• Register
  • Sign In
  • Main Forums
  • What's Hot
  • TRP.RED
  • Tribe Forums
  • TheRedPill
  • Tribe Management
  • Create New Tribe
  • Manage My Tribes
  • Find New Tribes
  • Recent News
    • Forums in BETA!
      Visit our Development Updates tribe to discuss redesign, features, or bugs!
MensRights · 110 members
Feed Chat Forum Info
110 Members Public Tribe
This is intended as a placeholder - but feel free to join and do tribal stuff! I'm u/goodmod on r/MensRights.
Created by MenAreFine
Sort By Hot
  • Hot Score
  • Newest Comments
  • Old Comments
  • Top Comments

Forums.Red / MensRights / Intactivism

Circumcision is forced in infants despite men being averse to having their genitals cut
3.3K

DarthEquus

Posted 5y ago in Intactivism - Permalink - Locked - 91.1K Views



Permalink
    
Permalink
RubbelDieKatz94 5y ago

Personally, I approve of my genital mutilation. Mostly because my foreskin was already starting to cut off my blood supply. But I'd never do that to a child without existing complications.

1
    
Permalink
Tato_XL 5y ago

You don't "get your genitals cut" !
Had to do it as an adult for medical reasons... not saying it's ok to force babies to that, but it's not that traumatic. It's just extra (loose) skin, nothing to do with cutting genitals!

0
    
Permalink
spiral21x 5y ago

Where is this stat from? I had read a poll that showed 1 in 550 adults choose this (I think from the CDC years back). Would love to know this source of this graphic?

1
    
Permalink
sealwaffles 5y ago

Also slot of the time its chosen by the mother

2
    
Permalink
tylerden 5y ago

"Cut" just sounds awful...and it is.

205
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-89
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

I think you're fucking retarded, but that's just my opinion.

17
    
Permalink
Eoined 5y ago

I feel that if you had given an argument you wouldn't have been downvoted. Just telling a group "I disagree with you all, you're wrong but I accept freedom of thought" is never going to garner you a good reaction from that group haha.

14
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-2
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

9
    
Permalink
NOnutFOREVA 5y ago

The Dumbest Thing I've Heard after the article I read called " Why there is no gravity "

3
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Lol, when people disagree with you, you close your eyes and shout "lalalalala".

6
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-1
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

You keep editing your post. You said you unsubbed because people had a strong reaction to your insensitive comment.

4
    
Permalink
tylerden 5y ago

Unless it's a medical necessity there is no reason for it. A circumcision actually desensitized you dick terribly...

74
    
Permalink
AssEater2003 5y ago

Rip desensitized dick

27
    
Permalink
PajamaPete5 5y ago

Circumcisions decrease the risk of UTI’s and contracting STD’s and even Penile Cancer. I think in America if you don’t circumcise your son you’re setting him up for a life of being mocked and having dick cheese, as circs help with hygene as well

-20
    
Permalink
DaVinciofDeath 5y ago

If you cut off your arm, you are less likely for it to get cancer, and the same principle applies here. The reason it was created was to stop masturbation (see Adam ruins everything), and the reason it continues is profit.

8
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

  • It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
  • Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
  • The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

  • The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
  • The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
  • In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
  • The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
  • HIV was contracted through means other than sex
  • Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

3
    
Permalink
tylerden 5y ago

I'm sorry you got the snip. Really....

4
    
Permalink
The_superior_nugget 5y ago

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahanahababaababhaah no, the dude who started it just wanted to stop masturbation, it doesnt help at all to circumsize

8
    
Permalink
PajamaPete5 5y ago

https://www.parents.com/baby/care/bath/facts-and-feelings-about-circumcision/

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

-8
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Please get properly educated. There's no benefits to it and a lot of drawbacks

3
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

No point disagreeing about this on this subreddit, these guys are psycho about this.

-37
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Why do you support forced male genital mutilation?

28
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

because his penis works just fiiiiiiiiineeeeeeeeee!!!!!111111!!!1111!!!111!!!!!

7
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

Exactly

-38
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Are you an idiot?

18
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

Lil bit. But this is Reddit, civil discourse doesn't exist. People with differing opinions only scream at others and shut them down instead of talking it out

-20
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

The number of people downvoting you disproves that civil discourse exists.

3
    
Permalink
Eoined 5y ago

Unfortunately that's almost all of Reddit now. So you have to literally find a sub with similar views in a particular topic to start a circle jerk. Otherwise it's downvoted to oblivion. I'm not the conspiracy nut guy but recently I've become convinced that this Polarization is done intentionally. It's almost impossible to be impartial on social media.

2
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

We are. You're just refusing to accept cold hard facts about no benefits to circumcision and quite a few drawbacks just because it would mean your penis shape and style is wrong.

18
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

I'm saying it shouldn't be "wrong" also. That's a terrible idea to bash down people's throats

-1
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

It should be and people need to learn that. We need to educate people on this.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

genital cutting is an even worse idea to carve into a defenseless infant's genitals.

4
    
Permalink
PajamaPete5 5y ago

Circumcisions decrease the risk of UTI’s and contracting STD’s and even Penile Cancer. I think in America if you don’t circumcise your son you’re setting him up for a life of being mocked and having dick cheese, as circs help with hygene as well

-2
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

They don't help with either. You don't have any more risk with STI's or dick cheese than you would with an uncircumcised dick. People are just too lazy to do the extra work. He won't be mocked. That's another stupid excuse used to justify this barbaric practice. It should only be done if the boy is 18 and consents to it or if it's a medical emergency. It's like cutting off the toe just in case there's a chance of it infecting the entire foot.

3
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

  • It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
  • Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
  • The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

  • The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
  • The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
  • In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
  • The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
  • HIV was contracted through means other than sex
  • Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

2
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

This may be insightful to open minded people. But people who were conditioned to believe circumcision is an obligation will think of this as conspiracy. And shall notice it in the tone of the responses. Can't help to laugh at some arguments:

"better to have it done as a baby than later in life" - no man requires circumcision at birth, and less than 1% of men will ever face complications related to foreskin that doesn't always warrant a circumcision

"It is more hygienic to be circumcised" - no it is not, you just were made believe that having complete genitalia is a hassle

"my penis works fine" - sure, but that's what you have adapted to, except circumcision was forced to reduce its functionality to a fraction of what it is supposed to be

What I have gathered from my years of research, is that circumcision is simply a "status" among cutting societies, and they will defend it no matter the cost.

40
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

12
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

Right, wonder why the rest of the 70% of men in the world who aren't circumcised don't face the hygiene complications cutting societies do.

14
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

If you read the AAP website carefully, they only really recommend circumcision in areas of the world with low sanitation standards, like Africa.

6
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

I can guarantee you that all the nerves are still there and it's still sensitive bub. A slight breeze and it gets all excited

-23
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

Fraction of the nerves you mean. You can't possibly believe that removal of 20 thousand nerves doesn't impact you. Like I said in my comment men adapt to what is left of a penis after circumcision and grow up thinking that is what was intended to experience. But not all are content with the outcome r/circumcisiongrief

22
    
Permalink
Inukchook 5y ago

So uncircumcised penis’ are more sensitive ?

6
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Here is a good visual(Full study.)

11
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

Yes very much so in comparison to circumcised ones. Grown men who have circumcisions by choice even can voucher for this. Also many fail to consider that not 2 circumcisions are equal, there are no guidelines for how much gets removed at birth especially (when penises are barely developed and foreskin isn't defined), so in reality you could lose up to 50% of penile skin (referred as high and tight cuts). Check out this sub (nswf) of guys who weren't so "lucky" after forced circumcision at birth and judge for yourself r/ruinedcocks

Also this literature may be useful to understand what happens after circumcision http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

10
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

Yes. Both because they have a lot of the nerve endings, and because the foreskin acts as a protective layer preventing the glands from becoming desensitized from rubbing on clothes all the time. Then there's the natural lubricating effect of foreskin allowing sex/masterbation without lube.

Another side benefit of not being cut is not having a wound trying to heal inside a diaper when your immune system isn't well formed to deal with infection. Also, when a baby is born the foreskin is attached to the glands similar to how a fingernail is attached to your finger. The process of removing the foreskin requires that interface be ripped apart, on the most sensitive part of an infants body.

Have you ever watched a video on the process? It's horrifying.

15
    
Permalink
Inukchook 5y ago

Hmm well I’m glad I’m circumcised I guess because I’m sensitive as can be. Can’t imagine being more. It is quite interesting reading about this though as I don’t know any different.

-11
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

It's be even more sensitive with a foreskin as it's the male g-spot. No benefits and a lot of drawbacks

5
    
Permalink
akgamestar 5y ago

I agree

0
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

20,000 nerve endings, I'm sure you mean, and you have more than that on your fingertips. it sounds like a lot, but realistically it's probably just more hype than needed

-9
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

Thx for the correction, nerve endings*. But the number isn't important, or would a bigger number such in the millions would make the loss more substantial? The point is that the continuous penile skin and nervous system is disrupted by forceful cutting. I wish circumcised men in denial cut a finger or two to understand the concept that removal of substantial flesh disrupts the normal functionality of an organ but they are adamant to think otherwise. But yes, you loose a lot with circumcision, if a grown man's foreskin were to be spread flat it would be equivalent to the size of a postcard.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/sexual-impact/

7
    
Permalink
ShieldOfFury 5y ago

Missing 2 digits baybee my left middle and ring fingertips. It's an annoyance but doesn't change much

-6
    
Permalink
intactguy78 5y ago

Sure, we all subject to injuries at some point and adapt to what is left afterwards. But it is different when the injury is inflicted.

6
    
Permalink
FacelessOnes 5y ago

I’m happy that my parents decided to do so, but I get that infants don’t have a choice. So, I’ll stand with you guys on this cause I get where y’all coming from.

49
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Like I said elsewhere, it's not the end of the world and you don't have to hate your body if you're circumcised, but we really need to stop doing penile modifications on babies

34
    
Permalink
W0NdERSTrUM 5y ago

As someone who is circumcised I can confirm. It is most certainly not the end of the world and I don’t hate my body. In fact I prefer it.

12
    
Permalink
LiquidDreamtime 5y ago

You chose circumcision as an adult? If not, how can you “prefer” something when you have no comparison?

7
    
Permalink
froggymcfrogface 5y ago

Looks and smell.

-6
    
Permalink
Crook_Lid 5y ago

If you have basic hygiene standards then it won't smell.

12
    
Permalink
Hypedlol 5y ago

Right there with you, I am glad that I am. So I guess I’m not down the with the whole let’s not let moms cut their babies dicks extra skin off..

-26
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

why do you think there was anything extra about the penis you were born with?

18
    
Permalink
Hypedlol 5y ago

My guess if we’re speaking scientifically then it probably grew to protect the tip of the penis. I have underwear and pants now. So not really all the necessary.

-10
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the foreskin is the tip of the penis. it's also the most sensitive part. it's there for sexual pleasure.

16
    
Permalink
Hypedlol 5y ago

It covers the tip, but yes I know it’s the most sensitive

-8
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the foreskin is the tip. it covers the internal parts.

10
    
Permalink
Hypedlol 5y ago

You might need to take an anatomy class my guy.

4
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

why are you happy to have a smaller and less sensitive penis with permanent surgical scars?

14
    
Permalink
VideoGamesAreDumb 5y ago

u/needletothebar . You can have your opinion on circumcision, but you just being rude by essentially making-fun of someone’s penis. ‘wHy aRe yOu hApPy WiTh hAvInG a SmAlL pEnIs WiTh ScArS?’ People are allowed to prefer a certain penis, you’re just being a d*ck for no reason.

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

that doesn't answer the question.

6
    
Permalink
DoctorNotapoolman 5y ago

That’s why most men in porn are circumcised right? Because it’s ugly and small. Fucking idiot..

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

most men in porn still have their whole penis.

3
    
Permalink
dragonoutrider 5y ago

1.it doesn't effect the size. 2. Sensitivity isn't a big deal in general.

-5
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

Sensitivity isn't a big deal in general.

You are free to think that and apply that to your own body. The standard to intervene on somebody else's body is medical necessity.

The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.

http://www.cps.ca/documents/position/circumcision

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

you can't cut part of a penis off without making the penis smaller.

circumcision ablates the five most sensitive parts of the penis.

9
    
Permalink
dragonoutrider 5y ago

It's skin around the penis, it doesn't affect the size as the size is the same as it was pre circumcision. And the other point, again is sensitivity really doesn't matter. Nobody with a circumcision mopes around all day like, "man I'm depressed because a vagina doesn't feel the same as it does with an uncircumcised penis, I hate myself and this practice" Nah, it doesn't matter, technically if you want to use facts also circumcised men also last longer in bed due to the lack of sensitivity which I'm not denying either.

-2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, it's not around the penis. it's the most sensitive part of the penis.

cutting off part of somebody's penis leaves the victim with less penis.

also, you might wanna have a look at this sub and educate yourself: r/CircumcisionGrief

lasting longer in bed isn't a good thing.

8
    
Permalink
dragonoutrider 5y ago

Ahh yes because 1000 mens opinion overthrows the 3.7 billion males on the planet.

-3
    
Permalink
Cantersoft 5y ago

That is, the 3.7 billion males who were falsely indoctrinated and didn't have a choice. Except that it's way less than that. The highest proportion of men in the world altogether are intact.

5
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

70% of the world's men go their whole lives without ever getting part of their penis removed.

7
    
Permalink
dragonoutrider 5y ago

Yes as it is mostly and American practice other countries don't do, that doesn't villify the practice itself.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, it's mostly a third world muslim practice. the point is most men find it to be absolutely horrifying.

9
    
Permalink
othergabe 5y ago

It is also very interesting and rather suspicious that kill-all-men type feminists promote male genital mutulation. Since they would never promote female GM, kinda makes ya think.

398
    
Permalink
thedogedidit 5y ago

This is a dumb statement. Congrats, you made it to Dumbsville.

-35
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Someone made it to Dumbsville and it wasn't him.

10
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

The vast majority of feminists are anti-circimcision.

Edit: delusional incels ITT. Yikes.

-96
    
Permalink
yxpaoqpdm 5y ago

The UN Women publishes reports that claim that pin pricks and labiaplasties to be FGM and gender-based violence while male cirucmcision is joether.

Theu hosted Angela Merkel as a speaker after she legalized it Germany after religiois protests.

Show me a feminist that support both banning cirucmcision AND paying jeavu damages to victims between when FGM was banned and mgm will be banned for being deprived of equal protection of the law.

1
    
Permalink
risunokairu 5y ago

Yeah, they’re always talking about how ^^^^^female circumcision is bad.

28
    
Permalink
Mode1961 5y ago

Do you have stats for the stats based assertion?

7
    
Permalink
volabimus 5y ago

So the majority of female OBGYN's who perform infant male circumcisions aren't feminists I guess.

10
    
Permalink
boxsterguy 5y ago

The fuck is an OBGYN doing work anything related to a penis?

