />
And odds I will lay you may gasp!

im circumsized, and i really love it, and the fact that the baby feels the "horrible mutaliation of cutting the foreskin" is true, but **** it i dont remember that ****, and neither will any boy cut at 2 days old, but i sure as hell remember breaking my foot when i was 13 and still cant stand basketball, my point is, is that the boy is hurt yes but he sure as hell isnt gonna remember it, wont scar him for life mentally ( like being afraid docters offices) and recovering of getting circumsized at age 1 and on is gonna be horrible so **** uncircumsized all my uncut friends wish they were cut, and are actully going to get cut soon

Seeminglyinandout, <br />
<br />
What evidence? I see a lot of heartfelt emotional argument in your posts. You obviously feel very strongly about this issue, and I respect that. But I must confess, I see little or no real evidence. .

I am not sure why i tried to argue my point i have done it before with other people and it just ends in me having my evidence the other person having theirs and there being no end to it. Other threads on this site have made better arguments then i ever will so i am not going to bother anymore. I think the procedure is outdated and can be damaging. A lot of medical opinion has changed on the subject as well. People are still going to do it though. Poor is the child who has to bear what their parents saw as correct. Or some **** i do not know. Is this the website that you get your facts from http://www.circlist.com/rites/usa.html just curious as it comes up when i type in the world war 2 issue .

SeeminglyInandOut,<br />
<br />
You said: "I love the argument that in jungles and deserts foreskins are a problem no they aren't they'd help they would protect the head of the penis. No foreskin more infection."<br />
<br />
This isn't an argument. It's a fact. A quater million US soldiers in the Pacific during World War II were virtually incapicated by foreskin problems. <br />
<br />
A number of studies indicate that circumcision unquestionably reduces heterosexual transmission of aids, and is in fact, it is more effective at doing so at this time than any vaccine so far developed. Circumcision is being widely promoted in Africa for this reason. <br />
<br />
And what about the small percentage of uncircumcised men who have virtually no functional foreskin at all? Sometimes by puberty the foreskin simply retracts behind the glans (head of the penis) and stays there forever. No, it isn't stuck, it's just short and stays put. I once read a study in which one of the particapants was disqualified because the doctors conducting the study could not determine his circumcision status. They couldn't tell if he was circumcised or not, and he didn't know! Imagine that!<br />
<br />
And, for that matter, what about the much larger number of men who have short foreskins, those whose foreskins don't reach all the way to the end of the glans, such that the glans is partially exposed, dried out and desensitized through no fault of their parents or the doctor? Whom do we blame for that? <br />
<br />
And, finally, I don't mind honest disagreement or debate, but do you really have to resort to using words like b***s**t to make your point?

An to the guy who said that leaving the penis alone is as much a decision as circumcision. That is untrue the foreskin is there from birth it is apart of the body. It'd be like slicing off the labia of a female or the clitoris and saying not doing it is a decision. That is called mutilation but yet cutting off foreskin is not. Removing the foreskin just because you like the way it looks is totally wrong. If the foreskin formed anywhere else on the penis like the **** on the female we wouldn't remove it but because it covers the head we remove it. Why because of some dusty old book or pseudo science created by people who probably are also circumcised. Reasons that have been disputed as well.<br />
I love the argument that in jungles and deserts foreskins are a problem no they aren't they'd help they would protect the head of the penis. No foreskin more infection. As the foreskin protects the head of the penis and adds pleasure during sex. etc etc etc.

really? well, i'm circumcised, never had one infection or problem, plus sexual pleasure for me has not been reduced at all. They do also look so much better circumcised, uncircumcised is just horrible!

It always seems like guys who are cut have to defend their circumcision. I am happy that you are happy with it. I have never had an issue with tightness or strangulation. My penis is fine in hot weather too. No problems cleaning it either. I just think that if you can cure something with hormone cream why cut off something that adds pleasure. I mean is not the foreskin akin to the female clitoris or something. Less nerve endings but made of the same stuff. I just think its wrong to mutilate a child before they have a chance to decide. My ******* are great by the way, I suppose if you have had issue with your foreskin and never got a chance to feel the difference meh. You can find arguments for both sides. I don't think America will ever give it up as a practice supposedly it is becoming less popular though.

