Circumcised or Not

I also still have my foreskin

 

circumcised here...I don't know how common it is

Circumcision in the USA

just a quick look...down turn...but that is also old data

Foxface

 

saame ^^

 

I think circumcision should be left in the past. It was mostly for religious reasons, not to mention all the health problems you can be subject to.
Whether or not I have mine?
Well... heh... you see... Oh, what the hell. I have my foreskin

 

what are the real differences? does it actually affect sensitivity?

Foxface

 

Seeing someone without foreskin,gives me a pain down there seriously,i dont know why it just hurts my mind

 

It's still quite common, if not for religious reasons, then for aesthetics and concerns over hygiene. I'm uncut and haven't had any serious health issues, nor do I care if my partner is or not.

 

I still have my foreskin, and I am glad that my parents didn't make a bad medical decision on my behalf. If I were to have a child and the doctor were to recommend circumcision, I'd get two second opinions, preferrably from a non-quack.

 

Most males in my age bracket 30's and 40's are cut. It was common into the mid 1980's here in America to cut the boys. Both of us were born in the early and mid 1970's so we are cut. I have had uncut men before and playtime is diffrent for them but who's to say it feels any less one way or the other. June

 

Uncut and I'd prefer it that way. Sure if you have medical issues I guess I see the reason for it, but personally I like mine and it really doesn't have any issues as long as you clean yourself well.

A lot of guys are cut here and it's almost abnormal to be uncut in most places; hopefully that tide will turn but there's nary a difference in use, main difference being aesthetic.

 

Religious idiocy and money are the reasons why circumcision is widespread in the U.S. and other backward cesspools of stupidity. Abrahamic religion is a poison.

The sad thing is that American-funded campaigns like the Clinton Global Initiative are taking advantage of the AIDs epidemic in Africa and widespread ignorance in order to circumcise millions of African men, to expand and keep the racket going.

Hopefully we will one day live in a world where circumcision, both male and female, is completely illegal to perform on a minor, no exceptions.

 

Last I heard (as of a year or two ago) the national average for the US was about 80% - the highest of any non Muslim, non Jewish country. I myself am circumcised (my brother had to have it done due to medical issues when he was two or three, which was a lot more painful than if it had been at birth, so my parents didn't want me to have to go through that). You'll notice that the map shown is far from complete, so I wouldn't necessary say that's a great source. It certainly is true that it's a far, far more common practice here in America than in Europe. I know very few people who aren't circumcised; the only ones I can think of off the top of my head having been born in Europe or Asia.

 

I agree with everything you said. Recently, I've heard that circunsising children has become illegal in Germany, and many other countries should follow its example. Unless the child needs to do it because he can't pull his foreskin or there are problems with it, mutilating a boy, and even more so a baby, is a cruel act. I'm against circunsising even for religious reasons, because their beliefs are outdated and do not reflect the reality in our modern world. I would still have sex and love a circunsised man, but if he told me that he got circunsised against his will, I would feel really, really sorry for him.

Btw, I'm uncut. If I was, my opinions on the subject would be even more radical, instead of changing.

 

Actually it was illegal in Germany only a short time. The Jewish community threw a hissy fit about "persecution" and ridiculous comparisons to the Nazi era, and right away the German government passed legislation specifically allowing male circumcision. Never mind the fact that Jewish and Muslim boys are the #1 victims of this practice worldwide.

If people want to have themselves circumcised for their beliefs as consenting adults, that is their right. But parents have no right to permanently force their backward beliefs upon non-consenting children who might not even share their beliefs in the form of irreversible mutilation. Western countries don't allow circumcision of girls no matter how sacred a tradition it might be to some parents; there is no reason boys should not be entitled to equal protection under the law.

But the intactivist community against circumcision is growing worldwide, even within the Jewish and Muslim communities. There is especially a lot of overlap though between the intactivist community and the LGBTQ community, both struggling against injustice.

Science may one day allow regeneration of foreskin for victims of this crime, in the meantime there is foreskin restoration that will restore some but not all function.

 

Comparing male circumcision to so called "female circumcision" is like comparing firecrackers to a nuclear bomb. One it utterly harmless, while the other is anything but, not to mention the procedures are completely different in terms of magnitude and purpose. Female genital mutilation consists of the total removal of all external genitalia. That's roughly equivalent to TOTAL castration, except for the fact that it takes longer, and is more painful. The purpose is to subjugate women by preventing them from experiencing ANY feeling during sex. On the other hand, circumcision has no negative impact on the person's capacity to enjoy sexual activity (as a circumcised person, I can attest to that) while eliminating the moist breeding ground for bacteria and STIs that exist under the foreskin. Although circumcised person can certainly be perfectly healthy, there are plenty of studies showing that both STIs and other infections are significantly more likely to occur in uncircumcised males.

 

Sorry, but you're 100% completely INCORRECT. The average male circumcision does MORE damage than the average female circumcision as it is actually performed.

This notion that female circumcision is somehow so much worse than male is not rooted in reality. The way only way people can make that claim is by misleading people and comparing male circumcision to only extreme forms of female circumcision. Far more tissue and nerve endings are removed by the average male circumcision than by the sort of female circumcision that Westerners are so rightfully outraged about that widely goes on in Africa and the Middle East.

Circumcision provides no proven health benefits, it has clear detriments to health and sexual function. It is not "harmless" any more than having your ear or leg or eyelids chopped off would be, and most importantly, it is 100% immoral and unjust to perform it on a non-consenting minor. Circumcision is equally wrong when performed on either girls or boys.

 

it is a personal choice

 

I'm circumcised and am quite fine with it. I am of course glad it occurred when I didn't remember but I do see the merits of forbidding it, harming a child and what not. However on the other hand it does make hygiene a little easier (which I'm sure is just is easy for those who are "intact") and I heard from my general doctor that it does help modestly prevent UTI's possibly...though there is much debate over that I guess....