If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   US circumcision rate has been cut   (well.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 240
    More: Obvious, United States, National Center for Health Statistics, circumcisions, legal burden of proof  
•       •       •

3485 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Aug 2013 at 12:31 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-22 05:14:30 PM

CJHardin: I knew the risk of UTI were small but damn, that's minuscule.


Another thing about WIswell's UTI studies is that they were all done in military hospitals where circumcisions are pretty much automatic, and that in many cases where circumcision is not performed, the foreskin (which is naturally fused to the glans until sometime around puberty) is forcibly retracted causing tears and damage which can lead to...

UTIs.
 
2013-08-22 05:19:32 PM

heili skrimsli: pedobearapproved: In other words, it's all in your head.

It's all in my vagina, actually.

Theaetetus: I'm not sure breasts work that way, since most of their growth is at puberty. But, that aside or reworded as a general question, if we could detect a harmful mutation that could be obviated through surgical removal to prevent "thousands of cases" of fatal cancer, then I believe a decision to remove or not should be up to the physician and patient, or the patient's parents or guardians. It should not be banned outright.

Note that this is the exact same thing I said earlier with regard to circumcision.

Well then, surely you agree that we have much stronger medical justification for prophylactic mastectomy on children than circumcision.


Your hypothetical didn't include any actual numbers so I can't really make a quantitative comparison. Furthermore, your argument is based solely on the benefit, and ignores the detriment and risks, both of which are necessary for even a qualitative analysis, much less a comparison of the two.
But as for the general principle, I think we would both agree that no medically sound treatment should banned outright, but should be a decision for the people involved, no?

As for breasts working that way, yes it is possible to do. It's basically mastectomy of the undeveloped breast, which means they will never develop.PDF

Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.
 
2013-08-22 05:23:46 PM
Amos Quito:Did they perform the surgery for free - as a humanitarian gesture?

What? They GOT PAID?

Did they also offer an extended warranty?


Actually it wasn't on the bill and was done in minutes in the same building without needing a second appointment or visit.  Otherwise, my only response to your awkward presence in this thread is:
I'm sorry you're so uncomfortable with your weird penis.  I hope it isn't as small as it is weird.
 
2013-08-22 05:24:31 PM

Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.


That article is about a different case, but the idea behind prophylactic mastectomy is that if you do not have breast tissue, you cannot get breast cancer.

It's not 100% perfect because it's possible some tissue could be left behind, but the theory is sound enough to make it actually more medically beneficial than male circumcision when it comes to cancer prevention.
 
2013-08-22 05:27:25 PM

Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer?


And also, would it prevent them from breastfeeding later in life?  Probably, and if so, that's something parents would need to weigh as well.
 
2013-08-22 05:28:30 PM

heili skrimsli: Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.

That article is about a different case, but the idea behind prophylactic mastectomy is that if you do not have breast tissue, you cannot get breast cancer.

It's not 100% perfect because it's possible some tissue could be left behind, but the theory is sound enough to make it actually more medically beneficial than male circumcision when it comes to cancer prevention.


On the other hand, the loss of function of the organ is significantly greater, and that must be considered. Removing your legs prevents foot cancer, but the harm vastly outweighs the benefit.
 
2013-08-22 05:31:12 PM

spiderpaz: Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer?

And also, would it prevent them from breastfeeding later in life?  Probably, and if so, that's something parents would need to weigh as well.


Exactly. The comparison would be not to circumcision, but total wang-ectomy. And while that would apparently obviate penile cancer, the total loss of function is not worth the benefit.

Alternately, rather than masectomy, you could compare it to removal of moles or birthmarks from an infant. May have some protective benefit against future cancer, carries some risks of infection or scarring.
 
2013-08-22 05:36:38 PM

The more you eat the more you fart: The only thing that REALLY matters is: do women prefer cut or uncut?

After all...thats kinda the only thing that matters lol.


I don't care. At all. Is it a clean, healthy dick that I desire to see? Okay then!
 
2013-08-22 05:45:27 PM

The_Sponge: TEAM HELMET

/Like the fact that I don't look like Eurotrash when nekkid.


We just eat healthy so we don't need to cut away pieces of out body in order to get small advantages in weight reduction. But hey, whatever works for you.
 
