Guys cut at birth for non-religious, non-medical reasons, did you ever ask your parents why?

[FrankieGuile]

Wow, what an amazing intellectual reply. Basically, you got nothing.

What I have is a different opinion. What you have is overwrought histrionics leaning into intolerance, like a circumcision demagogue.

 

[Mr_Username]

It's not a tiny piece of skin, and I have already explained why. Also, you are wrong on principle. Equality of law applies to anything that involves protecting certain groups by giving them more rights over other group. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Constitution says "all men are created equal". In this case the word "man" stands for "Mankind". Regarding the draft, it was banned among other reasons because it violated equality before the law. So you are wrong(again).

I never said this. I said that they don't know any better. There is a difference. Also, there are quite a lot of men that are not happy with this. On Reddit there are 20+ subgroups of men that are deeply unhappy with what was done to them

Disagree. There are health detriments both tangible and intangible. For tangible health detriments, there are men that lost their penises due to infection after circumcision. There are men that lost sensation in the glans(on top of the losss from removing the foreskin) due to the surgeon severing nerves by mistake. Then, there are the penises that suffered scarring, penile bridges and developed keloid plaques from circumcision. for intangible health detriments, depriving a man of his full sexuality is a huge health detriment. Then, there are the men that have been psychologically damaged from it. There was the case of a young man that was circumcised by mistake and he committed suicide. Then, there are the aesthetic detriments. Lots of circumcised penises end up with extensive scars, skin bridges and kelloid plaques. I would say those are significant detriments. I mean, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but most people find scarred penises not as attractive as not-scarred penises(and this apply to all bodyparts)

I have already said that little girls have 2 X more urinary tract infections than little boys. If you go with the argument of "health benefits", then we should be removing the labia and clitoral hood of baby girls to protect their health. But of course, no one will sugges that since people are more ptotective of girls than boys. It's pure sexism and barbarism against boys.

You can find health benefits for anything that you do to your body. For instance, cutting off your penis reduces to zero the odds of having penile cancer. But no one would think thatg this is a good solution to prevent penile cancer.


It;s insane that women are allowed to say this, but if a man says that he prefers women that had "Barbie" labiaplasty with the labia and clitoral hood completely removed, the man is considered a pig. But women get away with this shit. It's infuriating.

Also, most women ddn't know any better, and don't care either way. They might prefer it in the U.S.A where it is the norm, but it is certainly not true in Europe and Latin America for instance. My dad is Dannish, and I can tell you that Scandinavian women consider circumcision of men to be barbaric. Severel female members of Swedish Parliament actually tried to outlaw it, and only didn't because of Jews and Muslims protesting their religious rights.


Suit yourself. I find penises with huge scars and kelloid plaques ugly. But again, beautty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Strawman. Again, you can't read. Where have I stated that male circumcision is the same as removing the clitoris? Show me? I said that removing the labia minora and CLITORAL PREPUCE is the same as male circumcsiion, and it IT IS OUTLAWED IN THE U.S.A AS WELL. I never said that removing the male foreskin is the same as removing the entire clitoris of a woman.

Also, the distinction between male circumcision and female circumcision is moot because girls are protected from ANY genital mutilation incluiding removal of the clitoral hood which is the same as male circumcision. Stop putting words in my mouth!

"and it's disrespectful to FGM to compare it to a totally different and mostly harmless procedure."

It's not a harmless procedure as discussed previously, and I am sick and tired of people putting women on a pedestal and acting like their rights matter a lot more than men. Yeah, removing the entire clitoris is worse than male circumcision but girls are also protected from more minor mutilations like removal of the hood of the clitoris, which is THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION. Stop attacking strawmans!

Yes, and I MADE THIS DISTINCTION. Also, stop acting like this matters at all. In America, girls are protected from having their entire clitorises AND hood of the clitoris removed. Boys, conversely, are only protected from the former. So it's NOT the same!!!