"or something".... no the foreskin has no relation to the female clitoris WHAT SO EVER - it has similarity to the prepuce - the skin that surounds the clitoris. The glans of the penis which is exposed all the time in a circumcised penis is the counter part to the clitoris.

Circumcision is practiced by more than 25% of the worlds male population. It has been around for thousands of years. It will never go away because aside from religious requirements there are other valid reasons to circumcise. If you don't mind the skin on the end of your penis that is fine for you but understand that you also involve your sexual partners in your decision. Mothers who choose to circumcise their sons know exactly what they prefer for sexual purposes and why they are choosing that their sons be circumcised. You don't need to tell them that they are doing something wrong. They know what they are doing and what they like and prefer and WHY they do so. Parents make many decisions for their children's future and circumcision is only one of these. It is a decision they are capable and actually legally and even morally ENTITLED to make for their children's future. So don't try to make them feel guilty for making or not making that decision - women are actually very good at deciding what type of penis style they prefer themselves and making that choice for what they feel is the well being of their sons and their future Daughters in Law is part of being a parent. The intactivist - intact activist - vocal group of people who think they know everything better that claims it is genital mutilation and against the human rights of the individual are full of baloney. It is not ANYTHING like female circumcision unless with female circumcision we are speaking of nothing more than reduction of ONLY the clitoral hood and NOTHING else. Circumcised penises deliver great pleasure and they receive great pleasure - they work just fine for sex, reproduction and urination. They are under no disadvantage to other men. Even compared to the female prepuce it is not even close to analogous. The female prepuce is very small and not much ****** can accumulate under it. With a male foreskin a LOT of ****** which can smell bad, carry bacteria, is distasteful and undesirable can be there. ****** does not form on a circumcised penis. Women for the most part resist giving oral sex to men with foreskins. Women don't like it when a man with ****** puts his penis into them either. Yes they CAN clean it but those with circumcised penises are inherently and factually ALWAYS cleaner than those males whose penises are uncircumcised. For the female in vaginal sex it makes very little if any difference - except for the spread of disease and many women particularly in North America who are used to having their men's penises trimmed, tidy, neat and clean like it that way and are used to it that way and LIKE it that way. No one is telling you to go and get your penis skin trimmed - I don't care but my Daughters know to never go near a man who has foreskin on the end of his ****. They know it is gross and you will have no chance EVER with them. Also if we choose to have our Son's penis circumcised - well it is our business not yours so please don't try to make us feel guilty or convince us otherwise. Circumcision is a gift we give to our sons and their future sexual partners. We happen to like nice clean tight functional penises that can not have sweat, *****, urine, ****** or disease waiting under a foreskin. We like our dicks without cheese on them.

There is NOTHING wrong with a parent making this decision for a Son despite your protestations to the contrary. Parents have been making this exact decision for their Sons for thousands of years. Circumcising an infant is an infinitely simpler affair than an eighteen year old or older man in terms of pain, healing time, expense and anxiety plus the legitimate impedance of sexual function when this is at an operational level in his development. There is again NOTHING wrong with a a parent making this decision for a Son. Of the thousands of decisions that are made - this one is pretty simple in comparison.

Sheesh - next you will decide that no one should be indoctrinated in the parents religion. Bunch of nonsense.