If circumcision has to happen (which it shouldn't), then a urologist should be doing it, or at the very least a pediatrician. A lady bits doctor shouldn't be anywhere near man bits.

4
    
Permalink
Blutarg 5y ago

Prove it.

1
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

They're anti genital mutilation.

1
    
Permalink
808picklejuice 5y ago

I haven’t seen one feminist even care about circumcision

2
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

That's because you don't know what a woman is

-3
    
Permalink
808picklejuice 5y ago

Nice.

2
    
Permalink
AbysmalDescent 5y ago

This isn't true at all and, even if there are some feminists who are anti-circumcision, I guarantee you it isn't because they care about men or the sanctity of male genitals. Feminists who are anti-circumcision would likely be anti-circumcision because they associate it with toxic masculinity or because male circumcision might make sex less pleasant for women.

2
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

Wow. You're so blinded by your hate that you can't be reasoned with. I hope you change your outlook someday.

Feminists are anti circumcision for the same reason that men are anti female genital mutilation.

I won't be responding anymore to this delusional thread. Peace

2
    
Permalink
yxpaoqpdm 5y ago

Feminists are anti circumcision for the same reason that men are anti female genital mutilation.

Are they pro-damahes for men circumcised so far for having theor right to equal protection of the law violated?

Are they pro punoshing feminist organizations that claim that male circumcision isn't gender-based violence.

Like how most MRAs here are biased against women, feminsits are biased against men.

1
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Don't see a whole lot of them on the internet.

140
    
Permalink
ZSCroft 5y ago

Definitely not in the men’s rights sub at least...

35
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

I'm not using "internet" and "mensrights reddit sub" synonymously.

41
    
Permalink
ZSCroft 5y ago

Well when I searched “circumcision” on ask feminists there was an overwhelming support for ending the practice

Bodily autonomy was the biggest reason from multiple threads as to why it’s wrong so are we just excluding reddit in general or what?

14
    
Permalink
yxpaoqpdm 5y ago

And when I searched whether feminsit organizations that downplay male circumcisiln should be punoshed, most defended them.

Banning it is a half emasure at best. Men who have been circumcised after fgm was banned deserve damages because their right to equal protection of the law have been violated.

Feminist organizations like the UN Women, NOW and Equality Now need to be penalized for downplaying male cirucmcision. How tf is a vaginal piercing in a medical environment meeting the treshold for genital mutilation and gender-based violence but male circumcision in mud huts on teen boys isn't? Because that's exactly what the UN Women reports say.

1
    
Permalink
zaapas 5y ago

I just did the same but the first thing I saw is that those threads are downvoted to hell. I agree that some of them are against feminism but I didn't saw one that was
Highly accepted. Most of the comments are against circumcision but doesn't acknowledge that the state of male circumcision is an important matter at the level of the female mutilation of sexual part. A bit weird seeing the fact that more than half of male infant in America are circumcised. But they still think that the priority is the one that affects women. Wich is already illegal. So that I don't get it. Also many comments say that male circumcision is fundamentally not worse than female mutilation in sexual sensitivity. Wich is... not true. I am not directly concerned by it so I didn't have many information to begin with. But it wasn't hard to get it so where are those peoples getting their facts? I ask you.

6
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

When you search for something on the internet, you’ll probably find it. That’s selection bias.

When you’ve lived on the internet, and lived long enough in the real world, you realize that circumcision is still an extremely controversial topic, even among feminists.

-3
    
Permalink
ZSCroft 5y ago

But you said you didn’t see them online in the first place I literally wouldn’t have looked if you didn’t mention that

I really don’t think circumcision is controversial for feminists, I’m just not seeing it ;)

1
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Maybe you should expand your social group and see for yourself. I personally have encountered many feminists that either take no stance on MGM or slightly support it.

1
    
Permalink
LiquidDreamtime 5y ago

I’m a feminist and I oppose circumcision.

10
    
Permalink
yxpaoqpdm 5y ago

Excellent. Now considering that several feminidt organizations have claomed that it osnt gender-based violence, how should they be punoshed for spreading this misinformation?

Furthermore , how should men circumcised as children between when FGM was banned and when MGM will be banned be compensated? Because discrimination based on sex, even sex-specific laws are unconstitutional.

1
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

I believe you, but that hasn’t been my experience with every feminist I encounter.

8
    
Permalink
LiquidDreamtime 5y ago

Feminism in general doesn’t spend a lot of time discussing men’s issues.

That’s like complaining that BLM doesn’t do enough to protect white victims of police violence.

I think most of both groups care about these issues, but they are not necessarily within the scope of the change they advocate for.

Similarly, I’m not upset that Susan G Komen doesn’t say much about prostate cancer. It’s reasonable to assume that everyone working for and donating to this organization does wish for less prostate cancer, but it’s not the focus of their goals.

-7
    
Permalink
volabimus 5y ago

Feminists not talking about male circumcision is fine, it's not their remit, and I'm very happy for women speaking out against the practice and most-importantly not allowing it to be perpetrated against their sons. However there is a prominent body of feminists who do openly take a sadistic glee in promoting (and inflicting) the practice, while deriding the men speaking out as cry-babies, virgins, incels etc. (see the parent comment of this thread). Read through the articles on this well-known website as an example:

https://jezebel(.)com/tag/circumcision

Yes, this does appear to be a specific, hopefully outgoing, but prominent subculture of feminists, and when you search for circumcision and feminist the overwhelming opinion seems to be opposition, at least in terms of pure ideology, though many still make a point to insult and deride men opposing it with the same insults and belittling, and excusing it as not that bad, even if they oppose it themselves for the "right" reasons, which obviously the men don't.

http://feministing(.)com/2015/07/15/circumcision-is-a-feminist-issueand-so-is-how-we-talk-about-it/

1
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[removed]

1
    
Permalink
AutoModerator 5y ago

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[removed]

1
    
Permalink
AutoModerator 5y ago

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that site. You may use a screenshot instead.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

0
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Uhh, yea they do. Feminism's main goal is equality for everyone, despite their organization's name stating the contrary.

4
    
Permalink
LiquidDreamtime 5y ago

It’s not an organization and I’m very much a feminist. But intersectional feminism obviously focuses on women’s rights. A lot of their goals and aspirations happen to align with equality for men. And it’s intersectional with men’s rights, so genital mutilation is important for us all.

But specifically, Circumcision isn’t a feminist issue. Why would it be?

2
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Female circumcision is. FGM is done to control women's sexuality. MGM is and was also done to control men's sexuality. It was believed that MGM would prevent boys from masturbating.

Ultimately, it affects everyone in the process.

4
    
Permalink
LiquidDreamtime 5y ago

Yeah. I’m a man, I’m circumcised. I understand what it is and I’m aware of FGM. I’m not sure what you’re not understanding.

Issues that impact only men are not something feminists expend much energy on. Nor should you expect them to. And FGM is very uncommon in the western world, from what I’ve read it’s mostly an issue in Africa. Feminist groups have done plenty of work in this area but western feminism mostly focuses on issues that impact women in the western world, which is both reasonable and to be expected.

1
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

You're really not paying attention then. Maybe you just don't want to.

-40
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

I've been on the internet probably longer than you have been alive.

3
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

Even if that's true, it's not indicative. Apart from this subreddit, I've seen more women speaking out against circumcision than men.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

probably says something about the circles you hang out in. in mine, it's virtually all men.

3
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

Yeah means I have a diverse range of friends. Helps to avoid echo chambers

2
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Are we talking about MGM or FGM? Because I've seen way more women talk about FGM, and hardly any about MGM. Many women I see actually support MGM.

7
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

Where do you see non religious women support MGM?

1
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

It's ususally women on the fence about it saying things like "well I heard there's benefits to it, and I don't have a penis, so I wouldn't know. I'll just leave the decision up to the father who wants our son to be circumcised".

I see that kind of post all over different websites all the time.

5
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Look at what r/feminism says about it. I was permanently banned from r/Askfeminists for asking about it.

17
    
Permalink
kazza789 5y ago

Every thread I can find they are condemning it. E.g.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/8ua4h9/can_you_be_a_feminist_and_pro_circumcision

4
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

I was talking about r/feminism. Outside of reddit, feminists encourage it hugely. Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel both encourage it. The UN encourage it. Subs that encourage it on Reddit. r/pinkpillfeminism, r/thefairersex, r/blackpillfeminism, r/menslib, r/FemaleDatingStrategy.

1
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

Did you get banned for asking or did you get banned for being MRA or did you get banned for asking it in a baity way?

The only women I know who support circumcision are religious as fuck

-17
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

This was before I was an MRA and I wanted to clarify something. I was asking about the double standards between FGM and MGM. So kind of a mix of one and three

13
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

FGM is much worse than MGM. They're both terrible, but you might have made a post in bad faith which would make sense why you were banned.

-15
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

I would suggest checking out this video if you get a chance: https://youtu.be/GBH0g_Cl7Rk

It is a short presentation by Brian Earp, a bioethicist, on this very subject. But when you are referring to FGM, you seem to only be referring to the most extreme forms of it. Namely clitoridectomy and infibulation. I do not trivialize either of these awful, barbaric practices. But it should be noted that the term Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) covers a much wider array of genital cuttings on women:

FGM Type 1 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the clitoral glans (the part of the clitoris that is visible to the naked eye) and/or the clitoral prepuce (“hood”). This is sometimes called a “clitoridectomy,”28 although such a designation is misleading: the external clitoral glans is not always removed in this type of FGM, and in some versions of the procedure–such as with so-called “hoodectomies”–it is deliberately left untouched.33 There are two major sub-types. Type 1(a) is the partial or total removal of just the clitoral prepuce (ie, the fold of skin that covers the clitoral glans, much as the penile prepuce covers the penile glans in boys; in fact, the two structures are embryonically homologous).34d Type 1(b) is the same as Type 1(a), but includes the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans. Note that two-thirds or more of the entire clitoris (including most of its erectile tissue) is internal to the body envelope,35 and is therefore not removed by this type, or any type, of FGM. 

FGM Type 2 – This refers to the partial or total removal of the external clitoral glans and/or the clitoral hood (in the senses described above), and/or the labia minora, with or without removal of the labia majora. This form of FGM is sometimes termed “excision.” Type 2(a) is the “trimming” or removal of the labia minora only; this is also known as labiaplasty when it is performed in a Western context by a professional surgeon (in which case it is usually intended as a form of cosmetic “enhancement”).33 In this context, such an intervention is not typically regarded as being a form of “mutilation,” even though it formally fits the WHO definition. Moreover, even though such “enhancement” is most often carried out on consenting adult women in this cultural context, it is also sometimes performed on minors, apparently with the permission of their parents.11,36 There are two further subtypes of FGM Type 2, involving combinations of the above interventions.

FGM Type 3 – This refers to a narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the external clitoris. This is the most extreme type of FGM, although it is also one of the rarest, occurring in approximately 10% of cases.11,37 When the “seal” is left in place, there is only a very small hole to allow for the passage of urine and menstrual blood, and sexual intercourse is rendered essentially impossible. This type of FGM is commonly called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision” and has two additional subtypes.

FGM Type 4 – This refers to “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes” and includes such interventions as pricking, nicking, piercing, stretching, scraping, and cauterization.32 Counterintuitively for this final category – which one might expect to be even “worse” than the ones before it – several of the interventions just mentioned are among the least severe forms of FGM. Piercing, for example, is another instance of a procedure – along with labiaplasty (FGM Type 2) and “clitoral unhooding”33 (FGM Type 1) – that is popular in Western countries for “non-medical purposes,” and can be performed hygienically under appropriate conditions.11,38–40

Also, the majority of the clitoris is internal to the body. There is no known form of FGM that removes the entirety of the clitoris. And while this will obviously damage the maximum pleasure potential a woman may experience, many women who have undergone even type 1a can still enjoy sex and even orgasm.

The less severe forms of FGM are conflated with the removal of the entire clitoris, and people wrongly believe that all FGM is worse than all MGM. (And let's not even get started on more extreme versions of MGM such as subincision, penectomy, and castration)

Despite that, cutting female and male genitals have the following similarities:

  • Over 200 million procedures have been performed on current populations
  • It's unnecessary and extremely painful
  • It can have adverse sexual and psychological effects
  • It's generally done by force on children
  • It is generally supported by local medical doctors
  • Pertinent biological facts are not generally known where procedures are practiced
  • It is defended with reasons such as tradition, religion, aesthetics, cleanliness, and health
  • The rationale has currently or historically been connected to controlling sexual pleasure
  • It's often believed there's no effect on normal sexual functioning
  • It's generally accepted and supported by those who have been subjected to it
  • Those who are cut feel compelled to cut their children
  • The choice may be motivated by underlying psychosexual reasons
  • Critical public discussion is generally taboo where the procedure is practiced
  • Normality is supported by cultural terminology
  • It can result in serious complications up to, and including, death
  • The adverse effects are hidden by repression and denial
  • It precludes the child from ever having a natural sexual experience
  • Dozens of potentially harmful physiological, emotional, behavioral, sexual, and social effects on individuals and societies have never been studied
  • Where female genital cutting is practiced, cutting the genitals of males is also practiced (though, not necessarily vice versa)

Either way, people are cutting the genitals of children. That is not a very difficult thing to compare.

15
    
Permalink
othergabe 5y ago

'FGM is worse than MGM' is a myth that serves to cloud the genital mutilation waters and ends up with mgm being justified or ignored.

13
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

It's actually a bad faith argument to downplay the effects of male circumcision. Brushing it off as if it doesn't matter just because you heard someone say "FGM is worse tham MGM and it's a bad faith argument".

11
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

What are you talking about? I didn't brush it off. Learn to read

-1
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

In some aspects yes. In others no. The worst forms on MGM are excruciatinginly worse than the best forms of FGM by a long shot. Just because FGM is worse on average does not mean that MGM isn't bad. That's a common deflecting tactic used by feminists to stop MRA's giving it recognition about how bad it is.

13
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

it's not worse on average. the most common forms of FGM do not excise any tissue at all.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the most common forms of FGM are less damaging and less dangerous than the radical american form of MGM.

5
    
Permalink
therobincrow 5y ago

How so?

1
    
Permalink
Panderjit_SinghVV 5y ago

Perhaps it’s not despite that aversion but because of it.

Being forced to submit to involuntary mutilation of a central pillar of one’s identity bestows greater power on the establishment.

8
    
Permalink
Plumpy_Mumphkin 5y ago

Yeah, who needs consent, am I right fellas?

84
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Consent only works in context of women.

41
    
Permalink
IamCompulsiveLiar 5y ago

55%?!? Holy fuck I didn't know it was so high, circumsizion should be illegal unless someone is of certain age and consents.

14
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

It's actually dropped a lot in the U.S. in the last few decades. It peaked around the 80's at about 85-90%

New Zealand was even worse with their peak at 95% but they've knocked theirs down to about 5%.