2013-08-22 05:49:18 PM
This is why I'm for circumcision. During WWII, when the Germans tried to separate Jewish GI POWs from the rest of the GI POWs, they couldn't tell them apart, because everybody was circumcised. So every snipped foreskin = a big FU to Hitler.

/Americans caught the circumcision fad after WWI for quackish health reasons. It later turned out they were right!
//Testicle:foreskin as gallbladder:appendix.
///The old lady prefers helmets to anteaters.
 
2013-08-22 05:49:24 PM

Theaetetus: On the other hand, the loss of function of the organ is significantly greater, and that must be considered. Removing your legs prevents foot cancer, but the harm vastly outweighs the benefit.


If you have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation your odds are 60% of getting breast cancer. It's higher if you have both mutations.

You can always formula feed, but once you've got cancer, you're in a world of hurt.
 
2013-08-22 05:51:56 PM

Theaetetus: heili skrimsli: Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.

That article is about a different case, but the idea behind prophylactic mastectomy is that if you do not have breast tissue, you cannot get breast cancer.

It's not 100% perfect because it's possible some tissue could be left behind, but the theory is sound enough to make it actually more medically beneficial than male circumcision when it comes to cancer prevention.

On the other hand, the loss of function of the organ is significantly greater, and that must be considered. Removing your legs prevents foot cancer, but the harm vastly outweighs the benefit.


I've yet to see any actual science about "lack of function" due to circumcision. Considering that the glans is about a zillion times more sensitive than the foreskin, and that the foreskin uncovers the glans during full erection, it seems unlikely that there's any actual impairment in sensation.
 
2013-08-22 05:58:58 PM

mbillips: I've yet to see any actual science about "lack of function" due to circumcision. Considering that the glans is about a zillion times more sensitive than the foreskin, and that the foreskin uncovers the glans during full erection, it seems unlikely that there's any actual impairment in sensation.


Note that those are two different things - there's certainly not any loss of function, since circumcised men can and do ejaculate. There may or may not be loss of sensation.


heili skrimsli:  You can always formula feed, but once you've got cancer, you're in a world of hurt.

You can pee through a catheter and avoid penile cancer, but I don't think anyone is actually advocating that. As noted above, the better comparison would be mole removal, which prevents cancer, does not impair functionality, but may result in scarring and potentially loss of sensation in the affected region.
 
2013-08-22 06:03:55 PM
Know what?  fark you guys.  I like my cock just as it is.  These circumcision farkers are just like these magazines that try to make women feel bad about their appearance, and induce teenage girls to starve themselves.  Bunch of farking animals, all of you.  Stay off of my cock.
 
2013-08-22 06:09:25 PM
I love people make the argument that scar-tissue-covered genitals are more visually appealing than natural ones. Scar tissue. Sexy.
 
2013-08-22 06:36:45 PM

mbillips: . Considering that the glans is about a zillion times more sensitive than the foreskin, and that the foreskin uncovers the glans during full erection, it seems unlikely that there's any actual impairment in sensation.



It's not about how sensitive the foreskin is. The thing is, that foreskin covers the sensitive bits when you are NOT having sex, therefore preventing a gradual desensitization from constant friction.


The worst circs are the ones that are too aggressive and cause the hair that should be on the scrotum to end up halfway up the shaft.  HATE THAT!  Hair does not naturally grow on the shaft.

I also think it's bizarre when the top 2-3 inches are a completely different color than the rest.
 
2013-08-22 06:43:23 PM

mbillips: Theaetetus: heili skrimsli: Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.

That article is about a different case, but the idea behind prophylactic mastectomy is that if you do not have breast tissue, you cannot get breast cancer.

It's not 100% perfect because it's possible some tissue could be left behind, but the theory is sound enough to make it actually more medically beneficial than male circumcision when it comes to cancer prevention.

On the other hand, the loss of function of the organ is significantly greater, and that must be considered. Removing your legs prevents foot cancer, but the harm vastly outweighs the benefit.

I've yet to see any actual science about "lack of function" due to circumcision. Considering that the glans is about a zillion times more sensitive than the foreskin, and that the foreskin uncovers the glans during full erection, it seems unlikely that there's any actual impairment in sensation.


http://www.foreskinrestoration.info/images-Foreskin%20Restoration/To uc h%20Test-BJU.pdf

It's peer reviewed.  Read it.  TLDR version:  Yes, it does impair sensation.

