British Guys - Circumcised or Uncircumcised ?

[HornyBiGuy98]

Uncut here

 

[Uncle Albert]

Cut at 25. Wish I was always cut

 

[cockylondon21]

I'm circumcised

 

[SouthHarrow]

\natural the way it should be.

 

[NY2NY]

I think it’s less than 10% among new births. If you count adults, it is probably a bit higher, but almost definitely not higher than 20%. Not all circumcised guys would have been done at birth and rates are a bit higher among older folk. I do agree that many females don’t know the difference. The funniest experience I had was with one lass from Manchester who had previously managed to only date circumcised guys - either Jewish or Americans - and thought that all willies looked like that when they grow up, as the only uncut ones she’s seen were younger relatives. It came in as a bit of a shock to her to understand that the reason the heads were bare was that something had been removed, not because the skin simply stopped growing.

I didn't even know circumcision was a thing until a certain age. I'm originally European and was used to seeing penises that looked like mine. Then in the US I saw bare heads and scar lines in locker rooms and didn't realize until a bit later that cutting the skin off was a thing.

 

[samjones]

Uncut, natural and just they way it should be. Intact foreskin and all its benefits. Circumcised ones are ugly, weird looking and wrinkled.

Whoever thinks getting cut is the norm, it is never the norm unless needed for medical reasons.

 

[Stu311]

Uncut, natural and just they way it should be. Intact foreskin and all its benefits. Circumcised ones are ugly, weird looking and wrinkled.

Whoever thinks getting cut is the norm, it is never the norm unless needed for medical reasons.

I think the aesthetic aspect is subjective. I quite like being circumcised and I find it looks neater. Just my opinion that others might echo, just as others might find uncut more appealing. I don’t see it as such a black and white problem.

 

[samjones]

Aesthetic is most futile reason before they made it a norm in some countries. I duly respect your preference for a circumcised one but the verity is it's often dry, with a wrinkly head. There's a scar.

True aesthetic would be the veins, good length and girth. Just my opinion.

 

[FunTimes0123]

What I don’t understand is how we let it happen to kids? Like, how is that up to the parents? And it’s usually those same parents who don’t understand things like puberty blockers for trans kids.

 

[James Bell]

It's up to the parents because the whole point of being a parent is that you are responsible for a child who can't make decisions for him/herself.

As parents not only do you give your child their genetics (which, in fact, will determine the easy majority of his/hers characteristics) you also decide how to rise him/her. What food he/she eats, what school he/she goes to, what clubs he/she will join, which vaccines and medical treatments he/she will receive, and, for boys, whether he'll be circumcised. Your decisions, at all levels, will shape his/her life.

Of course these choices have to be left to the child's parents and to suggest to the contrary is deeply offensive to those of us who've raised children.

 

[Stu311]

It's up to the parents because the whole point of being a parent is that you are responsible for a child who can't make decisions for him/herself.

As parents not only do you give your child their genetics (which, in fact, will determine the easy majority of his/hers characteristics) you also decide how to rise him/her. What food he/she eats, what school he/she goes to, what clubs he/she will join, which vaccines and medical treatments he/she will receive, and, for boys, whether he'll be circumcised. Your decisions, at all levels, will shape his/her life.

Of course these choices have to be left to the child's parents and to suggest to the contrary is deeply offensive to those of us who've raised children.

Unrelated point, but I recommend using “they” instead of “he/she”. Makes for an easier read, especially when it’s repeated every sentence .

 

[samjones]

It's up to the parents because the whole point of being a parent is that you are responsible for a child who can't make decisions for him/herself.

As parents not only do you give your child their genetics (which, in fact, will determine the easy majority of his/hers characteristics) you also decide how to rise him/her. What food he/she eats, what school he/she goes to, what clubs he/she will join, which vaccines and medical treatments he/she will receive, and, for boys, whether he'll be circumcised. Your decisions, at all levels, will shape his/her life.

You are true. The parents decide when children can't decide for themselves like healthy food, upbringing, medicine but why circumcision? Unless done for medical reaons, there is no real reason to cut it. Circumcision never shapes one's life.

Getting it cut because others do it is a violation of human body. It cannot be reversed. Such a male circumcision is no different than FGM.

When a guy is an adult, let him decide for himself.

 

[Acratopotes]

I...What food he/she eats, what school he/she goes to, what clubs he/she will join, which vaccines and medical treatments he/she will receive, and, for boys, whether he'll be circumcised. Your decisions, at all levels, will shape his/her life.

Of course these choices have to be left to the child's parents and to suggest to the contrary is deeply offensive to those of us who've raised children.

Yes, parents have to make decisions. I had to choose the school for my children so I chose what I believe to be the best one. They had vaccines because there is convincing evidence they are beneficial. But clubs? We talk about that. We (my wife and I) encourage them to have interests and we encourage commitment, i.e. give something a decent go and when you sign up to doing something regularly to attend regularly. We hope our children will carry some of our interests forward but they are not there to be a reflection of ourselves - they are themselves.