10
    
Permalink
IamCompulsiveLiar 5y ago

Good.

6
    
Permalink
Thunderpuddle 5y ago

My wife gave birth to our first son Friday. We went in undecided, but made the call against circumcision. Seeing this reaffirms my decision. Great to be giving autonomy back to our boys.

14
    
Permalink
________Anonymous 5y ago

It's women's fault, honestly. Every woman I've ever been with, I've had this conversation with. And every one of them said circumcision was necessary because uncircumcised dick was gross. They would also say that if they were to have a son, they would want it circumcised. Keep in mind, some of these women are the same women that have absolute roast beef vaginas.

1
    
Permalink
another_redditor1219 5y ago

Genital mutilation needs to stop period, for girls and boys. It’s truly a disgusting act.

27
    
Permalink
iFunnyPrince 5y ago

I like how one of the reasons people use to circumcize kids is to make their penis look like their dads'. I'm sure if they aren't circumcized when they grow up they'll sigh and think to themselves,

"Damn, I wish my dick looked like my dad's"

186
    
Permalink
agent-abacus-tarmac 5y ago

I’m circumcised, my son is not. It is zero percent an issue.

14
    
Permalink
WileCCoyote 5y ago

I DIDN’T circumcise my son for the same reason.

8
    
Permalink
Blutarg 5y ago

Oh, every time I take a leak I think to myself "thank goodness my piping looks just like Dad's!" Yes, definitely, uh huh, right, sure.

Just like when I started going bald I was so so happy, because Dad is bald, too!

5
    
Permalink
TheRealMicrowaveSafe 5y ago

I had someone tell me they circumcised their son because it would be safer and cleaner for future partners. I just walked away, but it's like, fucking what?! You mutilated your sons genitals so you didn't have to teach him proper hygiene?!?!

12
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

it's more about dad getting jealous every time he changes a diaper.

8
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

"So if your kid's circumcision gets botched, you'll get yours redone to match, right dad?"

111
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

dad only wants to match if the kid has the better dick. he only wants to match if it means the kid gets downgraded to lack like him.

21
    
Permalink
MCRusher 5y ago

What

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

so long as his son has a better dick, he wants to match by downgrading his kid's dick.

as soon as his kid as the worse dick, he won't wanna match anymore when the only way to match would be by getting his own dick downgraded.

7
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

This. If my dad hadn't done this to me, and he'd explained to me when I was a kid that his parents did it to him, but he didn't do it to me because he didn't want to hurt me, I'd have loved him for it.

53
    
Permalink
WhiskeyWarmachine 5y ago

that's how progress is made though isn't it? Now you know.

17
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Yeah. When my father tried to use "tradition" as an excuse for cutting me and one of my brothers, I told him that this "tradition" is over because I would **never** do that to a son of mine.

28
    
Permalink
WhiskeyWarmachine 5y ago

I was young when i had my kids and didn't question it, Had to search hard to find a doctor that even did it and that didn't clue me in. I've educated myself a bit since then and when my children are ready to have their own children it's a talk i'm going to bring up. Progress is slow and generational, but it's still progress.

11
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

That's good to know. What made you do it, despite the obstacles in your way, though? Religion?

-2
    
Permalink
HughManatee 5y ago

I refused to do this with my boys. I'm choosing to end that stupid cycle.

26
    
Permalink
mr_t_pot 5y ago

Wise decision!

4
    
Permalink
boxsterguy 5y ago

Good job!

I did the same. When the discussion came up with my wife (side note: we never would've even discussed cutting a girl, so how fucked up is it that we have to talk about cutting baby boys?), her position was neutral leaning towards doing it "just because". My position was an absolute "no", and so because I had the stronger feelings we didn't cut our boys. The cycle of mutilation in my family ends with me.

15
    
Permalink
mr_t_pot 5y ago

Glad you put your foot down on this.

5
    
Permalink
HughManatee 5y ago

My wife and I discussed it when we were taking Lamaze classes and the idea is pretty horrific. I think I would forever feel guilty if I subjected my children to that.

10
    
Permalink
LordBiscuits 5y ago

My wife simply left the decision up to me, knowing I had experience in the matter and I'm best placed to make the choice.

Both my boys are whole and will stay that way.

10
    
Permalink
HughManatee 5y ago

Glad to hear it!

4
    
Permalink
mr_t_pot 5y ago

Men often get the shaft (no pun intended) if they even remotely acknowledge the discomfort of a menstrual cycle because we have never experienced it ourselves. And there's absolute truth to that: we don't know what it's like, never will know what it's like, so we should not pretend like we do. At the same time, when women support circumcision "just because", and "oh, forgettable infant pain is better than having a period" ... no. Full stop no. They don't know how scarring (pun intended) circumcision can be.

4
    
Permalink
TheMasterSword60 5y ago

Are those light-colored dots women? And if so, why are they on the graph at all?

1
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Red represents circumcised men, black represents uncircumcised men

3
    
Permalink
TheMasterSword60 5y ago

Oh that makes sense now.. my bad. Thanks.

2
    
Permalink
FlossTarpAviation 5y ago

Jews.

0
    
Permalink
yuvif 5y ago

Okay but why is this such an issue? What’s the harm in it? It’s very different to female circumcision where they take the f’ing clit

-9
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the only difference between male circumcision and female circumcision is the gender of the victim.

the foreskin has more than twice as many erogenous nerve endings as the clit.

7
    
Permalink
iiiieva 5y ago

nope. fgm is usually done in unsanitary conditions, and the mutilation is much more severe. also, the foreskin isn’t “more sensitive”. that being said i’m against genital mutilation, just stop saying that these two are the same.

-2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

male circumcision is usually done in unsanitary conditions. male circumcision is a much more severe form of mutilation than female circumcision is.

that being said, i'm still against female circumcision, but stop pretending it's anywhere near as barbaric.

2
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

All those countries cut their boys in the same conditions. The foreskin is the most sensitive/erogenous part of the penis.

4
    
Permalink
iiiieva 5y ago

i’m pretty sure the tip is the most sensitive part. but okay

-1
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

Actually it's not.

https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg

In my view, this is spot on.

4
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

If I may, I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

9
    
Permalink
yuvif 5y ago

Okay thanks, it’s just that I’m circumcised, and even though I don’t think it’s a necessary procedure (maybe it was in the past), I really don’t feel like I missing something out, it’s literally just a piece of skin, plus it’s better looking like this IMHO

-8
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

most circumcised women don't feel like they're missing out, either. it's literally just a lump of flesh, plus clits are kinda ugly looking.

7
    
Permalink
yuvif 5y ago

Did you just say that the clit is just a lump of flesh? Do you have no idea how important the clit is for pleasure?

-2
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

Do you have any idea how sensitive and erogenous the foreskin is? Calling it a piece of skin shows great ignorance.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

i did. the clit is much less important for pleasure than the foreskin, and you had no problem calling that just a flap of skin.

4
    
Permalink
Nazail 5y ago

Female circumcision leads to infections, painful sex and infertility.... and not just when there’s complications, but most of the time. While I agree that circumcision shouldn’t be a norm as it goes against someone’s consent and is often done unnecessarily, female circumcision is so much more damaging. It’s very difficult to have pleasurable sex.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

you're wrong. female circumcision ONLY leads to those things when it gets botched. infections are a more common complication of male circumcision than female circumcision. painful sex is a more common complication of male circumcision than female circumcision. infertility is a more common complication of male circumcision than female circumcision.

female circumcision is so much less damaging. circumcised women have more sexual pleasure than circumcised men do.

2
    
Permalink
Nazail 5y ago

Dude.

The whole reason FGM takes place is to prevent women from feeling pleasure during sex and therefore prevent them from having premarital sex. Literally that it’s goal. To reduce their libidos and prevent them from having extramarital affairs. The clitoris is our main pleasure point, and 70% of women can’t orgasm without it.

Men are circumcised for health reasons, which makes sense since it started taking place centuries ago when hygiene wasn’t at its best and it was easier to get sick and not as easy to clean your dick daily. There isn’t much purpose to it now in first world countries obviously (but I’m not exactly for it in other countries either).

But compare the effects of FGM to male circumcision:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutilation-fgm/

There are no health benefits to FGM and it can cause serious harm, including:

  • constant pain
  • pain and difficulty having sex
  • repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
  • bleeding, cysts and abscesses
  • problems peeing or holding pee in (incontinence)
  • depression, flashbacks and self-harm
  • problems during labour and childbirth, which can be life threatening for mother and baby

While for male circumcision:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

In the UK, complications after circumcisions carried out for medical reasons are rare and most men don't experience any significant problems.

Apart from the initial swelling, bleeding and infection are the 2 most common problems associated with circumcision.

There's between a 1 in 10 and a 1 in 50 chance that you'll experience bleeding or infection.

Other possible complications of circumcision can include:

  • permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex
  • tenderness around the scar
  • the need to remove stitches that haven't dissolved -occasionally, another operation is needed to remove some more skin from around the head of the penis

If you’re interested there are some ted talks about it:

https://youtu.be/a4n0zcsdoN0

https://youtu.be/0vI_4PZTkME

https://youtu.be/scI7aPrpaJ4

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the whole reason MGM takes place is to prevent men from feeling pleasure during sex and therefore prevent us from having premarital sex. literally that is its goal. to reduce men's libidos and prevent men from having extramarital affairs. the foreskin is our main pleasure point, and 70% of men can't orgasm without it.

women are for health reasons, which makes sense since female circumcision started about 4,000 years ago when hygiene wasn't at its best and it was easier to get sick and not as easy to clean your vulva daily. there isn't much purpose to it now in first world countries obviously (but i'm not exactly for it in other countries either).

but compare the effects of MGM to female circumcision:

https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html

there are no health benefits to MGM and it can cause serious harm, including:

  • constant pain
  • pain and difficulty having sex
  • repeated infections, which can lead to infertility
  • bleeding, cysts and abscesses
  • problems peeing or holding pee in (incontinence)
  • depression, flashbacks and self-harm
  • death from exsanguation

the risk of a circumcised man developing meatal stenosis alone is 1 in 5 (20%). meatal stenosis is a painful and dangerous condition where the urinary opening of the penis develops so much scar tissue that it seals itself up, preventing urine or semen from escaping.

https://sciencenordic.com/childrens-health-circumcision-denmark/male-circumcision-greatly-increases-risk-of-urinary-tract-problems/1441376

if you're interested, there's lots of educational material about it:

https://circumcisionmovie.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reD7eb6GhQs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEoQVZnN8I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DkhqTNy08 https://philpapers.org/rec/EARFGM https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/ https://humdev.uchicago.edu/sites/humdev.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Shweder/Disputing%20The%20Myth%20of%20the%20sexual%20dysfunction%20of%20cicumcised%20women.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I

2
    
Permalink
iResistBS 5y ago

I guess I am in the minority. I actually am happy that my parents took it upon themselves to do it in my stead.

I like the look better and I have opposing views of hygiene pertaining to which way we like.

Not bashing anything but in my case I'm happy someone took the wheel.

1
    
Permalink
Xyrektv 5y ago

I'm 100% happy to have been circumcised. Many women I talk to prefer it as well.

-7
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

if women preferred men with no testicles, how quickly would you line up to get yours snipped off?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuck&defid=11884077

16
    
Permalink
froggymcfrogface 5y ago

Except testicles are required for procreation and foreskin is not. Bad comparison.

-5
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

foreskin is required to have an actual orgasm. procreation is unnecessary.

6
    
Permalink
Xyrektv 5y ago

You cant compare an aesthetic procedure to a body mutilation. I was circumcised my brother was not. He has even seen a doctor to get circumcised as an adult. ( not sure if he did it or not, he is 36 ). Obviously he felt like it was less desirable to not be circumcised.

-7
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

circumcision is genital mutilation. there's nothing aesthetic about a scarred partial penis.

if women preferred men with no testicles, i'm sure a lot of cucks would feel like it's less desirable to keep their testicles.

15
    
Permalink
froggymcfrogface 5y ago

Yes, it is more aesthetically pleasing. If you don't like it, then don't have it done. But don't tell other people you think it looks bad and expect them to confirm to what you like.

And again, testicles are required for procreation. Foreskin is not.

-3
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

It is one thing to decide for yourself that you don't value the foreskin and the pleasure it provides, but when deciding that for your child it is just genital mutilation. Most who where cut as babies have no idea what was really cut from their genitals, if they could find out im sure many more would be very upset. Most who say they "prefer" a cut penis just likes their penis, guys like their penises.. if those guys where born and raised in Europe they would be just as glad about their intact penises.

4
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

i wish that were possible. i hate how it looks, but it was forced on me as a baby and there's no way to undo it.

foreskin is required to have an actual orgasm.

6
    
Permalink
22eXY 5y ago

I can see you point. But isn't it true that circumcision is good to men's health? I mean, it lowers the risk of infections, cancer in the penis, etc. The downside is that it reduces the sensitivity during sexual intercourse. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I learned. Please correct me if my thoughts are flawed.

-14
    
Permalink
rodrigogirao 5y ago

All the claimed benefits smell of bullshit.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

circumcised men have twice the risk of cancer:

https://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/stds/news/online/%7Bee2769c4-b9b0-4daa-8eef-943c7205ed6c%7D/circumcised-men-at-twice-the-risk-for-cancer-causing-hpv-study-shows

5
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

  • It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
  • Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
  • The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

  • The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
  • The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
  • In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
  • The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
  • HIV was contracted through means other than sex
  • Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

11
    
Permalink
22eXY 5y ago

Thanks!

8
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

You're welcome. Not sure why you got downvoted for asking a legitimate question.

I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

6
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

Is circumcision bad? It is not the dick you are cutting, it is the foreskin. It is healthy, but there is a surgical risk.

If you think that is healthy you do this, there is no question of consent, if you are doing this on a religious basis then questioning the consent is unnesecary since you as a person having a baby carrying a religious purpose, which your consent is up to your belief.

But if you do not think circumcision is no good(unless you have needed in the future when the boy is not boy anymore he is a young man with consent, which is very low chance he will need), then don't do it. I believe the rest is to intervene the consent of others.

This statement concerns people, why would it be forced, I mean my mom forced me to eat things, you force your child to something and that is not bad parenting which actually if you let the government or the folks to decide how your child is going grow, this is bad parenting.

Edit: I have studied Anatomy not intactivismology, so go on be zombie suckers

-14
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

and yes it is about sexual function. Circumsied men dont have gliding motion. Foreskin is not just MORE pleasure, it is DIFFERENT pleasure, it has different types of nerves that give different pleasurable sensations that a man without a foreskin won't feel as he simply does not have those types of nerve endings... gliding motion is a different type of sexual pleasure...

So comment about not affecting sexual pleasure is absurd. It also has 20,000 never endings... but not only 20,000 nerve endings, it has nerves that are not present in circumcsied men

5
    
Permalink
cardboardbox47 5y ago

How is it healthy to cut a piece of the penis off?