Excellent pro circumcision argument which I couldn't have put better myself. Intactivists should now turn their attentions to the thousands of baby girls in the Latin countries who have holes drilled in their ear lobes...mutilated without their consent...at least circumcision has some health benefits. You might argue those are countered by the risks in any surgery. However you certainly can't make any health arguments for ear piercing.
I had nothing but problems from a foreskin for the first 23 years of my life and getting it sliced off was the best decision I made. My confidence increased and I ceased to feel embarassed and self concious.
Circumcision doesn't so much reduce as alter the erogenous sensation which becomes concentrated around the scar line and the exposed glans.
Very sound advice is to do a bit of stretching of the skin that's left if you do feel you might be 'missing out' on something. Mine was done very tightly but I'm still able to pull a bit of skin over the ridge when erect and this has left me with plenty of sensation without the disadvantages of a tight foreskin which felt every time I had an erection like rubber bands were tied round just behind the head. That's without mentioning all the improvements in hygiene disease prevention and so on...

but, it's only going to be a slight difference in pleasure at most. Why feel the need to put the importance of sex? That's what's so sad with society these days. Sex is not all that important, yes it's nice, but that's it.

1 More Response

Two points on this topic:<br />
<br />
Opponents of circumcision always imply that infant circumcision is a decision of the boy's parents, and somehow not circumcising, leaving things "natrual," is not a decision. They always "decide" to have him circumcised. In fact not having an infant circumcised is just as much a decision as having him done, and can have just as much an impact on his life. <br />
<br />
In addition, some posters on this topic have apparently has never been in the army, serving in combat in a jungle or desert environment where they were uanble to bathe for a few weeks at a time. Foreskins, which were much more common then than now, were a terrible problem for US military personnel in the Pacific during World War II.

i'm with you kevinmcc! i ended up getting cut at 16 because of foreskin problems and im much rather have been done at birth to look lile my dad, baby brother, and my friends. my orgams are better now too.

completely agreed, I am 38 years old, and I was not circumcised, Until last winter, it was hard to get all the pleasure when you were having sex, I had to pull the foreskin back before penetration, more than once the foreskin got swollen, When i was in my honeymoon I had sex 5,7 times a day the foreskin was swollen like a potato, and I was in pain, Last winter after having sex was so swollen I was unable to pull it back I went to the doctor and they told me I had Phymosis, so they did the surgery, and I am having the best sex ever, even when i play with myself I have an explosion when I get an ******. My *** fly across the room. Is wonderful. Even oral sex is a 1000 times better, I feel everything, And in top of everything I look like everybody else at the gym's showers I am having the time of my life, Even I learn to ********** manipulating the head of the penis, before when I was not circumcised to do that was painful. Well if you are not find a good doctor and get rid of the foreskin the sooner the better you are going to love it.

kevinmmc - I'm with you on this, because I'm one of those boys who should have been circumcised before adulthood. My sex life wasn't 100% because of the intensive pain I felt at penetration. Eventually, it was fixed last year with a cream, without cutting off anything, but I have a sense of loss for all those years I lived with phimosys. <br />
<br />
Treating such intimate aspects involves a breach of privacy. Just as adult women find it hard to visit the gynecologist, so we adult men won't easily admit we have a problem. From this angle only, circumcision at birth looks like a good solution. Perhaps a better alternative would be medical examination of _all_ boys at 17. I emphasise "all" because some might fall between the cracks, like I did.

Sorry but are you saying getting done as a baby isn't painful? People might like to say Babies hardly feel it but that is bullcrap. Babies have the same nervous system you do and things have gone wrong in circumcisions that ended up with penile amputation. The difference is that babies have no way to defend themselves against mutilation.<br />
Saying men may have problems later in life is no reason to circumcise otherwise female babies would have their breasts removed to protect against breast cancer.<br />
I don't believe in circumcision unless the patient is over 18 and signed themselves up for it. For that matter I know a dozen men who are not circumcised and have had no problems. <br />
Like I said, most problems are caused by over zealous parents pulling back the foreskin to clean when the foreskin wasn't developed enough to do that. If they left it alone, it would have been fine. They pull it back, cause a small tear with then scars and causes adhesions and tightening.

Men don't generally have those problems, its the boys AND it usually only happens because of inappropriate cleaning on young boys as infants. Leave it alone and treat it gently on infants and toddlers and you will have no problems.