So when it comes to circumcision, I would be really annoyed if my parents had decided to have me circumcised because it is not like the decision about a school or club at all. A decision to circumcise me as a baby would be a decision that I could never experience what is was like to be uncut whereas a decision to leave me uncut would not prevent me from getting circumcised at a later time should I, after having got to a point of understanding what it was all about, want that. It's also not like vaccination in that it lacks the same strong evidence of benefit. Even in cases where circumcision may be necessary for medical reasons it is unlikely to be urgent.

 

[NIMBUS]

So when it comes to circumcision, I would be really annoyed if my parents had decided to have me circumcised because it is not like the decision about a school or club at all. A decision to circumcise me as a baby would be a decision that I could never experience what is was like to be uncut whereas a decision to leave me uncut would not prevent me from getting circumcised at a later time should I, after having got to a point of understanding what it was all about, want that. It's also not like vaccination in that it lacks the same strong evidence of benefit. Even in cases where circumcision may be necessary for medical reasons it is unlikely to be urgent.

i rather like that analogy. At the age of 7, my parents decided to enrol me as a Cub Scout - and I subsequently progressed to become a Scout. Just before the age of 13 I found other interests and decided that I no longer wanted to be part of the scouting 'club'. However, if hey had done nothing at age 7, there would be nothing stopping me from enrolling as a Scout later in my adolescence.

 

[FunTimes0123]

It's up to the parents because the whole point of being a parent is that you are responsible for a child who can't make decisions for him/herself.

As parents not only do you give your child their genetics (which, in fact, will determine the easy majority of his/hers characteristics) you also decide how to rise him/her. What food he/she eats, what school he/she goes to, what clubs he/she will join, which vaccines and medical treatments he/she will receive, and, for boys, whether he'll be circumcised. Your decisions, at all levels, will shape his/her life.

Of course these choices have to be left to the child's parents and to suggest to the contrary is deeply offensive to those of us who've raised children.

Okay, be offended. You’re violating your child’s bodily autonomy, of course you have to make decisions about the health and well being of your child, but about the aesthetics of their genitals? No. That’s not part of raising them, that’s not getting them medical treatment, it’s forcing upon a child something that you believe, without any supporting evidence, will be best for them.

If you really want to talk about responsibility, let’s talk about your responsibility to your child’s future. You’re making plastic surgery choices about your infant child, that’s not medicine, that’s not even parenthood, it’s control. If a person wants to be circumcised later in life then he should be free to do so. Do not inflict YOUR choices onto their body where it doesn’t in any way help them.

 

[James Bell]

Okay, be offended. You’re violating your child’s bodily autonomy, of course you have to make decisions about the health and well being of your child, but about the aesthetics of their genitals? No. That’s not part of raising them, that’s not getting them medical treatment, it’s forcing upon a child something that you believe, without any supporting evidence, will be best for them.

If you really want to talk about responsibility, let’s talk about your responsibility to your child’s future. You’re making plastic surgery choices about your infant child, that’s not medicine, that’s not even parenthood, it’s control. If a person wants to be circumcised later in life then he should be free to do so. Do not inflict YOUR choices onto their body where it doesn’t in any way help them.

This is nothing to do with aesthetics but with benefits of health and hygiene. There is ample evidence of the potential benefits of circumcision in the medical literature (search PubMed, the definitive database, if you like). Our decision to have our sons circumcised was based on my wife’s review (as a doctor) of the scientific studies plus my personal experience of living with my foreskin until I was nearly 12 (which was OK) and without it thereafter (which was vastly better). Under those circumstancese would have been weak and neglectful parents indeed had we chosen not to have our boys circumcised.

The real issue though is parental responsibility. Children do not have capacity to consent to any medical procedure; legally that rests wholly with their parents. If you think about it, how could it possibly be otherwise: every single medical intervention would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. One of my sons, for example, had his nose badly broken when kneed in the face playing soccer aged 10. We had to decide whether or not to have it straightened under a general anaesthetic. This was a cosmetic procedure; are you suggesting that by doing so we violated his bodily autonomy and should have waited until he was an adult and could decide for himself -and required a more invasive procedure?

Cultural issues also enter the equation. Parents may chose to have their sons circumcised for cultural, religious or social reasons, and it can only be their right to do so. For example, my eldest son, and his girlfriend chose to have their twin sons circumcised in infancy just a couple of weeks ago. It was not only my son’s preference but also his partner’s. She has one Jewish grandfather. The family don’t practice at all, but all the boys in her family get circumcised and it was important to her to carry on the tradition. Would you deny her that choice?

I do not suggest that all boys should be circumcised; only that the decision to do so or not can rest only with their parents.

It seems you're keen to 'talk about responsibility'. May I ask how many sons you've actually raised?

 

[samjones]

This is nothing to do with aesthetics but with benefits of health and hygiene. There is ample evidence of the potential benefits of circumcision in the medical literature (search PubMed, the definitive database, if you like). Our decision to have our sons circumcised was based on my wife’s review (as a doctor) of the scientific studies plus my personal experience of living with my foreskin until I was nearly 12 (which was OK) and without it thereafter (which was vastly better). Under those circumstancese would have been weak and neglectful parents indeed had we chosen not to have our boys circumcised.