5
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

In 2 minutes this will tell you exactly what the foreskin is and what circumcision does.... be warned it has virtual reality video of a penis (its not pornographic but it is explicit penis virtual reality video)

NSFW, 18+

senslip:

https://youtu.be/s454Ay\_SgWM

6
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

Link doesn't work.

3
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

thats odd it was before, YouTube senslip its that

3
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

Thanks for the vid and the senslip thing

So it is harmful to lessen the nerve function, (which btw is not about the sexual function, it is just the urge function:)) yet it is not a subject that you can intervene an individuals choice (a lot of aspects that circumcision is healthy and that is totally another debate) as there is no consent of the boy.

If you are against circumcision then just tell it, why would you tell it is against the consent of the boy, it is just authoritively pressuring your opinions to other people with the force of the laws.

And yes that is foreskin partly removed. And I can say sincerely that you do not need that piece.

I can say that is a huge debate yet no final agreement.

I please people not to debate over the specialists language. The discusion is about "forcing, boys", people can teach their children the things they preffer. Giving much authority to the folks or the Government that is not good.

Edit: I see now people are intactivists, I am glad that I have learnt a new thing "intactivism" :D

-5
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

With most circumcision your penis will work in the sense it will ejaculate... just as if I cut off your finger tips, you hands will still work.

Some things won't work, e.g. most circumcised men cant masturbate (or have foreplay) without lubricaton... that is literally a disability caused by circumcision... also there is many foreplah things in sex they cant do as a result

Also circumcised men usually have hair on their penis, which is unnatural

these are all if your circumcision went "well" if you had complications then the list s endless, you could bleed when you get erections, have sing tags etc.

I wouldn't recommend senslip at all, I just posted video as it was good demo of foreskin

8
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

a woman needs her clitoris exactly as much as a man needs his foreskin.

5
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

Ur Turkish? Muslim? Circumcision isn't islamic. It is in a few Hadith just as FGM is loosely. Hadiths are very cultural just as thousands are not practiced, it goes with the culture. For example Islam is pro abortion and pro contraception, simply because that is culturally right. Mainstream islam is extremely anti FGM, but again that is just because of culture says FGM is bad... it is pro circumcision as culture used to say circumcisoin is good... so those Hadiths are taken to be true... if cicucmsion was shown to be very bad, in two generations it would not be islamic anymore, as scholars would start to get rid of the prominence of those Hadiths

Cirucmision in other words is cultural, with some supporting religious SECONDARY texts (not Quran) once circumcisoin is seen as socially bad universally, Islam will drop it just as it did with FGM

Judaism is entirely different, circucmsion is no doubt a part of the religious text and tradition... the hope their would be that many jews dont follow kosher laws, so they would with persuasion maybe gvive up circ too, however it is not doubt part of the faith

5
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

There is no relation with my identity, you just said nothing valuable.

I am FOCUSING on this question below

"Why people try to intervene the will of another man, since its his child and not killing him(abortion is a way huge debate)?"

Check out World Health Organisations for informations.

-2
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s454Ay\_SgWM

That makes no sense... then why have any laws at all for children? Can I tattoo my child? Can I circumcise my dog? Can I cut off his ear lobes?

Of course it harms the child. The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, it remarkably reduces the pleasure of the penis... yes penis still works (to some extent) but greatly reduces pleasure... it is also a disability, a circumcised man has to use lubrication to masturbate and there are things he cant do sexually because he does not have a foreskin. Erectil dysfunction in 30 year old men and older is common in circimcised men yet rare in uncircumcised men

Circumcised men frequently need to use lubrication to have sex too. The studies are posted above... the foreskin contains all the most sensitive parts of the penis that give the most pleasure.

what a stupid comment, it does no harm

WHO recommended circucmsion for HIV prevention... give it a few years and it will back track as the evidence is showing it makes HIV transmission worse... that has nothing to do with if cirucmision should be allowed or not... and remember America has highest HIV rate in developed nations

5
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

because it's somebody else's penis. an adult man shouldn't be intervening with a little boy's penis.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the dick.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

no, there is nothing healthy about cutting the best part of somebody's dick off.

5
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

Read, before you text

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2878423/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/

This is about the professionals attitude

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22926175/

You can read that this article also states the procedure as the removal of foreskin however it is focused on just the complications of the procedure.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

Thank you for making me read of these, I am illuminated and also I am glad once again I encountered people trying to make their opinion is the truth, having no respect, backing the science.

Removed part is called the "foreskin" that means you are totally wrong.

As i say there is a huge debate on that, you have to be in some medical area to have a healthy opinion about the relation between policies and the procedures, and the attitudes of the clinicians.

:)

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

totally wrong about what? the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis.

5
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

Glans penis is totaly not foreskin

Glans Clitoris is equal to Glans Penis and the foreksin becomes the clitoral hood in female body.

Please if you study anatomy study better, since the article you have sent has no relation to the statement. Go on read stuff and if you do not trust yourself about a subject(which since we are all human, we can not be experts in every domain) just listen to the professionals and question as you have asked this time

Btw about the downvotes "I have seen what makes you cheer, your boos mean nothing to me" Because I have texted very clear.

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

glans penis is the LEAST sensitive part of the penis.

glans penis is LESS sensitive than glans clitoris. foreskin is MORE sensitive than glans clitoris.

the study i provided has data showing that the glans is the LEAST sensitive part of the penis, and that circumcision removes the five most sensitive parts of the penis.

5
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

Naah, just go and read it again

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

it says circumcision ablates the five most sensitive parts of the penis. do you know what ablate means?

5
    
Permalink
omeretalla 5y ago

How on earth that can RELATED to "Glans Penis being the LEAST sensive part" statement?

Here a note: i am not a rabbi who tries to make all people(yeah females too) circumcised and then build my kingdom over the fucking foreskins(and the fucking clitoral hoods) just in case you think of.

1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the numbers recorded in the study that show every other part of the penis is more sensitive than the glans.

4
    
Permalink
Vabaclochard 5y ago

Why is circumcision bad? I don't really know much about it which is why I'm asking.

6
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) 

For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner. He also goes on to medical aspects. 

1
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

Same reason FGM is bad, a helpless infant or child is being subjected to permanent genital alteration.

Adults can get circumcised and remove however amount of penis they want.

www.sexasnatureintendedit.com

18
    
Permalink
SludgeFactory20 5y ago

Uncircumcised

Circumcised

Links SFW I swear

7
    
Permalink
Phrodo_00 5y ago

Circumcision is cutting off a part of your body, generally not the kind of medical procedure you get for no reason, and while as an adult you could want it done and you should have the right to, babies (that can't consent) shouldn't be subjected to unnecessary procedures.

2
    
Permalink
rodrigogirao 5y ago

Reduces sexual pleasure A LOT (I can vouch). May cause other problems like impotence or pain during sex. In rare cases can cause even worse problems, like penile amputation, total loss of sensation, or even death due to infection or blood loss.

13
    
Permalink
metaliving 5y ago

I had to get circumcised in my late teens and I wouldn't say I noticed a reduction in sexual pleasure: you're more used to friction, but the sensation is the same as being uncircumcised, you just are more accustomed to it (that would be personal take, not stating it as a fact).

​

Getting circumcised when you're older sucks, but I wouldn't do it to a kid for literally no reason. Yeah, propper cleaning is easier, but it's not like it is rocket science to begin with. I mean, circumcision at birth is similar to giving people preemptive apendectomies (which everyone would agree would be crazy).

3
    
Permalink
Hansolo312 5y ago

To be clear you seem to be saying that you were circumcised after puberty? I'm very anti circumcision (having your parents decide not to let it happen when you're a baby and then changing their minds at age 4 is fun).

6
    
Permalink
rodrigogirao 5y ago

Medical malpractice. Doctor described it in a manner that made me understand it'd be a preputioplasty.

7
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

If I may, I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

6
    
Permalink
Vabaclochard 5y ago

Ok thank you, I will

4
    
Permalink
FlossTarpAviation 5y ago

Buckle up, because it's gonna be a bumpy fucking ride.

3
    
Permalink
Bigbog54 5y ago

I’m cut and it was a tough decision wether or not to have my boy cut when he was born. I asked a lot of people and no one sat on the fence, either ‘absolutely do it’ or ‘definitely do not do it’.

In the end I decided not to, not only because every medical person said no, but on the words of my best friends, 2 gay men, 1 circumcised one not. My circumcised mate said not to as his uncircumcised partner has greater feeling, more pleasure and a better sex life.

Being circumcised myself, on the words of my friend and not being able to hold down a weeks old baby and cut the end of his dick off, I decided nature should not be interfered with (medical reasoning aside).

2
    
Permalink
Luci716 5y ago

I got cut in grade 5, I kept getting infection after infection and they just said “fuck it” and got rid of it, they said If I kept going at that rate they would eventually have to remove the penis itself.

When I started learning about foreskin in grade 7, I was pretty disappointed, albeit, I most likely was better off than the alternative.

They could not find out why I kept getting infections. This is Canadian healthcare by the way

5
    
Permalink
goodfoobar 5y ago

This usually happens because an adult forcefully retracted the foreskin on an infant to "clean". At birth foreskin is attached to the glans(head) in a similar way finger nails are attached to fingers and is naturally well protected and clean. The foreskin releases on it's own during puberty. Over washing can cause problems due to normal pH and bacteria being put severely out of ballance.

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

wonder how many infections a little girl could get before they'd decide to circumcise her.

girls get them eight times more often than boys do to begin with.

7
    
Permalink
Luci716 5y ago

That’s true, although I do trust the doctor, I easily had over ten and they did try over and over again to no avail.

They also did recommend pulling the skin back to clean it near the end, which I guess made to worse since someone said at 8-11 the glands are still attached

4
    
Permalink
calgoorly 5y ago

The cleaning itself might have caused the infections, especially if done with soap. That would have disturbed the ph balance of the skin and is too aggressive for mucosal skin.

Im so sorry this happened to you.

4
    
Permalink
Luci716 5y ago

That was only after the last few infections that they tried that, honestly, we were all so lost. All I know is that it always hurt to pee, like, just infections over and over again even before the cleaning, that was just the last step before cutting.

I’m happy still, my parents didn’t cut me at birth, they waited until multiple doctors said it was medically necessary.

So yeah, I’m a little upset I’ll never know how it feels, but, that’s okay honestly, because it’s better to have never had, than to have had and lost.

Honest question, does all the “reverse circumcision” actually work? Like does it actually rebuild -Foreskin- or just normal skin that looks like it?

2
    
Permalink
deedara 5y ago

Guys robbed of length and sensitivity no lie. They steal inches man, INCHES!!!

2
    
Permalink
NH_Lion12 5y ago

I wish I had a choice and think every man (and every person) should have the right to say what happens to their bodies. I don't disagree with the sentiment of this post; something definitely needs to be done about infant circumcision.

But what percentage of men like having been circumcised as a baby? I'm sure there must be some that feel that way, either due to ignorance, aesthetic preferences, societal norms, just because they don't care about rights, or something else. 1% seems quite small to me.

It seems likely that that 1% is only men who elected to be circumcised as an adult and might therefore be much larger if either a.) they hadn't been circumcised as a baby (and then could later choose to be circumcised as an adult) or b.) that population included men who prefer being circumcised as a baby.

I'd like to see the source for this and see how they got those numbers.

4
    
Permalink
NOnutFOREVA 5y ago

Man I'm so glad mine is not circumcised even tho my ex hated to fix it every time she grinded on me LOL

2
    
Permalink
AhmedEMA 5y ago

who circumcises their children beside muslims and jews in america ?

11
    
Permalink
MBV-09-C 5y ago

I was circumcised, I came from a Christian family, but they don't even really practice and my paternal grandmother is the only one that even goes to church. I grew up to reject religion and finding that out was just another nail on the coffin.

8
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Christians and Atheists that don't realize why circumcision became popular in America.

7
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The majority of Americans circumcise. It was the majority from about the 1950's on reaching heights of 90%. It's now hovering around the 50% mark and dropping slowly but steadily

35
    
Permalink
AhmedEMA 5y ago

like for religious purposes?

cause as far as i know (and pls correct me if i'm wrong) the majority of americans are christians and as far as i know circumcision is not mandatory in christianity unlike islam and Judaism

2
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

In America it was picked up by physicians in the Victorian era. It was marketed as a means to prevent boys from masturbating as well as a whole host of wackado snake oil claims. It really picked up steam after WWII when hospitals started doing it almost routinely and rates soared peaking around 85-90% in the '80's.

By then it became highly cultural with myths about "cleanliness" and poor excuses of "looking like daddy" and "girls will think it looks weird" being parroted by the population that was almost entirely circumcised. So there weren't a lot of people to dispel these myths.

In this age of information the numbers are dropping and should continue to do so. But a lot if people still remain clueless and do it because well, that's just what everyone does, right?

2
    
Permalink
mrprez180 5y ago

A bunch of Christians do because the guy who runs Kellogg’s Cereal says it prevents masturbation or something

12
    
Permalink
Mudkip330 5y ago

Oh i have experience and i can certainly say it DOES NOT prevent masturbation.

Again, source?myself

5
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

He said that because he thought boys wouldn't be as horny and get one off in the shower or something. There's still no benefits and a lot of drawbacks to it.

3
    
Permalink
Dynged 5y ago

Funfact: boyscouts of america, grahm crackers, Kellogg's cereal, and the circumcision craze in America have a common origin in Kellogg and his anti-masturbation fanaticism. The people back then believed some genuinely stupid things, like masturbation caused mental illness.

10
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

I've heard of the others but I hadn't heard about the Boy Scouts

5
    
Permalink
Dynged 5y ago

Yep. The idea was if you kept a boy busy enough that he wouldnt have time to play with himself. I think anyone that's ever had a penis and gone through male puberty can attest to how wrong that is too lol.

4
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

"Idle hands are the devil's playthings"

3
    
Permalink
peopleare11 5y ago

I dunno where these numbers are from but it's a lot higher than 55%. Not..... basically half of guys are uncut. You ever been in a locker room or asked a girl what they've seen?

2
    
Permalink
FickleCaptain 5y ago

Non-therapeutic child circumcision is a total violation of numerous human rights.

https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Human\_rights

2
    
Permalink
madhatter42069 5y ago

My father is a DO and they're completely unnecessary and actually have inherited risks unless there's already an issue. If it was anything other than religion or feminazis supporting it it would've been banned decades ago

2
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Imagine an alternate world where no one in ancient times ever had the thought if cutting a penis. No one. Ever. Not once.

We reach 2020 with a 0% circumcision rate and someone says "I have an idea! I'm going to cut off a part of my newborn son's penis to appease my deity!"

There is no way in hell that would be allowed. Full stop. No bullshit.

6
    
Permalink
madhatter42069 5y ago

It's funny they used to do what would be considered the female equivalent in ancient times before it was considered barbaric, how ironic.