You seem willfully ignorant to suggest that removal of genital tissue would not cause a change in sensation.
 
2013-08-22 06:45:09 PM
SeriousGeorge: I love people make the argument that scar-tissue-covered wrinkled-flap-of-skin-covered genitals are more visually appealing than natural smooth ones. Scar tissue Wrinkled skin. Sexy.
 
2013-08-22 06:51:14 PM

Nana's Vibrator: Amos Quito:Did they perform the surgery for free - as a humanitarian gesture?

What? They GOT PAID?

Did they also offer an extended warranty?

Actually it wasn't on the bill and was done in minutes in the same building without needing a second appointment or visit.  Otherwise, my only response to your awkward presence in this thread is:
I'm sorry you're so uncomfortable with your weird penis.  I hope it isn't as small as it is weird.



Heh!

Earlier I said that "many (most?) of the pro-chop hacks are religious/ethnic zealots who fear that one day their precious barbaric ritual will one day be outlawed."

I should add another common category: Those that hacked their kids' weenies when they were infants, and now feel compelled to argue in defense of that cruel, brutal decision because it is easier that having to deal with their conscience, and face up to the reality that they made a horrible mistake.

Would you be in the former category, the latter, or both, Nana's Vibrator?
 
2013-08-22 06:52:48 PM
ALSO:

cntrl+F tats
produced no hits.

WTF?
 
2013-08-22 07:43:43 PM
of course it has been cut in half. More and more people have decided that mutilation of a newborn is ... .bad. AKA, more and more people are developing brains.
 
2013-08-22 07:50:08 PM
My son is six. We didn't have a piece of him cut off shortly after birth because it is his body and there was no medical reason to do so. If he wants to change its appearance when he's old enough to make an informed decision himself, that's up to him, but we were not going to put a child through cosmetic surgery that has barely statistically significant 'health benefits' that can be managed by basic hygiene and common sense.

I've read a lot of the literature myself (love me some pubmed) and have found nothing compelling. Penile cancer is very rare to begin with (remember, absolute risk is far more important to look at than relative risk.) Additionally, HPV vaccination for boys can reduce penile (and anal and throat) cancer risk as around half of penile cancers are attributable to HPV.

UTIs? Yeah, no. They are uncommon in males to begin with, and while slightly more common in uncircumcised males, there was no way we were going to put our child through a surgery that removes a significant part of his penile skin on the off chance it might prevent a week of antibiotics sometime during his life. Girls get them far more, but we don't surgically alter our daughters to prevent them.

The minute risk reduction for already uncommon things for which risks can be mediated non-surgically like with vaccination, condom use, and basic hygiene (really not hard to teach) as compared to the potential loss of sensation, potential loss of years of normal sexual function, and the (small but present) risk of serious adverse outcomes, it was a no-brainer. Beyond that, it is HIS body, not mine, not his father's and children have the right not to be subject to unnecessary medical procedures (even if their parents think it looks better.)
 
2013-08-22 07:50:20 PM
As an uncut person, I feel as though a lot of you arguing against circumcision don't really understand how growing up with an uncut penis is like. I'm not talking early childhood, but as soon as puberty hits, things start going downhill very quickly for some of us. The only way I can explain is by relating my experience.

During my teen years, when I first discovered porn, I really started to worry about how mine looked compared to the guys in the video. Never had I seen even one with an uncut guy in it. I knew that the girls my age were probably looking at it to and getting their image of what a penis should be. This caused a great deal of social anxiety that progressively got worse and worse until I shut myself down completely. There was no way I was going to try and get involved with a girl then see her have any kind of adverse reaction the first time she saw my cock. So I stayed single, stayed a virgin for years. Girls can be just as mean to guys as they are to other girls at that age, and the results can be as emotionally devastating...especially when you think there is nothing you can do about it.

Next problem... When I got a little older, I finally one day saw a porn video that actually had an uncut man in it. When the guy got an erection, his foreskin retracted. This was strange to me as mine did not. Since this was around the time the internet started taking off, I did some research and found that yes, uncircumcised foreskin is supposed to retract. This was bad news for my ego. Phimosis, horrible horrible condition that I had no idea even existed is what I have. As you can imagine, not an easy topic to discuss with anyone, even a doctor.