Also, I don't care what the WHO says because it is a lackey of the U.S.A. the WHO gets most of it's money from the U.S.A and serves American interests. Americans have a strong bias in favor of genitally mutilating men.


First of all, this isn't true, and secondly it doesn't matter. It isn't true because the anatomical structures of the penis and vagina develop from the same embryonic tissue. The clitoris is a vestibal penis, and the tissue that becomes the testicles in the man become the ovaries in the women.

And the reason why your argument doesn't matter is because the law makes no distinction between men and women. The law is equal for both.

For FK sake man, what a terrible rebuttal to my arguments. The same simpleton arguments that people use to mutilate males

Ok you’re just ranting now.

But one thing is, “all men are created equal” is in the Declaration of Independence which isn’t official law in the United States it’s an unofficial statement of ideals and a geopolitical stance from over 200 years ago. Do you really think Thomas Jefferson, the man who ordered his slaves to sleep with him, really had all of humanity in mind when he wrote, “all men?” surely all black men weren’t in the forefront of his mind.

the law makes no distinction between men and women

The ERA was never passed.

“removal of the hood of the clitoris, which is THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION.”

Again genitals have to be the most obvious difference between men and women. How can you make a 1-1 comparison of something so clearly different. Isn’t the clitoris generally regarded as more sensitive than the penis?

 

[jackthrwn]

Ok you’re just ranting now.

But one thing is, “all men are created equal” is in the Declaration of Independence which isn’t official law in the United States it’s an unofficial statement of ideals and a geopolitical stance from over 200 years ago. Do you really think Thomas Jefferson, the man who ordered his slaves to sleep with him, really had all of humanity in mind when he wrote, “all men?” surely all black men weren’t in the forefront of his mind.


The ERA was never passed.

“removal of the hood of the clitoris, which is THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION.”

Again genitals have to be the most obvious difference between men and women. How can you make a 1-1 comparison of something so clearly different. Isn’t the clitoris generally regarded as more sensitive than the penis?

Homologous structures.

"Isn’t the clitoris generally regarded as more sensitive than the penis?"
Because in most women the clitoral hood/prepuce is still there unlike circumsized men.

 

[Mossy_Man]

Ask any uncircumcised man, and he's tell you that the inner part of his foreskin is the most sensitive part of his penis.

What self-respecting man wants to admit that something bad and irreversible was done to his penis?

Also, stop lying. There are lots and lots of men that got circumcised as adults that deeply regret it. Don't select your evidence and and enage in confirmation bias.

Sadly I wasn't RIC so I thought I was just a bystander to this topic but seeing it's been turned into an anti-circ rant piece I thought I'd comment on these parts of this post.

You're wrong, I was "any uncircumcised man" and my inner foreskin wasn't the most sensitive part of my penis. The head of my penis was and it was too sensitive to enjoy direct constant stimulation comfortably. My enjoyment with my penis has improved significantly since being circumcised as an adult.

Since I was aware of what circumcision, I wished that I was done as a baby. Just because obviously you've got issues doesn't mean every other person with a circumcised penis does too.

Unless you've surveyed the entire post-RIC circumcised worldwide population, you have no basis for that claim. Sounds like you've been doing your own selective evidence collection.

 

[Otter6969]

I’m trying to wrap my head around the posts tying higher hiv rates to uncircumcised??!! Imho that is a singularly stupid connect

No it’s a medical fact and had been one for years. The langheran cells found in abundance in the foreskin are highly concentrated with a receptor that hiv happens to be adapted to grabbing hold of and using that to enter the body and cells. Just like the reason msm contract it is bc the intestines are full of cd4 cd8 and cd20 white blood cells bc of intestinal bacteria they must keep from entering the blood supply with nutrients from food. This means hiv in semen is deposited into a body cavity with a high concentration of the type of white blood cells hiv needs to cause a infection. The foreskin would contract it from a woman’s vaginal secretions with a high viral load. Or maybe if a bottom was full of another man’s semen with a high viral load.