3
    
Permalink
nuckle 5y ago

I didn't ask for it and had no idea it was happening but I am glad it did. I prefer the cut look.

2
    
Permalink
Phrodo_00 5y ago

Would you have done it as an adult it you weren't circumcised as a baby? You know you could still have had the choice, right? Unlike now.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

yeah, those surgical scars give it a lot of character.

7
    
Permalink
ballerrr123 5y ago

I honestly am not complaining it was done to me as a child. I do think this is the wrong issue men’s rights should be focusing on

-9
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

how much of your penis could somebody cut off before you'd stand up for yourself?

11
    
Permalink
ballerrr123 5y ago

I could afford at least another three inches

-8
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

you'd really let somebody cut off more than half your dick and not say a word?

7
    
Permalink
ballerrr123 5y ago

That was satire, however we are assuming the majority of men are not ok with mutilation. Most in America are. However the main point is that this really isn’t a men’s right issue we should be pushing.

-9
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

this is by far the most important men's right issue to push. what right do you think is more important than your right to your own manhood and your own body?

11
    
Permalink
ballerrr123 5y ago

Right not to be used as a soldier, right to my child, right to my home, right to my wealth, right to have a say in weather my child is murdered or not etc

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

none of those rights mean anything if somebody else has rights to your body. they can end you any time they want.

6
    
Permalink
ballerrr123 5y ago

The difference of circumcision and murder are quite different. However they mean allot more then something that is done young and virtually leaves no change on you mentally and very little physically

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

either i own my body, or somebody else does.

if somebody else can literally cut parts of my body off without my consent, i obviously don't own it.

8
    
Permalink
xPartyTrainx 5y ago

I mean, isn't it way better? Health and cleanliness wise? I'm circumsised and everytime I see or hear anything about not being circumsised, I'm glad I am.

Like I get that no one asked the guy, but it's probably way easier to do at birth than 20 years later?

-6
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The hygiene thing is a myth and the medical benefits are incredibly dubious at best. Plus, the foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.(Full study.)

If I may, I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

21
    
Permalink
johnkop4 5y ago

In Europe where less than 20% of males are circumcised I don't see people having dick problems.

9
    
Permalink
McFeely_Smackup 5y ago

do you not wash your dick?

11
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

I mean, isn't it way better? Health and cleanliness wise?

I've reached 37 without needing any fillings in my teeth. Assuming you're a relatively able-bodied man, if cleaning your dick is too big a task for you, then the problem lies with you, not your dick,

Like I get that no one asked the guy, but it's probably way easier to do at birth than 20 years later?

I wouldn't have done it 20 years later, given the choice, though. I've made it this far in life without feeling the need to get tattoos or piercings. I can say with some confidence that I wouldn't have wanted my penis to be disfigured. But it was.

5
    
Permalink
xPartyTrainx 5y ago

I'm not saying cleaning a dick is a chore, uncircumcised or not, I'm saying there is a risk factor.

4
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

there's a risk factor so long as you have any penis left. better cut the whole thing off just to be safe...

​

/s

2
    
Permalink
chaun2 5y ago

Uncircumcised male here. I can personally attest that the cleanliness issue is a myth. Cleaning it initially can be tricky as infant foreskin is tighter, and doesn't normally want to roll down the whole way past the head, but you can get soapy water, and a q-tip to make sure it's clean. Then around the time the kid is old enough to bathe himself, you sit down and tell him he needs to pull it back, and clean it every time to avoid dirt buildup and infections. Believe me when I say that you'll have created a boy that has the cleanest dick ever, because infection of MY fucking penis is just not happening.

Now let's move on to sex. I also can personally attest that the girls/women who claim not to like it, don't know what they are talking about, and are parroting the myths they've heard.

I can say this as there are several women I've been with, who gave me blowjob's, and they still don't know that I'm intact.

Hell a couple years after one of them and I had a week long fling that went nowhere, I heard her in the bar we went to, telling her friends that she could never sleep with an uncircumcised man, because she loves giving blowjobs and couldn't suck a "dirty dick". I politely informed her of just how wrong she was, and suggested that she and her friends may want to research the actual facts. She took it much better than you may think, and actually has laughed witj me about her "myth inspired beliefs" since. I'm thankful to say that she stood up to her husband when they had their two sons.

The girls that knew, actually said the biggest difference for them, was that the head was more "pliable" and therefore felt better

13
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

Cleaning it initially can be tricky as infant foreskin is tighter, and doesn't normally want to roll down the whole way past the head, but you can get soapy water, and a q-tip to make sure it's clean.

For the love of God don't do that. An infants foreskin is fused to their glands. Pulling it back would be excruciating. The correct way to wash an infants penis is to wash it like a finger.

8
    
Permalink
chaun2 5y ago

They didn't pull it back, they used the q-tip as intended. You don't stick q-tips inside you! The swab just helped with getting rid of dirt

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, it's not better health or cleanliness wise. circumcised men have a much much greater risk of urinary tract problems:

https://sciencenordic.com/childrens-health-circumcision-denmark/male-circumcision-greatly-increases-risk-of-urinary-tract-problems/1441376

3
    
Permalink
xPartyTrainx 5y ago

The article literally says it's only a greater risk if you get meatal stenosis. This does not happen to every circumcised man, only a small percent. Might want to read the article instead of using the headline.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no it doesn't. meatal stenosis is a urinary tract problem. it says circumcised men are TWENTY SIX TIMES MORE LIKELY to get meatal stenosis.

one in five circumcised men gets meatal stenosis. that's 20%. a very high percentage.

3
    
Permalink
Goodvibes-1111 5y ago

No male as an adult is going to agree to anything sharp going near their dicks. This is a wavy subject but using adult males as a guide isn’t accurate hahah

-9
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

if you know he'd never let you do it given the choice, isn't it morally wrong to force it on him when he's too defenseless to stand up for himself?

not to mention cowardly?

6
    
Permalink
Goodvibes-1111 5y ago

I definitely see your point however as a male the fear of having my penis fucked with comes from growing up and Discovering it’s value, also Alot of men without fail will associate anything happening negative down there with being kicked in the dick...well balls which would also come into play when being asked as an adult. I just think the chart has its flaws.

-4
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

that's my point.

if you KNOW your son wouldn't want anybody fucking with his dick, it makes you an absolute shit parent and a total coward if you take advantage of his helplessness as a baby to fuck with his dick when he's completely incapable of stopping you.

4
    
Permalink
Goodvibes-1111 5y ago

Like I say. The subject is wavy.

0
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

something like this was posted yesterday or last week.you need to be targeting the parents as no one can circumsize a baby without the parent's consent. your post seems to say 'we'. you mean parents?

unless you have discovered a case where a baby boy was kidnapped and circumsized and brought back to the parents? in that case then yes it would be an outrage. i think there is a parenting reddit maybe share your views about it with them as hardly any women go on here. you could also post it on a religious reddit.

maybe you could give a speech at a pregnancy class where you educate moms to be as they have full control over their baby's penis getting cut and the responsibility lies with parents as another commentator said yesterday.

3
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

The point is to get through to people, though. If so few men who didn't have this forced upon them actually choose it, then odds are a man who had this done to him as a baby wouldn't have chosen it either, if the decision had been left to him.

10
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

First, I personally never used the word "we" in this post, it's only in the infographic. But it is true that we, as in the American public, tend to circumcise.

Two, events like you described have happened where a couple's baby is kidnapped by someone else to get them circumcised

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/09/07/woman-who-circumcised-baby-against-parents-wishes-avoids-jail-due-to-her-faith/

Third, let's not pretend this is all women's fault. You can find men in this subreddit for men's rights stating that they would have it done for their sons. Yes, some ignorant women push for it. But there are plenty of women who understand how totally fucked up this whole thing is and would never subject their baby to it. You can also find lots of testimony of women who did not know and deferred to their [circumcised] partner who opted for it.

Why do so many circumcised men have it done to their sons? I believe it is either because they are:

a) uninformed on the entirety of the subject (which is at least understandable, and many ken change their minds when they get the full story)

Or b) some circumcised men have incredibly vitriol reactions when they are told that circumcision damages the penis, reduces sexual sensation, doesn't change hygiene, etc. And I would put forth that those men are doing it anyways despite the evidence presented as a way to justify what was done to themselves. Just like how women who underwent FGM opt it for their daughters

"Circumcision isn't bad. Watch. See? My son is circumcised and he's fine, so therefore I'm fine too."

And lastly, I actually am trying to work on a presentation that I can give to my local colleges as an educational outreach tool to try and bring this topic to light and help educate young adults in a setting that is meant for them to challenge and maybe even change their world views.

21
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

I meant it is the parents fault and your post did say 'we circumsize 55% of boys.'

I'm a woman and a mother. its the parents responsibility to make sure their boy's genitals are not cut.

if you don't think it is the parents fault then that is very scary and worrying.

well done on the presentation, i'm not looking for an argument I just agree when someone said we shouldn't blame doctors.

If you want to get really passionate or upset about something maybe target the beauty company thats using baby foreskins as a facial for old women instead of attacking me for highlighting parental responsbility. if you choose to bring a child into the world you are responsible for every bad thing that happens to it. good luck with the presentation

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

i think it should be the government's responsibility, too. if my parents had cut off my fingers or toes, the government would have stepped in.

3
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

0
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Believe me. It'll be a massive whammy to your sexual pleasure. Also, all those issues can be solved by simply washing your dick properly. Or are you too lazy to just go an extra 5 seconds on the dick. That's a stupid excuse for circumcision. It's like saying for you to cut a toe off to prevent the risk of an infection to the foot.

3
    
Permalink
animeweebgrill 5y ago

I’m not a guy but please correct me if I’m wrong circumcision is when they cut part of the genitals so bad stuff doesn’t get stuck there? I’m not trying to be offensive I just want to know why is it a problem I hope I don’t sound rude or arrogant I’m just asking

-1
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

In 2 minutes this will tell you exactly what the foreskin is and what circumcision does.... be warned it has virtual reality video of a penis (its not pornographic but it is explicit penis virtual reality video)

NSFW, 18+

https://youtu.be/s454Ay\_SgWM

2
    
Permalink
animeweebgrill 5y ago

Oh ok thanks

3
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

It removes the foreskin which is typically downplayed as "vestigial" or "useless" skin. In reality the tissue removes is highly erogenous and has specific functions that are all abated with circumcision.

The hygiene thing is a myth. It does not get particularly dirty nor is it difficult to clean.

It also presents a massive ethical problem of performing a genital modification (i.e. reduction) surgery on a newborn baby without any medical necessity.

If I you're interested in learning more, I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

11
    
Permalink
animeweebgrill 5y ago

Thanks! will definitely check it out

2
    
Permalink
froggymcfrogface 5y ago

No, it is not a myth. Like any fold of skin, it will require additional cleaning. In a lot of cases of men not properly cleaning, you can smell it. I am tired of people on both side perpetuating lies. It may not be a tie breaker, but the need to do additional cleaning is still there. Just like there is more "work" to pull it back when urination is required.

-4
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

So you're too lazy to clean your dick for 5 extra seconds? That's a stupid excuse. Don't do it to your son if you ever have one. That's all I'm gonna say.

5
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

Most people from cutting cultures completely downplay the sensitivty and pleasure of the foreskin and regurgitate ridiculous myths like "it's just extra skin" , "bacteria will grow there". "SMEGMA!!",

in reality the foreskin is among the most sensitive parts of the entire penis, and comparing stats between cut America and intact western countries shows that the US often has even worse stats on stis/stds/hiv/penile cancer/ just about anything they claim it should protect against. Women produce more smegma than men, and we teach them to just wash their labia and folds, pulling back the foreskin and washing takes a few seconds.

https://i.redd.it/jbpvyi1wizf21.jpg

The red and purple parts are the most sensitive to fine touch and gives a huge amount of pleasure, almost all these parts are routinely cut off during circumcisions.

12
    
Permalink
animeweebgrill 5y ago

I never really understood how much was actually cut ,again thanks for the info!

5
    
Permalink
SnusMats 5y ago

Yeah it's quite alot of skin. On an adult it's like somewhere around the size of a master card. No problem!

6
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Here's another representation: https://twitter.com/Foregen/status/1185803355852918785/photo/1

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

it's when they cut off part of a baby's penis so that he's less likely to cheat on his wife.

5
    
Permalink
animeweebgrill 5y ago

Excuse me WHAT?????

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

circumcision was popularized in the US in the prohibition era because they thought if sex didn't feel as good, men would be less promiscuous and less likely to cheat.

4
    
Permalink
sugnitdjn5858 5y ago

Meanwhile females cheat more because they are hypergamous sluts

1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

also possibly because they can't be pleased properly by their circumcised husbands.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x

1
    
Permalink
sugnitdjn5858 5y ago

They aren’t please by anyone who isn’t gigachad tbh

1
    
Permalink
TheDudeThatCanDrum 5y ago

Well, this all stems back to religion. The main reason we do this is cause some dick head in the old testament said we should. I'm not cutting mutilating my sons genitals cause some book has a fairy tale that told me to.

2
    
Permalink
the_crx 5y ago

something is wrong with that picture

The "1" is listed on the wong side. He's circumcised.

10
    
Permalink
SolaireTheSunPraiser 5y ago

Uh, the colors in the graphic are definitely not 50/50.

4
    
Permalink
KaitonREEEEE 5y ago

The one person is the one who chose to do it as an adult. Meaning He didn't get it done as a child. The colour d ones were the ones who had it done as a child.

13
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

This guy above you edited his original comment claiming that the graph was wrong and highlighted 50/50 instead of 55/45 (which was also incorrect as pointed out by the other commentor)

7
    
Permalink
the_crx 5y ago

colour d

D is a letter not a color.

-6
    
Permalink
mooncow321 5y ago

You have to put square brackets in your quote if you change it. ""... colour d..." "[D] is a letter not a color[sic].""

2
    
Permalink
the_crx 5y ago

No.

-1
    
Permalink
MrMister2018 5y ago

Women don't even prefer it, either lol

4
    
Permalink
Starmind0 5y ago

Nobody cares if they like it or not.

58
    
Permalink
The_Entertainer217 5y ago

I’m uncut and most women can’t even tell the difference when it’s hard tbh. There’s sure lots of ignorance about it though.

3
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

I have to wonder how many women who "prefer it" have actually tried or have any experience with both. Or are they just parroting what society has been telling then to think and say about them since they first learned about the topic.

Regardless, someone else's hypothetical preference if your child's body is not a reason to perform cosmetic surgeries.

29
    
Permalink
dazmo 5y ago

It's parroting

21
    
Permalink
chaun2 5y ago

Definitely parroting, since when erect it slides back. I guarantee there are girls that I have had sex with and even got BJ's from, who still don't know that I'm uncircumcised, and I've never had a single girl that knew say she didn't like it. Apparently not only are you more sensitive, the head is more pliable, which is a bonus, not a detraction from her/their POV

6
    
Permalink
djc_tech 5y ago

In the US I think it’s what they’re used to, so the “preference” is just something they normally see.