So many more years passed as I toiled away thinking I was a complete freak. I dated a few girls here and there but ended things if it looked like things were turning sexual. It was awful! To be embarrassed by your penis is one of worst ways to go through life. Finally, a couple years ago I was in a relationship with a nurse who was more forward than I anticipated. One night she just reached down and pulled it out. Thank the gods she didn't have a negative reaction...in fact none at all. But, this introduced yet another issue I didn't expect. The first few times we had sex, we used condoms, which I had no problem with. Then, being that she was on birth control, she wanted to have intercourse without the condom. I couldn't do it. I tried, but I couldn't get it in because the pain was excruciating. I never thought using a condom would be better than not.

So, the point of all of this is before you get to passionate on either side of the debate, try to put yourself in the shoes of an adolescent boy growing up in our current society (North American). Honestly, how do you ask your parents if your penis is normal...you don't...most likely you just try to get through your life in the manor I did and hope you find someone that isn't judgemental. I'm no longer with the nurse but I'm glad I met her. Unfortunately I'm still very scared of starting a new relationship because let's be honest, the vast majority of women prefer uncut and think anything else is disgusting. I don't blame them for it, that's all they know.

I've finally worked up the courage and made an appointment with my doctor to talk about what my options are.  I'm also 34 years old. Parents, if you don't want to cut your kid that's great, but please, as uncomfortable a subject as it is, talk to them during puberty. Aside from the cleanliness part, ask them if their foreskin is working properly!!!! Believe me, you could prevent a great deal of stress for them!
 
2013-08-22 08:27:16 PM
jaymze69: Unfortunately I'm still very scared of starting a new relationship because let's be honest, the vast majority of women prefer uncut and think anything else is disgusting. I don't blame them for it, that's all they know.

Only in America, everywhere else they think being cut is strange. Either way I don't know why you are worried people women like that. If someone is that shallow, that being uncut/cut is the number one reason they can't/can be with you over everything else you're probably better off not having anything to do with that person in the first place. That is also certainly not the basis of a good relationship.
 
2013-08-22 08:28:03 PM
*blarghs. Worried about women like that rather. I'm out, peace!
 
2013-08-22 08:34:08 PM

jaymze69: As an uncut person, I feel as though a lot of you arguing against circumcision don't really understand how growing up with an uncut penis is like. I'm not talking early childhood, but as soon as puberty hits, things start going downhill very quickly for some of us. The only way I can explain is by relating my experience.

During my teen years, when I first discovered porn, I really started to worry about how mine looked compared to the guys in the video. Never had I seen even one with an uncut guy in it. I knew that the girls my age were probably looking at it to and getting their image of what a penis should be. This caused a great deal of social anxiety that progressively got worse and worse until I shut myself down completely. There was no way I was going to try and get involved with a girl then see her have any kind of adverse reaction the first time she saw my cock. So I stayed single, stayed a virgin for years. Girls can be just as mean to guys as they are to other girls at that age, and the results can be as emotionally devastating...especially when you think there is nothing you can do about it.

Next problem... When I got a little older, I finally one day saw a porn video that actually had an uncut man in it. When the guy got an erection, his foreskin retracted. This was strange to me as mine did not. Since this was around the time the internet started taking off, I did some research and found that yes, uncircumcised foreskin is supposed to retract. This was bad news for my ego. Phimosis, horrible horrible condition that I had no idea even existed is what I have. As you can imagine, not an easy topic to discuss with anyone, even a doctor.

So many more years passed as I toiled away thinking I was a complete freak. I dated a few girls here and there but ended things if it looked like things were turning sexual. It was awful! To be embarrassed by your penis is one of worst ways to go through life. Finally, a couple years ago I was in a relationship with a nur ...



Sad story.

But (aside from the phimosis), understand that the psychological trauma you endured was a direct result of the FARKED UP societal perceptions that were the product of generations of misguided (if not malicious) advice from idiot physicians and / or religious 'tards who created a false impression of what "normal" should be. Our gullible parents and grandparents trusted "authority" and fell for the bullshiat - there's no reason we should.

