Already a member? Sign in
What - Inspire is a place where you can connect with people who share your health concerns and find information and advice in groups sponsored by organizations you know and trust.
Why - As a member you can use Inspire to let friends and family know how you're doing, contact others who share your health concerns, receive personalized updates and information about participating in surveys and clinical trials, and more.
How - Joining Inspire is completely free and usually takes less than a minute. Join now!
I am against circumcision because I was not circumcised until I was 45. They said I needed it for medical reasons. If I had it to do over I’d tell them to go to hell. I lost so much sensitivity it’s almost unbelievable. No one should do this to anyone unless there is no other way to fix the problem. An if there is no problem it should never be done. To me it is child abuse to circumcise a child for no real reason.
Growing up in Central Africa as a missionary kid I only saw circumcised boys & men......The Africans called it Gaza - part of becoming a man in their culture......so, for me, unlike Benjamin who lost his foreskin at the age of 45yrs., I have no basis for comparison when it comes to a matter of sensitivity. However, several of my married male friends tell me that having the protection of the foreskin is good because it slows down the rush to orgasm.......ofcourse, they are speaking from their experience and don't know what it is like to have intercourse as a "clipped" man.......Many years ago when I was a student in Minneapolis, MN I worked at a restaurant and one of the men there had to be circumcised when he was about 30yrs. and he found it to be a very painful experience and it took a couple of months before he was able to return to his previous normal sexual married life......
My wife is from Sweden so when we were in the labour room awaiting our daughters' birth we got into a big discussion (almost an argument) about whether or not we would have each child circumcised were they to be boys........fortunately we had two daughters and that ended the discussion........you see, in Sweden boys & men are NOT circumcised.
Congokid wrote: "having the protection of the foreskin is good because it slows down the rush to orgasm...."
Or rather, having more nerves is good because they give more feedback, making it easier to make things happen when you want them to.
As for the pain, why subject every baby to it, rather than the tiny number of men who may actually need it later in life? Some people talk as though you ought to do it to babies because it's inevitable, sooner or later. it's not.
I was circumcised at 18, so been there and have the t-shirt! Being circumcised is much cleaner, uncut guys need to wash at least 2-3x a day and before sex as there is always a stink. It is healthier to be cut, uncut guys have a 60% higher chance to get STD's and HIV! Looks better to be circumcised, that's a no brainer. It also enhances the sexual experience. The foreskin just gets in the way! I had no hesitation to have my boys (2&4) circumcised as I know there is no downside, only a lifetime of benefits!
Don't fall prey to the antis! Most are uncut or brainwashed by the lies! There is nothing good about being uncircumcised!
Also read about new studies!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081217/sc_n...
http://allcircumcision.blogspot.com/2008...
HBRusty makes the ridiculous claim that uncut guys need to wash 2-3 times a day. No, we don't, and I don't believe he was circumcised at 18 either, because he obviously has no knowledge about the foreskin.
Before (and after) sex, you should wash regardless of circumcision status.
Circumcision provides no protection against STDs in the developed nations. Evidence of this comes from the Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000 American men, which showed no advantage to the circumcised group. The most recent comparative study from Dunedin, New Zealand (cohort of about 500 men) backs this up, concluding: "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations". SOURCE: Journal of Pediatrics, MARCH 2008.
Note also that in the 80% circumcised USA, HIV has spread sexually faster than in uncircumcised Europe. Other STDs (e.g. Chalmydia and Gonorrhea) are also higher as % pop. in the USA.
"Looks better"? Apart from being a fatuous claim, it should be apparent that the glans, which is largely membranous, is designed to be covered (when flaccid), and without its protection the glans becomes pale and dry-looking. Interestingly, Michelangelo's "David" is intact (although a Jew). Presumably, a mutilated penis would have offended artistic sensitivity.
Assissted MDs in doing this procedure. Anyone that says a baby can't "feel" it and that feels no pain during the procedure, should be there. It's primarily a cultural thing. "want to be like everyone else". Even if an anesthetic block is used, if it's not placed correctly or given enough time to numb the area, it's of no use as far as reducing the pain for the baby. Some MDs will say it's just being placed in the restraint that makes the babies cry - - not so!. When a plasti-bell is used and the string is pulled tightly around the cuff of the belll, the baby almost always suddenly gasp for air - YOU just KNOW that they are in pain. The is another less used procedure - a gumco - there is no sm piece to dry up and fall of about 8 days later as with the plasti-bell but the infant's reaction is the same. If a baby IS going to be circumcised, it's best to have it done as soon as possible after birth. The longer the wait, the more sensitive and painful the procedure is. There was a time that physicians thought babies nerve endings were not completely intact and therefore they did not feel pain. That has long since been proven to be wrong. Babies undergo some quite painful procedures because of this antiquated view. Parents should insist on anesthesia for circs and let the Dr. know that you are aware that the anesthetic does NOT take effect immediately,, so to please give it time (about 5-10 min) to numb the site. Some MDs will tell you that the risk of the anesthetic is greater than the benefit; in that case, ask them if THEY have had anything like that occur with them?? Worked with a Dr. that had it done while he was in med school and said he got a standing ovation for being able to come to classes the next day. It's been proven also that it does not affect the rate of cervical cancer in partners as was once believed. It is natural protection but again, in our culture it's the "in" thing right now. Many pediatricians are actually against it but know the parent wants it, so they don't get into the pros and cons unless the parent specifically ask.
Advertisement
Add to the discussion