4
    
Permalink
DildoFaggins17 5y ago

I was circumcised when I was 16 (now 18)because I suffered from phimosis. I think I am one of the few that know how it feels being uncircumcised and circumciced.

I am going to be 100 percent honest about the differences, but I want to be clear this comparision is from a pov of someone who lived 16 years with a dick with phimosis.

Hygiene is easier and I dont need too much effort to clean mi penis.

Yes you lose some sensitive in the head but not that much, when is erect I still have a lot of Sensibilitie and pleasure.

Pissing is easier

Tbh I dont feel any difference with pleasure but I need some lubricant If I want to be with a girl or masturbating because most of the times in my personal experience is dry, but with a condom is good, also I never had unprotected sex before.

Pd: But If I could choose between a normal penis and mine I would choose the normal.

-English is not my native tongue.

1
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

You should know that the foreskin itself is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.) 

The role of the glans is as a cushion to protect both people from damage. "In conclusion, the glans penis has a significant functional role, similar to the role that the glove plays for the boxers, restricting the high pressure values developing during coitus. It is anticipated that such function protects both the [penile erectile tissue] and the female genitalia, preventing trauma [from] axial loading."

For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.

1
    
Permalink
DildoFaggins17 5y ago

Yeah tbh it makes me a bit sad, I also tried everything to not do this operation but nothing worked :/ Wells shit Happens jaja.

The problem is I couldnt feel too much with phimosis because if I put pressure or more into it, the pain starts to be annoying and very strong so circunsicion was a relief for me and my sexual Life etc. From a pov of a guy with phimosis is 10 times better to be circumcised.

But no doubt that a normal penis is better for life.

3
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

Don't know how much was tried beforehand: "The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Some are necessary, but fixing an actual issue isn't the same as it being done at birth for no reason. You have to be careful comparing damaged uncircumcised sensation with fixed circumcised sensation.

1
    
Permalink
goodfoobar 5y ago

Thank you for describing your before and after experience.

Phimosis cannot be properly diagnosed until late puberty as the foreskin is not suppose to release from the glans(head) until puberty. It affects less then 1% of adult males. Steroid creams can solve the problem 87% of the time. For those times where the cream does not work a small cut can be done on the ridged band to allow the glans out. No tissue removal required.

2
    
Permalink
Pranavboi 5y ago

Some people try to throw around random shit "facts" such as : 1) it reduces your chances of contracting STDs (this is completely wrong.) . 2) uncircumcised dick weird/gross (this is well, just your shitty opinion and I couldn't care less about it) .

Collegehumor made a nice video about this. Male circumcision first started so that children wouldn't masturbate but we all know that was a total failure , even after the circumcision not doing what it was supposed to do , people still continue to mutilate their children .

2
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Here's the College Humor video for anyone interested

https://youtu.be/gCSWbTv3hng

2
    
Permalink
FabricioPezoa 5y ago

Quick question - why is this done at all? Is there any benefits, or is it just a trend?

I actually don't know.

19
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

There are bad ideas of medical benefits. But when you look at the statistics they are terrible. From the Canadian Paediatrics Society:

“It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI.” And UTIs can easily be treated with antibiotics.

“The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” And circumcision is not effective prevention, condoms must be used regardless. 

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

“Decreased penile cancer risk: [Number needed to circumcise] = 900 – 322,000” to prevent a single case of penile cancer.

These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly, all of these items have a different treatment or prevention method that is more effective and less invasive.

There's an older history from 1850s too https://youtu.be/XwZiQyFaAs0?t=47m41s. That's worth watching from the 28 minute point if you want to be fully informed.

3
    
Permalink
FabricioPezoa 5y ago

Thanks for the links! I'll be taking a look at them

Cheers

2
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

In America it was picked up by physicians in the Victorian era. It was marketed as a means to prevent boys from masturbating as well as a whole host of wackado snake oil claims. It really picked up steam after WWII when hospitals started doing it almost routinely and rates soared peaking around 85-90% in the '80's.

By then it became highly cultural with myths about "cleanliness" and poor excuses of "looking like daddy" and "girls will think it looks weird" being parroted by the population that was almost entirely circumcised. So there weren't a lot of people to dispel these myths.

In this age of information the numbers are dropping and should continue to do so. But a lot if people still remain clueless and do it because well, that's just what everyone does, right?

35
    
Permalink
CommittedPear 5y ago

There are also religions that require infant circumcision, most notably Judaism.

18
    
Permalink
FickleCaptain 5y ago

The child's religious rights should be protected, not the parent's.

9
    
Permalink
Shawn_Spencer_ 5y ago

Tbh I was circumcised as a baby and I don't mind it at all. If anything I appreciate it. And don't go on a downvote spree please. This is just my opinion

2
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

You are free to have your opinion and apply that to your own body. But to intervene on somebody else's body, e.g. a newborns, the standard is medical necessity.

Without medical necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. They can apply their own opinion to their own body.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

what do you like best about having a smaller and less sensitive penis?

7
    
Permalink
Shawn_Spencer_ 5y ago

Tbh Idrc that it’s smaller because it still isn’t a micropenis. Regarding the sensitivity, it helps when I get a kickball, or a kick, to the groin, and also makes the feeling of blowing a load muuuuuuuuuuch more satisfying and pleasurable.

-2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

if somebody cut another inch off, would that make it a micropenis? it would surely make it smaller.

you think an orgasm feels better with a LESS sensitive penis? can you explain your reasoning?

3
    
Permalink
Shawn_Spencer_ 5y ago

It might make it smaller but unless it reaches the specific length for it to be qualified, then no. And by feels better, I mean that when you finally do reach your peak, it’s the best part of the experience.

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

You think that the orgasm wouldn't be the best part of the experience if you still had the rest of your penis?

3
    
Permalink
Shawn_Spencer_ 5y ago

Some people like the build up... if you have a less sensitive penis, the orgasm would be the best part, and since the build up would be less pleasurable, the feeling from the orgasm would be more pleasurable

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

The orgasm is the best part either way. Circumcised men have orgasms that are less intense and don't last as long. The feeling of the orgasm is much less pleasurable for circumcised men.

3
    
Permalink
ETF_Ross101 5y ago

Glad to see that the numbers have dropped. Wasnt it like 85% for awhile?

23
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Yeah it got pretty high up there. New Zealand got to about 95% and they managed to turn it around to just 5%.

27
    
Permalink
ETF_Ross101 5y ago

Awesome news!

9
    
Permalink
Kryto-Kun 5y ago

man circumcision would suck. when I was younger I didn't get why people even cared but now I realise it's a problem.

I can't even imagine the area where your foreskin should be as " not sensitive"

3
    
Permalink
pm_ur_hairy_balls 5y ago

It's baffling that circumcision is still a thing in our age. It's utterly barbaric, something you would expect in medieval times, not today.

7
    
Permalink
SkeetrYeetr 5y ago

Congrats to the lucky guys who still have theirs

2
    
Permalink
antoniofelicemunro 5y ago

Most guys I know want to be circumcised. I’ve never, ever heard a dude complain about it. Only guys like me who wish they were circumcised as a kid cuz it’s too painful to go through as an adult. Male circumcision is the creepiest thing to be against.

-5
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

That's just stupid logic. Just because your friends say something doesn't mean the national consensus of circumcised men say the same thing. It is the worst thing to be for. No benefits and a lot of drawbacks.

5
    
Permalink
throwaway12459872340 5y ago

http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

mendocomplain.com

Just because you have not heard of any unhappy circumcised men does not mean they do not exist. You should visit these sites if you are curious: mendocomplain.com and http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

There are many reasons why men do not speak out publically:

-Ignorance: Circumcised fathers-to-be have no idea what it's like to be intact and as such have no idea about the normal male anatomy, the foreskins functions and its benefits

-Denial: For most circumcised men it is difficult to accept the fact that their parents, who were supposed to protect him, are responsible for their permanent and forced alteration. It is easier to avoid the fact that they themselves did not choose this alteration by believing this was good for them, and that they are now enhanced.

-Socially unacceptable: It is still considered "weak" for a man to express his emotions of pain. They might think that critique of their parents might get them called disrespectful toward them, for questioning their decisions - even though this decision should have been made by the owner of the actual anatomy being altered. Also, most men are culturally conditioned into believing that women universally prefer circumcised penises, which is not true.

-Fear of backlash: There is the possobility to get all kinds of responses when expressing ones disdain with ones circumcision. Social/sexual humiliation: "What kind of man complains about his penis?" There is anger, ridicula and defense from other men and parents who chose to circumcise their son(s), and also a very common one is the invalidation of his pain, because "there are more important issues to focus on.".

3
    
Permalink
antoniofelicemunro 5y ago

LMAO bullshit, guys talk about being circumcised all the time. They all like it better, even the gay guys.

If your friends are preventing you from being emotional, you just have shitty friends.

0
    
Permalink
phyae 5y ago

I wish I could get my foreskin back, its a shame that if I get a son in the future i would be pressured to circumcise him due to religious reasons.

23
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Pressured? By whom? Your parents? They already overstepped by having you cut, are you really going to let them impose their will on another generation?

19
    
Permalink
johnkop4 5y ago

I would never prioritize my religious values over my personal values.

11
    
Permalink
NH_Lion12 5y ago

And anyone's values (religious or otherwise) over anyone else's rights.

6
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Good thing I threw religion away long ago. It's not necessary.

8
    
Permalink
johnkop4 5y ago

Agreed

4
    
Permalink
R-Contini 5y ago

Should be illegal while a minor, unless recommended for medical reasons. However as an adult, it's really nothing to worry about, I had it done for a medical reason at age 34 and I'm glad I did it. the truth is it does stay cleaner for longer, and there is no swelling or bruising from the foreskin after sex anymore so overall it is worth it for a lot of people. Get it if you want, leave it if you want, it's our dick to choose so lets remember that.

2
    
Permalink
Cantersoft 5y ago

What's the source of the 1 in 10k statistic?

4
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-18
    
Permalink
killcat 5y ago

Sure so we can cut girls clitoral hoods of, it's a tiny bit of tissue right?

5
    
Permalink
mikenbrk 5y ago

Meaning what?

6
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-7
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

It's not skin. It's the male g-spot. You wouldn't pull out the female g-spot would you? Just because you don't care about it doesn't mean you speak for all circumcised boys.

7
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

It's not skin. It's literally the most important part of your penis for sexual pleasure. No benefits whatsoever to it.

17
    
Permalink
takeacookiepotter 5y ago

Really? Damn. Now I wish I wasn’t circumcised. It’s still better for hygienic purposes, though

-4
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The hygiene thing is a myth. It really doesn't get dirty and washing is about as inconvenient as scratching the back of your head

14
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Those hygiene issues can be solved by simply washing your dick properly. It's not that hard. No benefits to it.

9
    
Permalink
mikenbrk 5y ago

You were conditioned to believe that circumcision made you inherently "more hygienic". But you don't gain hygiene by surgery, cause hygiene is a habit not an organ's property.

5
    
Permalink
takeacookiepotter 5y ago

I was actually circumcised because of religion

1
    
Permalink
mikenbrk 5y ago

Circumcision is circumcision, and religion doesn't change the outcome.

2
    
Permalink
takeacookiepotter 5y ago

Yes I’m aware

3
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

If it's so insignificant, then why are some people so eager to do it to their kids? Why is not doing it not an option for these folks? If it matters so much to people it doesn't directly affect, then why shouldn't it matter to the people it does directly affect?

7
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-6
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Because you're a baby.

I'm a baby? I must be a genius, then, considering that I can write.

And yes it does affect the parents too with cleaning and maintenance.

"Cleaning and maintenance"? We're talking about a penis here, not a car. Dealing with a painful wound on a child's genitals that's constantly around warm piss and shit sounds like it requires a hell of a lot more cleaning and maintenance than a intact penis does. Why do Americans seem to think that a normal penis is such a chore to deal with?

5
    
Permalink
Oklawolf 5y ago

cleaning and maintenance

How do you figure that? The presence and functionality of balano-preputial lamina in the intact male anatomy arguably means less cleaning and maintenance for the parents vs. the need to regularly treat an open wound in a diaper.

6
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Because you're a baby

That's not a justification to amputate whatever body parts you want off of them

cleaning and maintenance

Learn to wash your dick, dude. The hygiene thing is a myth

You're really terrible at trolling, u/behrpaints03. Like that comment you quickly deleted just now calling u/killcat insecure about his dick

5
    
Permalink
killcat 5y ago

Ehh I don't get concerned by trolling, and if they insult you it means they can't give a good argument.

1
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

The coward's deleted his posts.

4
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-1
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Still easy. We're not talking about washing a car. Washing your dick is easy and simple. Most uncircumcised people are smart enough to actually know how to do it. If you get your son a circumcision, you are essentially saying that you are lazy and that you can't be bothered to do a bit more washing than is normal.

6
    
Permalink
daanblueduofan 5y ago

Because it's soo much harder to clean...

4
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

You're a troll because you're making cowardly little comments on other users here to project your own insecurities that you then quickly delete

To clean the genital area of a neonate boy, simply rinse the outside with water. That's literally it. Now aren't you relieved learning how simple that is compared to having to apply vaseline and checking for excessive bleeding during diaper changes?

8
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

1
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

I would also recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

3
    
Permalink
FatFreed 5y ago

55%? Where was this number pulled, it's literally lower than any estimate I've seen by like 20% (and that's the low end of the estimates)

1
    
Permalink
intactisnormal 5y ago

There's two numbers, the current percentage of circumcised men, and the percent of newborns being circumcised.

The newborn circumcision rate was 58% in 2010. Even 2010 is quite a while ago now, and I expect it has changed quite quickly with the ‘google everything’ mentality.

You see a lot (and I mean a lot) of stories online about people learning about it and changing their mind. Before social media it was much harder to be exposed to these kinds of new ideas. And before the mentality of google everything, people just accepted what their doctor said and/or went with what they thought was the norm.

1
    
Permalink
PocketsJazz 5y ago

Honestly I’m fine with being circumcised and I don’t really think it’s that big of a deal if you have foreskin. It’s not like it provides any advantages or disadvantages. May be just me tho.

0
    
Permalink
FoxCQC 5y ago

Let men and boys have a choice. It's our bodies, our rights!

4
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The number of men requiring a medical circumcision is in sharp contrast to the number of boys being cut with the hopes of preventing a later circumcision. As shown in this illustration of 10,000 dots, each one representing a person, about 5500 boys are being mutilated each year to essentially "save" one man from circumcision later on. Source: Thomson-Reuters InPatient View Report for ICD-9 64.0b.

r/Intactivism

156
    
Permalink
18hockey 5y ago

I tried googling your source but it doesn't seem to exist. Do you have a link?

10
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

It seems that the source is private. And I couldn't find another definitive source on national post pubescent circumcision rates. I got this and this hospital states they do 50 to 100 adult circumcisions a year.