 

[Sandymat]

I m circumcised. I love it , and others that have it done . My parents didn’t do it with malice but it was the accepted norm At the time ....they followed the science as vaccers do today

 

[AussieBroCurious]

Langheran cells are thing. They exist in other places in the body, but in their highest concentration in the vag for the lady-folk and in the inner foreskin for us guys. removing all of the inner foreskin does certainly reduce the number of cells, but you got to remove it ALL. The typical circ does not remove anywhere near all unless its a radical low cut with the scar right up against the head. So yeah, there were ?'s hanging over that early finding. What they found down the track was there was a strong corelation betwen transmission of STIs and the sort of 'sexual liberal-ness' of the society. e.g. scandi countries who are known for their intact foreskins and liberal approach to sex (thank you Vikings) had a higher rate of STIs because they were all sleeping with many more partners (three cheers!) hence more transmission. wheras countries where the approach to sex is much more conservative had lower transmission rates due to each person having fewer partners. This also accounted for another anomoly which was the high rates of transmission in the US when HIV transmission was at its peak when at the time thier circ rates were also high. turned out that RIC wasn't giving anywhere near the protection they had assumed. Was a while back I read the findings so I can't remember exactly but they supported this further with stats on a couple of communities in the states that traditionally didn't circ and they had a really really low transmission rates compared to the rest of the american population. I think it was something like Amish communities and native american communities or something. interesting stuff.

I'm not cut so never had to ask but one of my best mates was cut and he asked his parents earl;y on because his older brothers weren't cut and was told that he had gotten his little fella caught in a clothes drawer as a todler and they did it to fix the damage from getting caught in the drawer. he found out in his mid 20s that he had been born with hypospadias which explained a bit. The way he told the story, his dad decide to come clean over a family lunch when my mate was expecting his first child. Him and his brothers had always grown up thinking my mate had damaged his willy in his shorts drawer so his brothers are pissing themsleves laughing and my mates mum runs screaming from the room while his dad explains the condition and the repair surgery to his future daughter-in-law, just in case their child was born with it. And that was how my mate found out the real reason he was cut.

 

[halcyondays]

I did not ask why but when I was a grown man medical student in my mid-20s mom asked if I thought it was genital mutilation. She had been reading that it was and how it was a mistake for her generation (WWII) to cut the boys of the Boomer generation.

I said yes it's genital mutilation but understood that it wasn't meant to be. It was sold to parents as a hygienic medical procedure. Her generation bought the advertising hook, line and sinker. It made money for doctors.

Men of her generation and older were not cut. Dad wasn't.

Her generation also believed the advertising that smoking was good for you. Like many of that generation my parents smoked themselves to death--easily giving up ten or twenty years of longevity and suffering twenty years of heart & lung disease and cancer as well.

Cha-ching for the medical industry. And tobacco.

Yeah. Stupidity reigns.

Adult males who want to get cut for cosmetic or hygienic reasons? Fine with me as long as it's the decision of the adult male getting cut.

 

[Pumpkin Eater]

You assume the only medical reason for circumcision was "an issue with your foreskin that made it a medical recommendation". At one time there was a major medical reason for circumcision -- and probably still is -- although conditions and medicines (antibiotics) may make it not so imperative.

Circumcision became widely practiced in the United States during World War I and, to a somewhat less extent during World War II. It had long been observed that Jewish boys with the same level of sexual activity had a much lower incidence of venereal disease and it had long been felt that this was due to their practice of circumcision. So circumcision was greatly "encouraged" as a prophylactic for the young doughboys heading off to the wicked wilds of Paree.