Imagine a society where people thought ears were ugly, unhealthy, and should be removed. It makes about as much sense.

As for kids these days, that is changing - and it's about time. Genital mutilation is falling out of favor, and this trend will continue. Before long, it'll be the cut kid that gets the funny looks in the shower, and the shocked expression from the girlfriend.

As for your condition, there are several options to explore with your physician. If he immediately suggests circumcision, go see another doctor, and another.

You may have more to lose than you think.
 
2013-08-22 10:06:18 PM

Amos Quito: ALSO:

cntrl+F tats produced no hits.

WTF?


This!

i192.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-22 11:40:56 PM

thegrievingmole: CJHardin: ddam: Fo Shiz: Apparently Hispanics have lower rates of circumcision.  Most western states' Medicaid programs (including CA, OR and WA) do not cover circumcision as a routine procedure.  So can we infer that high birth rates among Hispanics along with some associated lack of health insurance leads to a lower rate of circumcision?

Neither did my private insurance so my son who's about to be 2 soon is uncut. No way I'd pay $400 for that procedure, especially since it's not necessary.

I'm sure he will thank you for the additional 20,000 nerve endings when he is old enough to make that decision for himself.

And not needing lube for masturbation.


I'm cut, and I don't need lube.
 
2013-08-22 11:44:48 PM

loaba: God Is My Co-Pirate: Yeah, up here in Canada there really is a big trend away from it.

Trend - exactly.

Basically, for me, it comes down to how well I can police my kids. I have a hard enough time mandating showers and teeth brushing. Having to add cock cleaning to the list wouldn't kill me, but it would be just one more thing to remind 'em about.

And really, if it's just a trend-thing... Don't need it.


Call me crazy, but you don't have to remind most boys to vigorously rub their penis in the shower.
 
2013-08-23 12:03:36 AM

mbillips: Theaetetus: heili skrimsli: Theaetetus: Interesting. Would it actually prevent any possibility of breast cancer? The article only mentions fibrocysts, and I readily admit I know nothing about either beyond what Wiki says.
In any case, I defer to the physician's knowledge and research - if it's a medically recommended treatment, then I can't see a justification for banning it.

That article is about a different case, but the idea behind prophylactic mastectomy is that if you do not have breast tissue, you cannot get breast cancer.

It's not 100% perfect because it's possible some tissue could be left behind, but the theory is sound enough to make it actually more medically beneficial than male circumcision when it comes to cancer prevention.

On the other hand, the loss of function of the organ is significantly greater, and that must be considered. Removing your legs prevents foot cancer, but the harm vastly outweighs the benefit.

I've yet to see any actual science about "lack of function" due to circumcision. Considering that the glans is about a zillion times more sensitive than the foreskin, and that the foreskin uncovers the glans during full erection, it seems unlikely that there's any actual impairment in sensation.


How about removing 85 percent of the head of the penis?  Oops.  That enough "lack of function" for ya?

http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20110718/boys-botched-circ um cision-leads-to-46-million-award
 
2013-08-23 12:10:13 AM
jaymze69:  ... let's be honest, the vast majority of women prefer uncut and think anything else is disgusting. I don't blame them for it, that's all they know.

That's not been my experience.  Slept with 40+ women, mostly American, mostly in the Northeast, and not one complaint about my foreskin.

You need to date better women.
 
2013-08-23 12:10:49 AM

Theaetetus: PunGent: /lawyer buddy of mine did insurance defense work...the ONLY cases they'd settle out of court were botched circs.

On the plus side, the briefs would be light.


+1
 
2013-08-23 12:16:31 AM

LissaDances: SeriousGeorge: I love people make the argument that scar-tissue-covered wrinkled-flap-of-skin-covered genitals are more visually appealing than natural smooth ones. Scar tissue Wrinkled skin. Sexy.


There's a reason it's called "bumping uglies"  :)
 
2013-08-23 12:18:54 AM

loaba: God Is My Co-Pirate: Yeah, up here in Canada there really is a big trend away from it.

Trend - exactly.

Basically, for me, it comes down to how well I can police my kids. I have a hard enough time mandating showers and teeth brushing. Having to add cock cleaning to the list wouldn't kill me, but it would be just one more thing to remind 'em about.