I believe the math checks out.

So if we take the male population of America as 150,000,000 and multiply by 0.2 (the 20% of the adult population that is not circumcised) we get 30,000,000 uncircumcised men. Divide by 10,000 for the estimated 0.0001% electing the procedure leaves us at 3,000 men yearly electing circumcision.

Now an adult circumcision would be performed by a urologist (unlike neonatal circumcisions which are done by urologists but also often done by obstetricians and pediatricians) so this isn't something that just any doctor will do. This narrows down the list some more to who is performong adult circumcisions. So divide 3,000 by 50 states for an average of 600 men per state (this will obviously vary). Then take divide 100 men (the higher yearly number estimated in the article) gives us 6 hospitals per state on average to be performing adult circumcisions on approximately 3,000 men a year out of 150,000,000. If we went with the lower number of a hospital circumcising 50 men a year, that puts it at 12 hospitals per state with a median of 9.

17
    
Permalink
antfucker500 5y ago

Man i had to cut it and i tell you its way worse

45
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

worse than what?

12
    
Permalink
antfucker500 5y ago

Than normal

25
    
Permalink
kendo 5y ago

Why did you have to?

5
    
Permalink
antfucker500 5y ago

It grew too big after puberty, stuff didnt get out, had to cut the thing

6
    
Permalink
kendo 5y ago

Wow sorry to hear that, a friend of mine had his cut in his early 20’s, he was in pain for a few weeks. He didn’t regret it, but I think he did it to fit in.

Question: how do you NOT have erections during the healing process? That must be the most painful part? Or is the healing pain so bad that you don’t get erections?

5
    
Permalink
Tato_XL 5y ago

The milisecond the erection is starting the pain is already kicking in... boom, erection gone. Hurt like hell for first 2 weeks, but as I remember the worst part was that I had 4 shots of anesthesia before surgery.

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

medical circumcision isn't a thing.

-3
    
Permalink
boxsterguy 5y ago

It can be. Just not for infants, since the medical reasons for circumcision can't be diagnosed until puberty at the earliest, and more like late puberty.

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, circumcision is a religious blood sacrifice, not a medical procedure. there are no medical reasons for it under any circumstances. that's as silly as claiming you had medical reasons for a baptism.

-7
    
Permalink
CheeseAndBaconPizza 5y ago

Ha, and your a licensed doctor i presume? No, exactly. Medical circumcision IS a thing and is sometimes required. I for one would know as i had to have it done as a teenager because of a serious medical condition, i wont go into detail but it was a very painful experience and i wouldnt want anyone to go through that. That being said, no i dont support boys being circumcised on birth as i wasnt.

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no man has ever needed to be circumcised in the entire history of the world. i'm sorry somebody misled you, but they could have FIXED your foreskin instead of amputating it.

3
    
Permalink
OceanFlex 5y ago

You've entirely missed the point. Adult circumcision is rare, but is done for medical reasons. Scarring or other skin deformities can tighten the foreskin such that infections occur (since it's too difficult to clean when too tight). Hence, medical reason.

5
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

adult circumcision may be rare, but it's not done for medical reasons. if a foreskin is too tight, ethical medicine demands that you cure the problem by loosening the foreskin up.

it's completely antithetical to evidence based medicine to amputate it.

-5
    
Permalink
OceanFlex 5y ago

It would be unethical to not disclose alternative procedures, absolutely. It would be antithetical to evidence to ignore studies of all procedures and their outcomes, still with you.

But you can't say with certainty that not a single case ever would require amputation, or be preferable to the patient compared to some alternative. You're not every man's doctor, nor are you every man. Simply declaring that there are "no medical reasons under any circumstances" for it doesn't make that true.

If you conduct an exhaustive survey of every person who was circumcised as an adult and find that in every single case that one of the alternatives would have definitely had a better outcome, then your claim of absolutely no value ever can be verified.

Or you can walk back your claim to a more reasonable "except for as a last resort, after all alternatives are exhausted" or similar, and I'd have no argument with you.

6
    
Permalink
boxsterguy 5y ago

Medical circumcision is one surgical solution to phimosis. The problem is you can't diagnose phimosis until puberty, yet there are pediatricians who routinely "diagnose" phimosis in prepubescent children.

Religious circumcision is only required by ~0.5% of the world population (only Judaism includes it as a covenant; Christian and Muslim circumcision is all social, not religious), so that doesn't explain the 55% of us males being circumcised.

3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

there's no such thing as medical circumcision. "solving" phimosis with circumcision is like "solving" a headache with decapitation.

phimosis is a medical condition where your foreskin cannot be retracted. cutting your foreskin off doesn't solve this. it actually leaves you in a worse state than you were before. now your foreskin is completely missing.

again, ethical medicine says you solve phimosis by fixing the foreskin so it can be retracted.

4
    
Permalink
boxsterguy 5y ago

You solve appendicitis by removing the appendix, even if a healthy appendix has value.

Note I said circumcision was one option. And it is. It shouldn't be the first option (though unfortunately it usually is), but it is an option for if other options fail.

You can live without an arm or leg, without an appendix or gall bladder, without a kidney or even a lung, and you can live without a foreskin, too. Equating it to decapitation is silly and doesn't help the movement.

It's enough to say, "There is no medical justification for routine infant circumcision," and leave it at that, because the scenarios where circumcision is a viable option don't come until you're an age where you can provide informed consent for the procedure. Which an adult should be allowed to choose, in exactly the same way that we allow adult women to have voluntary labiaplasty while the involuntary procedure is still illegal mutilation.

2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, actually, appendicitis is almost always treated with antibiotics these days. appendectomy for appendicitis is practically something out of the dark ages.

circumcision isn't even medical terminology. the medical terminology for such a surgery would be posthectomy.

there is no medical justification for any circumcision. we don't pretend there's a medical justification for an adult woman to get her clitoris removed.

1
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-9
    
Permalink
mikenbrk 5y ago

Cause you feel fine doesn't mean everyone else who had circumcision forced on them is. You were conditioned to embrace circumcision and never question it.

6
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

If I may, I would recommend checking out this presentation, Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. It is highly informative and should at least provide you with some laughs.

10
    
Permalink
SFM61319 5y ago

u/UndeleteParent

4
    
Permalink
UndeleteParent 5y ago

UNDELETED comment:

Why do people care about this? I was circumcised and have no idea why this is a problem?

I am a bot

^please ^pm ^me ^if ^I ^mess ^up


consider supporting me?

16
    
Permalink
SFM61319 5y ago

Good bot

6
    
Permalink
MikeLanglois 5y ago

Good bot

2
    
Permalink
B0tRank 5y ago

Thank you, MikeLanglois, for voting on UndeleteParent.

This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. You can view results here.


^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)

2
    
Permalink
feminismIsHateOfMen 5y ago

You really don't understand anything...

5
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

-3
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Couldn't matter less? Are you taking the piss?

8
    
Permalink
feminismIsHateOfMen 5y ago

he doesn't assume that he's a victim and that he was mutilated as a child, so he refuses reality and makes up a better story.

6
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Sounds like most if not all feminists these days. I say most because Christina Hoff Sommers is a good one.

5
    
Permalink
SFM61319 5y ago

u/UndeleteParent

2
    
Permalink
UndeleteParent 5y ago

I'm sorry, the Redditor in question deleted their comment too quickly and the Pushshift servers did not have time to archive the comment. That or the original comment actually said '[deleted]'

I am a bot

6
    
Permalink
SFM61319 5y ago

It's okay, my guy, not your fault

5
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

He was saying something how he didn't understand why this is an issue

3
    
Permalink
SFM61319 5y ago

Oh, thanks!

2
    
Permalink
MCRusher 5y ago

I think half of them didn't really get to choose in the first place though

2
    
Permalink
HumptyDumptyFellHard 5y ago

I’m glad my parents didn’t circumcise me and will make sure when I have my boys I won’t do that do them.

5
    
Permalink
Novaer 5y ago

I'd like to gather more sources and data under my belt but on a base level I've found myself being able to contest any reason for newborn circumcision that isn't medically necessary (phimosis).

Easier to clean?

If you can't teach the child to take an extra 10 seconds to clean under their foreskin you have bigger issues.

Rate of STDs are lower with circumcised men?

You shouldn't be thinking about a newborn babies sex life they were just fucking born. Let them make the decision.

It's better if they're young so they don't remember?

That should tell you how barbaric it is.

Why don't you sedate a young girl and have a doctor medically break her hymen? Less painful if she doesn't remember it? A horrific comparison but the argument is ridiculous.

And I won't even touch "to look like their dads" or "it's tradition".

Let them make the decision on their own. It's their fucking body. The kid was just born why are you pruning it like a bonsai tree?

6
    
Permalink
feminismIsHateOfMen 5y ago

Wow the majority of the comments seem to defend male mutilation and yet be against female circumcision. Even in this subreddit feminism is very present.

this subreddit is more a kind of partial endorsement of feminism than anything else. Mensright: It's wrong, but we don't care, we just talk about it on a social network. What a waste of time and futility.

-25
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Actually the majority of comments are against both and we're calling out the comments that defend it. Or at least I am anyway.

20
    
Permalink
feminismIsHateOfMen 5y ago

Doesn't matter, it's not enough.

-8
    
Permalink
BandMan69 5y ago

God I’m not here to hear you guys complain about this shit.

-47
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

MRA's cover circumcision too because no one else will. It's a huge issue that needs to be talked about. We're not complaining, we're educating.

28
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Then fuck off. No one asked you.

29
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

In 2 minutes this will tell you exactly what the foreskin is and what circumcision does.... be warned it has virtual reality video of a penis (its not pornographic but it is explicit penis virtual reality video)

NSFW, 18+

https://youtu.be/s454Ay\_SgWM

3
    
Permalink
GrimnirBjorn 5y ago

Then fuck off its super easy

2
    
Permalink
ihatemyself42069666 5y ago

Idk I'm fine with the fact I'm circumcised, why do you not like the fact (that 55% get circumcisions without consent)

-29
    
Permalink
neph441 5y ago

Cuz its literally chopping a part of ur dick off without consent. Ur now less sensitive and alot of nerve endings have became desensitized and u need more lube to fap or fuck all cuz ur parents decided to cut a part of u off for no reason

17
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Well, how much of your penis would have to have been cut off in your infancy before you would be upset?

And remember, for the men who have no genital cutting or modification done to them, they never elect to get anything done.

The issue isn't about you or your circumcision. The issue is that a penile modification surgery is routinely forced upon infants the modern justifications of which are highly dubious and the historical justifications are flat out violent and sexist

12
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

because millions of us aren't fine with it.

r/CircumcisionGrief

5
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

I don't like it because of functional reasons, aesthetic reasons, and reasons of principle.

5
    
Permalink
Tr0ll3rBoi 5y ago

circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, STDs, penile cancer and penile problems.

-8
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Umm no it doesn't? It has the same amount of chance of happening in both. It doesn't happen in most uncircumcised men as they wash their dicks properly. You're basically saying that you're too lazy to wash your dick for 5 extra seconds.

3
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The commonly claimed benefits of circumcision are that it reduces the risk of getting UTIs, penile cancer, and prevents STDs. These claims are based on reports made by the American Association of Pediatrics. But there is a lot of criticism regarding their research. The important points are mentioned below:

  • It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 1 case of UTI may be prevented at the cost of 2 cases of haemorrhage, infection, or, in rare instances, more severe outcomes or even death. This negates whatever minuscule protective benefit circumcision might have against UTIs. And it should be noted that girls are about 10 times more likely to get UTIs and yet we do not alter their bodies to reduce their risk of infection
  • Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year, rarer than male breast cancer), almost always occurring at a later age with the average being 68. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate. According to the AAP report, between 909 and 322,000 circumcisions are needed to prevent 1 case of penile cancer. Penile cancer is linked to infection with HPV, which can be prevented without tissue loss through condom use and prophylactic inoculation. Incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ∼75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised
  • The studies that claim circumcision prevents STDs often confuse correlation with causation. In fact, circumcision might increase the risk of contracting STDs, because it can cause pain and bleeding, increasing the risk of infection. The authors of the AAP report forget to stress that responsible use of condoms, regardless of circumcision status, will provide close to 100% reduction in risk for any STD

Another common claim is that circumcision reduces the risk of men contracting HIV by 60%. These were the results of some trials done in Africa, which found that 2.5% of intact men and 1.3% of circumcised men got HIV. The 60% figure is the relative risk (2.5%-1.2%)÷2.5%. The AAP also ignored the statistics showing that there was a 61% relative increase (6% absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men. It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed

Moreover, there were several methodological errors in these trials:

  • The circumcised experimental group got more medical care, including education on the proper use of condoms
  • The trials were terminated early when statistical significance was reached
  • In one study, circumcised men's infection rates were increasing faster than the intact men's, until the study was terminated early
  • The circumcised group could not have sex for 4-6 weeks after the circumcision; this was excluded from the analysis and distorts the results
  • HIV was contracted through means other than sex
  • Many researchers had cultural and religious biases

The findings are also not in line with the fact that the United States combines a high prevalence of STDs and HIV infections with high circumcision rates. The situation in most European countries is the reverse: low circumcision rates combined with low HIV and STD rates. Therefore, other factors play a more important role in the spread of HIV than circumcision status. This also shows that there are alternate, less intrusive, and more effective ways of preventing HIV than circumcision, such as consistent use of condoms, safe-sex programs, easy access to antiretroviral drugs, and clean needle programs

Further criticism of the African RCTs:

Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission

Circumcision of male infants and children as a public health measure in developed countries: A critical assessment of recent evidence

Sexually Transmitted Infections and Male Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Even if circumcision did reduce rates of HIV transmission, which it doesn't, it would be a small reduction. “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”

And besides all of that, babies are not having sex. They are not transmitting ANY STDs to anyone. By the time a person is old enough to engage in sexual activities, they are old enough to decide about such body modifications for themselves

Balanitis is extremely rare. Having a surgical incision in a dirty diaper increases the risk of balanitis. This risk decreases in all males drastically after puberty. It is easily preventable with good hygiene and most cases respond to treatment in under a week

Phimosis doesn't warrant circumcision. It can be cured by stretching the foreskin gently at regular intervals. For faster results, steroid creams can also be used. If stretching doesn't work, surgery like Z-plasty and preputioplasty can be done as a last resort. None of these treatments results in the loss of tissue. Moreover, some doctors misdiagnose phimosis in young children, when they're supposed to have foreskins which can't retract, until puberty, though in some cases the foreskin becomes retractable earlier. Improper handling of the foreskins of children can cause phimosis

"An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction ... allow[ing] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."

