Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

A Personal Choice, Not A Parental One

Only if a man chooses it for himself, after his 18th or 21st birthday. Parents are not qualified to decide the fate of the foreskin.
consa consa 66-70, M 7 Responses Jun 16, 2011

Your Response



Egyptian circumcision is older than 4000 years. The tribal circumcisions of sub-Saharan Africa could be as old as the hills.
Only those who claim descent from Abraham feel ritually obligated to circumcise. That excludes a large majority of readers of this post.

I learned that not ALL Ancient Egyptians were circumcised. It was apparently
reserved for those of high social position or wealth

Shadowfax, once again your ignorance rears its ugly and ill informed head. When I was born the rate of routine infantile circumcision was around 95%. Fortunately for me my parents knew better. The latest reports in the medical journals are now saying the the rate of routine infantile circumcision is now at 35% or less. So, how in the hell is that an "increasing number"?

Agreed. In my reading, the only part of the English speaking world where "the numbers are increasing" is New South Wales in Australia, where the influence of Brian Morris and friends is strong. All other data I've seen on circ rates are stable or declining.

Early circumcision is part of what parents have to decide for the well-being of their male children. Luckily, an increasing number make that choice.

Then, why don't we leave the cord intact as well?

The cord is attached to the placenta, which is expelled shortly after birth. The cord detaches from the belly within a few days of birth. When we cut the chord, we speed along what would occur naturally anyway. But a foreskin endures forever...

I didn't realize that. Sorry for putting my ignorance out there for all to see.

Yes, poor souls like you have to fight ****** - if not worse - day after day after day, not even considering the fact that the foreskin becomes thicker and increasingly wrinkled and unattractive with age. I wouldn't like to pull your pants down to suck you, man.

Shadowfax, the fact that I am straight not withstanding I would no more let you near my penis than I would a wood chipper.

You think to insult me, but are in fact doing me a great kindness. As for growing thicker wrinkled and unattractive with age, those adjectives describe the evolution of my entire body, not just the hoody on my woody!

I find this "******" fear so outlandish in this day and age. Men have grown highly aware of their bodies. Most spend a few hours at the gym
every week whilst others take exercise every day. I cannot believe that afterwards they don't shower and wash thoroughly afterwards. Men today use lotions, deodorants, creams and other toiletries.
The ****** Brigade concentrates solely on cleanliness under the foreskin. As long as a man is circumcised, then it doesn't matter that he doesn't pay full attention to his rear exit???) That would also apply to women.)
People are clean or they're not, and removing the foreskin may usually but not always assure you of cleanliness on the male genitals! I am sure there are many circumcised men, for example, who don't ritually wash their hands after visiting the urinal!
Let's be sane and sensible.
I say this in spite of circumcised being my own personal preferred status. (However unlike one atrociously-mannered redneck on one of these boards i don't insult those who don;t agree with my views and burst a blood vessel with rage!) )

3 More Responses

Thank You Consa, my replies and comments above show my agreement with your satement of it being a personal choice for someone and not the choice of others that are not affected by the decision.

Parents make lots of decisions for their kids. Adult circumcision is not a complex operation, but it certainly provides less benefits than newborn circumcision, enabling the penis to grow naturally without a foreskin, with a large and nicely sensitive glans, no hygiene problems, no urinary trat infections, etc... It is a good decision by parents to make, and more and more make it as the full scope of advantages of early circumcision is made available by medical studies the world over.

I think a circumcised **** looks a lot cleaner and nicer, especially when at full staff.

When at full staff, there is little difference to the eye. There is a difference in feel, but a lovely one at that.

It is Genital Mutilation of males. Something that being done to females is abhored by all civilized people.

Says you?

For most women the only difference resides in the fact that the erection is tighter in a circumcised male, which feels better, added to the hygienic advantage. But of course I gather that you're studying ***** every day...

It is an improvement, with proven advantages. I only wish it would be universal, it would save us from the crappy posts every uncut fanatic feels they have to post where they have nothing whatsoever to contribute.

Shadowfax, I am sorry to say but you are an extremely ignorant person living in the dark ages.

"I'm wondering how a man can answer what a woman feels during sex?"
ME. Men can't. That's why we men should shut up, siddown, and listen to sexually experience women.

"There certainly is a difference between sex with a circumcised guy and an uncircumcised guy....and the circumcised one doesn't feel better."
ME. Find a woman friendly and safe place on the internet to share your story in detail. You are far from the first American woman of your generation to conclude as you have.

4 More Responses

Was done as small infant so know no different,but its usually done for 2 reasons,religious or medical,i'm told mine was for medical reasons,well I'm not Jewish !

Too bad because there are really very few medical reasons for circumcision. Most of the reasons called "medical" really could be handled differently. Primary is Phimosis, a very tight foreskin. This is easily remedied with a doctor's prescription for a steroidal cream that is applied a couple times a day and cures the tightness.

steroidal creams are the treatment today but in the very early sixties circumcision was the treatment.

That is an example of a line of thinking we anti-circ people use all the time. The human understanding of sex and the genitalia is always marching one, and one of the things that was "best we can do, given what we know" and no longer is so, is routine infant circumcision. It is easy to forget that before the 1950s, a lot of people lived in shacks and tenements without hot running water. No antibiotics, no antifungals. Sex was surrounded with a mountain ofg of taboos and unmentionables. Mothers did not want to think about a son's penis, esp. after he was out of diapers. We've all moved on, and routine infant circumcision is a medical practice from another era.