Children don't have the capacity to consent for any medical procedue that is deemed necessary & parents have to consent. But circumcision is not one of them (unless foreskin causes too much pain and discomfort). This isn't a haircut.

Whilst you mentioned about your son's nose was badly broken and here parental intervention was obvious as it would've put the child in great pain. You muddle what is necessary and unncessary, mutilation versus medical necessities.

The best part - the health and hygiene? Does it mean circumcised men don't have to ever wash? The hair gets so dirty too with dead skin, oil, dust. Should all men go bald?

 

[Jackson93]

The only good thing about islam flooding Europe is more circumcised guys

 

[Cut9801]

Uncut, natural and just they way it should be. Intact foreskin and all its benefits. Circumcised ones are ugly, weird looking and wrinkled.

Whoever thinks getting cut is the norm, it is never the norm unless needed for medical reasons.

Circumcised is ugly? And a penis that look like an anteater are beautiful?

 

[FunTimes0123]

This is nothing to do with aesthetics but with benefits of health and hygiene. There is ample evidence of the potential benefits of circumcision in the medical literature (search PubMed, the definitive database, if you like). Our decision to have our sons circumcised was based on my wife’s review (as a doctor) of the scientific studies plus my personal experience of living with my foreskin until I was nearly 12 (which was OK) and without it thereafter (which was vastly better). Under those circumstancese would have been weak and neglectful parents indeed had we chosen not to have our boys circumcised.

The real issue though is parental responsibility. Children do not have capacity to consent to any medical procedure; legally that rests wholly with their parents. If you think about it, how could it possibly be otherwise: every single medical intervention would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. One of my sons, for example, had his nose badly broken when kneed in the face playing soccer aged 10. We had to decide whether or not to have it straightened under a general anaesthetic. This was a cosmetic procedure; are you suggesting that by doing so we violated his bodily autonomy and should have waited until he was an adult and could decide for himself -and required a more invasive procedure?

Cultural issues also enter the equation. Parents may chose to have their sons circumcised for cultural, religious or social reasons, and it can only be their right to do so. For example, my eldest son, and his girlfriend chose to have their twin sons circumcised in infancy just a couple of weeks ago. It was not only my son’s preference but also his partner’s. She has one Jewish grandfather. The family don’t practice at all, but all the boys in her family get circumcised and it was important to her to carry on the tradition. Would you deny her that choice?

I do not suggest that all boys should be circumcised; only that the decision to do so or not can rest only with their parents.

It seems you're keen to 'talk about responsibility'. May I ask how many sons you've actually raised?

As someone mentioned above

This is nothing to do with aesthetics but with benefits of health and hygiene. There is ample evidence of the potential benefits of circumcision in the medical literature (search PubMed, the definitive database, if you like). Our decision to have our sons circumcised was based on my wife’s review (as a doctor) of the scientific studies plus my personal experience of living with my foreskin until I was nearly 12 (which was OK) and without it thereafter (which was vastly better). Under those circumstancese would have been weak and neglectful parents indeed had we chosen not to have our boys circumcised.

The real issue though is parental responsibility. Children do not have capacity to consent to any medical procedure; legally that rests wholly with their parents. If you think about it, how could it possibly be otherwise: every single medical intervention would be a violation of their bodily autonomy. One of my sons, for example, had his nose badly broken when kneed in the face playing soccer aged 10. We had to decide whether or not to have it straightened under a general anaesthetic. This was a cosmetic procedure; are you suggesting that by doing so we violated his bodily autonomy and should have waited until he was an adult and could decide for himself -and required a more invasive procedure?

Cultural issues also enter the equation. Parents may chose to have their sons circumcised for cultural, religious or social reasons, and it can only be their right to do so. For example, my eldest son, and his girlfriend chose to have their twin sons circumcised in infancy just a couple of weeks ago. It was not only my son’s preference but also his partner’s. She has one Jewish grandfather. The family don’t practice at all, but all the boys in her family get circumcised and it was important to her to carry on the tradition. Would you deny her that choice?

I do not suggest that all boys should be circumcised; only that the decision to do so or not can rest only with their parents.

It seems you're keen to 'talk about responsibility'. May I ask how many sons you've actually raised?

There are no hygiene benefits that require circumcision, the same benefits can be achieved by learning the remarkably simple way of peeling the foreskin back and cleaning it. Circumcision obviously makes this easier but not in anyway improved.
I would deny anyone the religious “right” to mutilate their children, as I also protest to the (admittedly far worse) practice of female genital mutilation. While FGM is worse, circumcision is still mutilation. It is an unnecessary procedure.
Parents should take great care when exercising their power over their children, you have the authority to consent on their behalf to necessary medical treatment, you do not (and should not) have the power to consent on behalf of a child to cosmetic surgery.
I’m not calling you evil for what you’ve done, simply asking the question, and asking you to reconsider your blind approval of tradition. You’re misguided, I understand you want what’s best for your kids and grandkids and don’t want to consider that what happened was wrong.