Smegma and hygiene are ridiculous reasons for circumcision. Properly washing the penis is enough. If you don't wash your junk, it will get dirty, period. Foreskins aren't releasing a constant ooze of smegma. You would have to neglect your basic hygiene for some time to get a significant buildup. And even then, washing takes maybe a second or two. It's not rocket science

The legitimacy of research supporting circumcision

The literature review by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which supports circumcision, does not mention any of the functions of the foreskin, implying that it is useless

Ethicist Brian Earp shows how scientific literature can be filled with bias, how medical literature can get biased with controversial opinions disguised as systematic reviews, and how a small group of researchers with an agenda can rig a systematic review in medicine to make it say whatever they want.

Opposition to circumcision by foreign medical organizations

Other medical associations and doctors in the world, from the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Slovenia and South Africa have stated that circumcision causes complications, have also said that the evidence supporting circumcision is insufficient and flawed, and consider the AAP's views scientifically unsound. Some of them have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. Some doctors in the US oppose it too

Functions of the Foreskin

The foreskin has several unique physiological functions. The foreskin represents at least a third of the penile skin. It protects the glans from abrasion and contact with clothes. It also increases sexual pleasure by sliding up and down on the shaft, stimulating the glans by alternately covering and exposing it. Not to mention that it is highly erogenous tissue in and of itself.

Attempts to legitimize FGM

Another issue with using "health benefits" to justify infant male circumcision is that the same poor reasons given for baby boys are the same reasons being used in attempts to legalize and legitimize FGM on girls. They will try and use the logic that: "If it is legal on boys because there are slight medical benefits, then it should be legal and acceptable for girls as well."

3
    
Permalink
jags85 5y ago

So does castration

2
    
Permalink
DREAMY-KNIGHT 5y ago

U know what? Dying also reduces these risks so kys

2
    
Permalink
aidan4105 5y ago

this is probably an unpopular opinion but, I don't care that I was circumcised, It is easier to clean and it didn't do much anyways.

-2
    
Permalink
josh_hov 5y ago

Because you don't remember being circumcised as a baby but you will definitely remember it as an adult

-1
    
Permalink
MikeLanglois 5y ago

I see things online like a circumcised penis is cleaner because it doesnt have the forskin for dirt to get behind.

Like wtf kinda logic is that people do clean their private areas do people not realise this?

6
    
Permalink
cyclist230 5y ago

Wth. I’m uncircumcised and there’s nothing dirty or hard to clean about it. I don’t have that much skin where it covers the gland unless I pull it up. I don’t get people saying sanitation as a reason. My favorite benefit of being uncut is that I have a uniform colored pen is. I see circuit guys with two tones.

3
    
Permalink
low-info-upvoter 5y ago

it's a humiliation ritual, a submission upon our rulers

28
    
Permalink
_Senjogahara_ 5y ago

huh!

7
    
Permalink
whathidude 5y ago

As a Catholic, I don't see why Catholics still circumcise their children, I'm definitely going to end this in my family line.

4
    
Permalink
starkiller-rx 5y ago

Also important to note that, together, Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Orthodox Catholics make up less than 9% of the overall American population. That's total, not just men. So not even religion can be used as an excuse to why male infant genital mutilation is so commonplace.

5
    
Permalink
ObviousRealizations 5y ago

I don't get how these numbers add up. 1 in 10,000 is not even close to 55%

1
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The 55% is the approximate rate of newborn circumcisions in the U.S. currently. The 1 in 10,000 is the rate that adult men elect the procedure.

2
    
Permalink
ObviousRealizations 5y ago

Makes more sense

2
    
Permalink
Starmind0 5y ago

I see some people saying "I prefer it circumcised". Well, hear me out, its still genital mutilation. No matter if someone grew up liking it and being thankful that it was done, it's still wrong and bad. No matter if you liked it or not, it was never your choice, that's the whole point. If circumcision didn't exist, there wouldn't be a "oh I like mine modified".

1
    
Permalink
GrimnirBjorn 5y ago

I was circumcised as a baby because my mother thought it would cleaner and now I kinda wish I wasn't cause as long as you aren't dirty and wash it everyday you'll be fine

5
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

that's why they force it on us as infants. they know that if they tried to force it on us later in life, we'd defend ourselves.

7
    
Permalink
dingusfunk 5y ago

okay anteater dick

-3
    
Permalink
SirBlankFace 5y ago

It's weird. I'm circumcised (the story is a had a growth on my foreskin and wouldn't have gotten circumcised otherwise). It's all i've ever known, but it's not natural. Foreskin is. If i ever have a child, i'd like it to be a boy. I highly doubt i'll get him circumcised, but i'd be lying if i said the possibility of accepting the offer is nonexistent. I have no experience cleaning an uncircumcised penis so i'm gonna need help with that. then as he get's older i'm gonna have to instruct him on something i'm not even sure of.

It's the right thing to do, but you have no idea how much i'm gonna hate myself if that kid gets an infection due to inadequate cleaning in any point in his life.

Edit: Lmao, why does everyone think i'm gonna be a neglectful parent and not even try when i essentially said it's gonna be weird having to clean an uncircumcised penis and not knowing anything about them when it should come naturally? Thanks for the advice though.

7
    
Permalink
Hamburger-Queefs 5y ago

Literally all you have to do is use soap and water. It's just like washing the back of your ears. Or washing a labia.

10
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

The other person is 100% right. But in the name of trying to get the word out I'll say my take on it.

I have an intact penis and two boys with intact penises. As babies you wash it like you would a finger. Not only do you not have to pull back the foreskin, pulling it back would be excruciating to the child. As they grow into toddlers and become more independent you just teach them to pull it back to their comfort level and wash the area until the can do the job independently.

There's no special tricks or anything about it that's difficult. When it's ready to pull back it pulls back easily.

Not knowing how to wash under it is NOT an excuse. That's the most bull shit and lazy thing I've ever heard. Yet it gets repeated every time this subject comes up. It's as easy as washing behind you're ears or between your toes.

8
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

You have no experience cleaning vaginas and labias, what makes you think that’s an excuse to not do your due diligence as a parent to learn and teach your children proper hygiene?

This is how easy it is to wash a foreskin[NSFW], about as difficult as washing labias.

The foreskin is fused to the glans for infants and children’s penises and parents need only to wash it as they would a finger, cleaning only what is seen. https://www.yourwholebaby.org/basic-intact-care

Never, ever let someone changing your baby’s diapers to forcefully retract their foreskin that is still fused to the glans. The child himself can retract it later on at his own comfort and judgement. https://www.yourwholebaby.org/forced-retraction

The surgeon cannot guarantee he will ablate an amount of tissue your son will be fine with. Will you succeed in protecting your son from MGM?

9
    
Permalink
Brenanaz 5y ago

I am one of those people who were circumcised when I was a small lad, never once was I asked if I wanted it to happen

5
    
Permalink
Rempulse 5y ago

I like me dick.

-1
    
Permalink
hopoutwithemchoppas 5y ago

i honestly am ok with my parents having me circumcised at a young age because i dont have to go through that later in my life

-23
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

But why would you "have to go through that"? The chances are, you'd never need it done. Your argument operates under the logic that circumcision is an inevitability, so it's best gotten out of the way as early as possible. This is nonsense.

14
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

nobody ever has to go through genital mutilation later in life, tho.

2
    
Permalink
rodrigogirao 5y ago

because i dont have to go through that later in my life

The chance that you'd ever need it is, I recall reading... one in sixteen thousand.

20
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

zero in sixteen thousand.

3
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

Funny how so many cut guys think they are that 0.001% who really would have wanted to be circumcised. Is there any more of your genitals you would like trimmed down or removed?

16
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

This. How can they be sure? I guess it's easier than confronting the possibility that they've been screwed over.

11
    
Permalink
alonchester 5y ago

I agree with you, although I kinda don't like the fact I don't know how it is to be uncircumcised

6
    
Permalink
DarthEquus 5y ago

The closest I can explain it is this:

Lightly run your fingers over the back of your hand. From the back of your hand you can feels your fingers, right? Now lightly run your fingers over your palm. You probably have more of a fine ticklish sensation. That is from the densely packed and specialized nerves. Those same types of nerves are also highly concentrated in the male foreskin which contribute to the majority of sexual pleasure during intercourse.

Now, it isn't the end of the world to be circumcised d you don't have to hate your body or anything like that. But we really need to stop forcing this on baby boys

8
    
Permalink
droider0111 5y ago

Also it takes less time to clean and less health risk later on

-8
    
Permalink
mellainadiba 5y ago

In 2 minutes this will tell you exactly what the foreskin is and what circumcision does.... be warned it has virtual reality video of a penis (its not pornographic but it is explicit penis virtual reality video)

NSFW, 18+

https://youtu.be/s454Ay\_SgWM

3
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Also it takes less time to clean and less health risk later on

/u/droider0111 Unless you're a tee-total fitness freak who eats healthy food all the time, all this stuff about "health risks" is a load of rubbish. If you smoke, then I'm not even going to go there... And "less time to clean"? You waste more time on reddit than you would cleaning a normal penis. Is your head shaved? Otherwise, you waste time on washing and styling your hair. Do you see brushing your teeth as a tiresome chore? What about wiping your ass?

9
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

[deleted]

4
    
Permalink
thwip62 5y ago

Every now and again won't kill you. Pro-circs make out as though an intact guy's cock would fall off if he skips one shower.

4
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

Serious question, how long do you think it takes to clean an intact penis?

2
    
Permalink
droider0111 5y ago

5 seconds probably, but if you actually thought about it you'd know people are disgusting and some tend to let themselves go. I don't think anyone likes dick cheese

-3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

circumcised penises still produce smegma. the only difference is it rubs off on the lining of their pants.

6
    
Permalink
_Senjogahara_ 5y ago

Agree, I actually like it too. Looks better and better hygiene ...

Edit: lol, all that hate. guys here are so toxic. Like seriously people life is not black and white. If you don't like something but someone else does, doesn't mean you gotta beat the shit out of them till they agree with you. You don't see me bitching about you not being circumcised ...

-11
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

the problem is i didn't get the choice to be not circumcised because of people like you.

6
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Not better hygiene. That is false. It doesn't look better either.

5
    
Permalink
_Senjogahara_ 5y ago

The Hygiene is relative I agree. Depends on how much you take care of yourself. But i do think it looks better, people have their own preferences i guess.

-4
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

A person with a cut penis and a person with an intact penis can both achieve the same level of hygiene.

As for looks, why are you sexualizing an infant?

3
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Maybe but just because it looks better isn't a justifiable reason for the circumcision to take place.

5
    
Permalink
_Senjogahara_ 5y ago

Imo, It looks better and better at staying clean. enough reasons for me. Plus it done when you are a child, so no harm really. I am perfectly fine with mine, and if you are fine with yours then great! :)

-3
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

leaving your urinary tract wide open to dirt, lint, and other debris doesn't make you better at staying clean.

cutting off part of your penis as a child is no less harmful than cutting off part of your penis as an adult.

3
    
Permalink
Jakeybaby125 5y ago

Not better at staying clean. The risk is still there for both. You do realise that 100 baby boys IN THE US ALONE die from circumcision every year. It's a huge risk. Also, why don't you leave it uncircumcised and let the boy decide when they're 18 or if it's an extreme medical emergency?

6
    
Permalink
TheBigBoisKing 5y ago

Man im circumsized and yes it has alot of benefits since im circumsized at 12 and yes sex is good. But if a guy doesn’t want to get circumsized like i did back then. Then don’t circumsice them

1
    
Permalink
McDeez-Nuts 5y ago

I prefer cut (which I am), I think uncut looks gross compared to cut. Not that I like men but. Aesthetically seems better cut. Less skin to clean. The 4 chicks I've been with have all preferred cut but thats a very small sample size.

-1
    
Permalink
Make_me_laugh_plz 5y ago

Its also more hygienic, which is the reason why jews, who lived in the desert, where there is a lot of sand, started doing it. I don't mind it at all.

-1
    
Permalink
Geekmonster 5y ago

I love my foreskin. It’s especially useful for masturbation. I couldn’t imagine my bare glans rubbing against my clothing. It’s far too sensitive.

I’m really shocked that parents choose to have their son’s hoods lopped-off at birth. People should be furious about this. It’s a disgusting and pointless practice.

2
    
Permalink
Make_me_laugh_plz 5y ago

Its nott pointless. Jews started doing it to avoid having sand in their foreskin. Its more hygienic and easier to clean. But I agree that children shouldnt be circumcised without concent.

-1
    
Permalink
chalkywhite231 5y ago

i like the way may dick looks though. go figure...

1
    
Permalink
begaterpillar 5y ago

Cosmetic surgery should not be performed without consent

7
    
Permalink
Spartandonovan100 5y ago

Ahh I don’t know how I feel about this one, personally I am extremely happy that I was. It’s a very good look the wife loves it.

-11
    
Permalink
[deleted] 5y ago

FGM affected women and their partners say similar things about being happy and loving the look of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7F-Dx_xn0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0DkhqTNy08

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I

Still doesn’t excuse the stolen bodily autonomy and genital integrity.

9
    
Permalink
petrol_sexual 5y ago

If I said I wanted to get my infant daughter breast implants so she would be more attractive would that be concerning?

6
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

she finds the scars on your penis to be attractive?

5
    
Permalink
Spartandonovan100 5y ago

I have no scars thank you, wow this is all new to me honestly I had no idea this was a big deal to people.

-2
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

it's not possible to amputate a body part without leaving a scar where it used to be.

do you know that jagged line about a third of the way down your shaft where the flesh color changes dramatically? does that look natural to you?

that's a scar, bro.

3
    
Permalink
agree-with-you 5y ago

I agree, this does not seem possible.

5
    
Permalink
Spartandonovan100 5y ago

Well someone did a bang up job and I have full sensation everywhere the lines all straight,it’s fantastic I really wouldn’t want it any other way. But you keep fighting your fight I guess. Gotta wonder why you would dedicate all your reddit posts to this though, if you had a bad experience then that sucks but that’s true of all Medical problems, it’s actually one of the leading causes of death in America. What a weird hill to die upon fighting for your bit of dick skin well you just have at er

-1
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

so you still have feeling in the parts of your penis that aren't attached anymore? that must be pretty weird. whether the line is straight or not, it's a scar.

how much of your penis could somebody cut off before you'd stand up for yourself? if somebody cut off the whole thing, would that be enough for you to make it a hill to die on?

3
    
Permalink
Spartandonovan100 5y ago

I feel there may be better things to be outraged about but there doesn’t seem to be a limit these days. Lighten up buttercup the world isn’t going to go your way all the time.

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

no, there's nothing better to be outraged about than the routine sexual abuse of children.

the world has no right to have its way with my genitals.

3
    
Permalink
Spartandonovan100 5y ago

Well how many children die every year in car wrecks. Such horrific abuse taking children in cars when they have no say in the matter whatever shall we do?

0
    
Permalink
needletothebar 5y ago

i'm not sure what that has to do with adult sexual predators having their way with the genitals of 3,300 little boys each day in US hospitals.

3
Back to Top © 2026 Forums.RED All Right Reserved | Page generated in 0.0304 seconds.