I presume that the practice once established became standard practice in the U.S. There did seem to be a social/economic and geographical split. Babies from lower economic classes and rural areas (where home births were still common) were less likely to be circumcised. Immigrant children (like Mexicans) also were more likely to be uncircumcised, probably for economic and social/cultural reasons. Blacks tended to mirror the practice of the broader community. Although circumcision is not as prevalent in the UK, it too shows a social and economic split. For instance, the royal family have typically been circumcised, although it was said that Princess Diana had kept William and Harry intact. This rumor was scotched in Prince Harry's book "Spare"; au contraire, the two were circumcised at birth.

The idea was not so outlandish as some may believe. During the worldwide AIDS epidemic, there was overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness in reducing the incidence of AIDS in Africa. Africa has a large Muslim population, who, like Jews, practice circumcision. When the areas of high incidence were mapped, they clearly aligned with the populations who did not practice circumcision; the Muslim areas showed showed lower incidence. The situation was accentuated greatly in Africa vs the U.S.A. and Europe because of the greater prevalence of male sexual promiscuity in their culture.


I'm glad I was circumcised because (1) most guys I knew were and (2) most women seem to like it that way (or at least those who've expressed a preference). Both my wives have said they avoid oral sex with men who are uncut. My wife said she could always tell whether a guy was uncut or not. I asked how. She said the uncut always hit the bathroom right away to scrub up in preparation.

My daughter mentioned circumcising her boys to her husband's objection and saying ughh to uncircumcised. Then I happened to see her very well hung circumcised husband at the gym. No! I didn't discuss the issue with her.

 

[Pumpkin Eater]

My daughter mentioned circumcising her boys to her husband's objection and saying ughh to uncircumcised. Then I happened to see her very well hung circumcised husband at the gym. No! I didn't discuss the issue with her.

Woops! I meant to write well hung NON-circumcised husband at the gym

 

[mattto]

It's not a tiny piece of skin, and I have already explained why. Also, you are wrong on principle. Equality of law applies to anything that involves protecting certain groups by giving them more rights over other group. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Constitution says "all men are created equal". In this case the word "man" stands for "Mankind". Regarding the draft, it was banned among other reasons because it violated equality before the law. So you are wrong(again).

I never said this. I said that they don't know any better. There is a difference. Also, there are quite a lot of men that are not happy with this. On Reddit there are 20+ subgroups of men that are deeply unhappy with what was done to them

Disagree. There are health detriments both tangible and intangible. For tangible health detriments, there are men that lost their penises due to infection after circumcision. There are men that lost sensation in the glans(on top of the losss from removing the foreskin) due to the surgeon severing nerves by mistake. Then, there are the penises that suffered scarring, penile bridges and developed keloid plaques from circumcision. for intangible health detriments, depriving a man of his full sexuality is a huge health detriment. Then, there are the men that have been psychologically damaged from it. There was the case of a young man that was circumcised by mistake and he committed suicide. Then, there are the aesthetic detriments. Lots of circumcised penises end up with extensive scars, skin bridges and kelloid plaques. I would say those are significant detriments. I mean, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but most people find scarred penises not as attractive as not-scarred penises(and this apply to all bodyparts)

I have already said that little girls have 2 X more urinary tract infections than little boys. If you go with the argument of "health benefits", then we should be removing the labia and clitoral hood of baby girls to protect their health. But of course, no one will sugges that since people are more ptotective of girls than boys. It's pure sexism and barbarism against boys.

You can find health benefits for anything that you do to your body. For instance, cutting off your penis reduces to zero the odds of having penile cancer. But no one would think thatg this is a good solution to prevent penile cancer.


It;s insane that women are allowed to say this, but if a man says that he prefers women that had "Barbie" labiaplasty with the labia and clitoral hood completely removed, the man is considered a pig. But women get away with this shit. It's infuriating.

Also, most women ddn't know any better, and don't care either way. They might prefer it in the U.S.A where it is the norm, but it is certainly not true in Europe and Latin America for instance. My dad is Dannish, and I can tell you that Scandinavian women consider circumcision of men to be barbaric. Severel female members of Swedish Parliament actually tried to outlaw it, and only didn't because of Jews and Muslims protesting their religious rights.