Err, they should be cleaning down there whether or not they're cut.
 
2013-08-23 12:23:22 AM

mesmer242: Those numbers fall under the "lies, damn lies, and statistics" end of things. They only count circumcisions done in hospitals - not those done in religious ceremonies or in doctor's offices. There's reason to believe there's been a decrease, but there's also reason to believe that more people are having circumcisions done outside of a hospital setting. So the real numbers are unknown.


You want a number?  here's a number:  117 dead U.S. babies, on average, per year, from circumcision:

http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=7452e7641b4f4 a6 b9a8c3e986bcd8c1e&pi=5
 
2013-08-23 02:24:13 AM
Can I get an Oy!
 
2013-08-23 06:56:50 AM
Cut don't need lube.

And for chrissakes please keep your labes on ladies, unless you have medical issues.

Sucking lips is HOT!
 
2013-08-23 07:04:52 AM

jaymze69: Unfortunately I'm still very scared of starting a new relationship because let's be honest, the vast majority of women prefer uncut and think anything else is disgusting. I don't blame them for it, that's all they know.


You do realize that if you want to you're an adult and you can have yourself circumcised for your own reasons now, right? Nobody's arguing that adults who want to alter their own penises shouldn't be able to.

Amos Quito: As for your condition, there are several options to explore with your physician. If he immediately suggests circumcision, go see another doctor, and another.


Yeah, phimosis is treatable and it doesn't necessarily require complete removal of the foreskin. I know one guy who had it and did eventually get surgical correction, but instead of circumcising him, they just made the opening bigger so he could retract his foreskin without problems. He's still got all his parts, and they work great.

MmmVomit: Call me crazy, but you don't have to remind most boys to vigorously rub their penis in the shower.


FTFY.

PunGent: That's not been my experience. Slept with 40+ women, mostly American, mostly in the Northeast, and not one complaint about my foreskin.

You need to date better women.


shiat yeah. Female, American, from the Northeast here. Give me uncut every day.

PunGent: You want a number? here's a number: 117 dead U.S. babies, on average, per year, from circumcision:


Pity, because it could be zero. It should be zero. All we have to do is stop unnecessarily cutting up infant penis.
 
2013-08-23 09:12:36 AM
We went to all of the birthing classes (at Upenn) and they said it wasn't necessary.  I felt strongly about it too.  If my son really doesn't want it later, he can have it removed.  It's his, let it be his decision.
 
2013-08-23 03:16:21 PM
Arguments against circumcision and the reasons why I did it anyway:

1. It's mutilation -- If my son were born with an extra non-functioning finger on his hand and the doctor asked if I wanted to cut it off, of course I would.

2. It's unnatural -- Foreskins are about as useful to our species as wisdom teeth and appendixes.  We're not pants-less cavemen walking around in the woods anymore.

3. It's medically unnecessary -- But it's helpful.  I certainly don't want to have to worry about my infant son's penile health if I don't have to.  Just like if doctors came up with a medical procedure to remove wisdom teeth soon after birth with a couple of cuts, who wouldn't jump on that for their child?  "You should wait until he's an adult (when his teeth are compacted, required surgery and braces) so that he can make that decision for himself."  Nope.

4. It decreases sensitivity -- Thank FSM!  My wife would have left me by now if I were any more sensitive down there.

5. It's just a Western thing -- And I'm in the Western world.

6. Women like an uncut man -- That does not seem to be the opinion of most women I know.  Or porn.  And if we've learned anything from VHS and Blu-ray, porn dictates all.

7. It should be your child's decision when they are an adult -- I feel like I've done my son a favor because that favor was done for me.  I am very happy with the results and have never once - I repeat, NEVER ONCE - felt self-conscious about being circumcised.  How many circumcised guys out there can say that? (Judging by some of the locker room stories in this thread, not many.)   It's Pascals Wager.

Think of it this way. Most women don't care if you have ripped abs or not.  Some women prefer a guy with ripped abs.  But I've never seen a woman turn down a guy BECAUSE he has ripped abs.

Same with foreskins: some women don't care either way, some women are grossed out by them, but I have yet to find a woman who rejects a guy (In ANY country) BECAUSE he's cut.

So why wouldn't I?
 
Displayed 40 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report