Suit yourself. I find penises with huge scars and kelloid plaques ugly. But again, beautty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Strawman. Again, you can't read. Where have I stated that male circumcision is the same as removing the clitoris? Show me? I said that removing the labia minora and CLITORAL PREPUCE is the same as male circumcsiion, and it IT IS OUTLAWED IN THE U.S.A AS WELL. I never said that removing the male foreskin is the same as removing the entire clitoris of a woman.

Also, the distinction between male circumcision and female circumcision is moot because girls are protected from ANY genital mutilation incluiding removal of the clitoral hood which is the same as male circumcision. Stop putting words in my mouth!

"and it's disrespectful to FGM to compare it to a totally different and mostly harmless procedure."

It's not a harmless procedure as discussed previously, and I am sick and tired of people putting women on a pedestal and acting like their rights matter a lot more than men. Yeah, removing the entire clitoris is worse than male circumcision but girls are also protected from more minor mutilations like removal of the hood of the clitoris, which is THE SAME AS MALE CIRCUMCISION. Stop attacking strawmans!

Yes, and I MADE THIS DISTINCTION. Also, stop acting like this matters at all. In America, girls are protected from having their entire clitorises AND hood of the clitoris removed. Boys, conversely, are only protected from the former. So it's NOT the same!!!

Also, I don't care what the WHO says because it is a lackey of the U.S.A. the WHO gets most of it's money from the U.S.A and serves American interests. Americans have a strong bias in favor of genitally mutilating men.


First of all, this isn't true, and secondly it doesn't matter. It isn't true because the anatomical structures of the penis and vagina develop from the same embryonic tissue. The clitoris is a vestibal penis, and the tissue that becomes the testicles in the man become the ovaries in the women.

And the reason why your argument doesn't matter is because the law makes no distinction between men and women. The law is equal for both.

For FK sake man, what a terrible rebuttal to my arguments. The same simpleton arguments that people use to mutilate males

Perfectly written! I totally agree with you, I'm impressed with your well written and motivated posts!

 

[ILoveGames48]

I’ve never put much thought to it.. of course back then I didn’t know of cut and uncut.. I just knew I got hard.. jerked off got sucked or screwed someone with it.. and around here … years later I have never seen an uncut cock except for in porn

 

[cycleguy]

Let it go. It really not anyones business. Cut Uncut they are dicks- all nice. All attached to a person.

 

[Sagittarius84]

I've had no complaints or ill experiences that would drive me to question why, if anything as reported by sexual partners, I should thank the dr that made the snip and my parents for making the decision. My sensitivity is on point, the aesthetics never fail to please, and I have never experienced smegma as a bodily function.
I did reconsider things a lot more when my son was born as a lot of horror stories of botched circumcisions were reaching the mainstream, but I placed my trust in the fact that of the males in my family I questioned, all were circumcised with no ill effects, and that I had researched what would be his birth hospital.
I 100% understand why both as either a result of consequence or as an ideological stance that exists against infant circumcision, I don't really like that those whom have experienced circumcision and are okay with it seem to be demonized a bit because we might choose to have our children snipped, without implying that anybody else has to. I chalk it up to any number of elective procedures parents might opt for their children that serve more for socially compliant aesthetics; orthodontic work, scar removal, orthopedic surgery, all potentially risky procedures that don't need to be done for a child to have a full and happy life otherwise, am I'm sure for each a population of parents that wouldnt feel right making that decision for their child, as is their right.

 

[gizmonkey]

My dad was uncut and had nothing but problems with it growing up. Not sure what problems, but enough of it to have his 3 sons circ'd based on his experience. And surprisingly now, I just found out he got circ'd himself finally in his 70s.

I have nothing to complain about though, I love being circ'd.

bro i had nothing but problems with that useless flap on my cockhead. best thing ever to get circed