does cut or uncut effect penis size at maturity?

[MissKatherine]

To Cut or not to cut.....

I am a female. I have no sons, but I have cared for little boys. For me, cleaning of the foreskin is no more bothersome that correctly cleaning a little girls labia. I admit it can get a little messy, but for the most part is no big deal. My fiance is cut and I am very thankful for it. In my line of work, I see a lot of men both cut and uncut. The ones that are cut seem to enjoy themselves much more. Also, I hate sucking an uncut cock. It feels weird. I have also never had an uncut man be able to make me orgasm. They are ugly, taste funny, feel funny, look funny, and are in no way arousing. If my only option for a real penis is an uncut one, thanks but give me a dildo instead...

 

[spazz]

Well, Im 16 and cut.. And I think I have a fairly large dick. I mean, im the largest in my class ( 8'' and growing) and have never had any problems with it.. I live in Norway, and im american, and im the only curcumsizef kid at school, which is weird... Uncut dicks look WEIRD.. Some kids in my class have large heads, and it looks like it hurts as hell.. and it doesnt look normal either..

And most of the current religions today have curcumcision as a norm.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Well, Im 16 and cut.. And I think I have a fairly large dick. I mean, im the largest in my class ( 8'' and growing) and have never had any problems with it.. I live in Norway, and im american, and im the only curcumsizef kid at school, which is weird... Uncut dicks look WEIRD.. Some kids in my class have large heads, and it looks like it hurts as hell.. and it doesnt look normal either..

And most of the current religions today have curcumcision as a norm.

Good for you but your bit about current religeon is utter shit.


Oh and since 80-90% of the rest of the world are uncut that makes you not the normal one.

 

[Sweetlola]

uncut penises are ugly ok.... UGLY! They do the procedure for many reasons but mostly cosmetics.

I love turtlenecks...

.... in a sex education class i took in college, it is said that uncut men do not get as hard as cut men.....

I've dated a couple of men who were uncut... and many who were cut... I don't know that this is true at all... from my personal experience.

Plus, anyone out there ever sucked an uncut dick? Yuck, i have. It doesn't feel right....... Sorry to all of you out there that are uncut.

Doesn't feel right? Noooo.... it feels very right. It just takes a little patience to learn how to use it... to make him feel good. The best lover I ever had was an uncut man.

 

[Angel]

Why are there children on this thread?


Anyway, I don't consider circumcision mutilation. I call it unecessary modification. I mean, I have a hole poked in my hood. (Among other places) I don't need it but I did it.

Forcing it on someone who has their own free will is wrong IMHO.

I've had both cut and uncut. It's a freaking penis for godsakes. When it's hard, the foreskin doesn't even really matter.

 

[StevenWill]

It's just skin!

I have seen all the usual myths about circumcision in this thread. I am a college professor and sexuality educator. Just some facts.

Most of the worlds men and uncircumcised. Circumcision rates are declining in the U.S.

There is a slightly greater risk for urniary tract infections in little boys who are uncricumcised but the effect disappears in adulthood. Please note that women have more infections than men, both cut and uncut.

Circumcision does not effect the size of the penis or the firmness of the erection.

Uncut males should retract the foreskin and wash with soap and water everytime they shower. It may come down to teaching a little boy to wash as opposed to doing surgery. And even in circumcised men, some skin gathers around the head of the penis and that should be retracted and washed as well.

Women have structure just like the penis, the clitoris. Is is made of the same tissue (spongy erectile tissue) and it has a foreskin.
Women's foreskins collect dead skin cells, urine, body oils and bacteria, just like a man's. That's part of being human. If I suggested that we circumcise women to make them clean, it would be called genital mutilation. Women wash, so can men.

Circumcision is almost never a factor in who women choose to have sex with. They pick partners for compex reasons, almost none of which have to do with the genitals. Most men, save for the extreamly young or very shallow, do not have sex with women because of their genitals or breasts. Maybe we could all learn to treat people less like peices of meat and more like we would like to be treated.

I think if we find someone interesting and intelligent and attractive with their clothes on, we should have no difficulty dealing with what is under their clothes, like a breast lost to surgery or a foreskin or inverted nipples, or some body fat, or moles and freckles or a c-section scar.

If your religion demands circumcision, that's your right and your child. But I don't think surgery that is cosmetic surgery on an infant is easy to justify just so the most shallow women in our culture will not be offended. What next, breast implants. Oops, too late to stop that nonsense.

Dr. Steven

 

[Shawn18]

My opinion

Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on this. I myself am uncircumsized (uncut) and I see no problem with it. Foreskin has nerve endings I wouldn't want to lose. And what has been said about exposing the head to air causing it to lose sensitivity makes sense to me. But how long a guy lasts in bed has more to do with stamina and control than anything. I personally have lasted an hour and a half in one sitting before orgasm. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to orgasm, what matters is that you don't stop after the first one. I could have an orgasm in 1 to 2 minutes if I didn't hold back but even if I did that doesn't mean I'm done. And as for the medical issue, I did have one infection when I was young but it had no lasting affects. A simple anti-biotic took care of it. As for the moral issue, I wouldn't call it mutilation because it doesn't technically cause any serious damage, I agree with the girl above that its more like "unnecessary modifaction" but I don't care what religion you are its wrong to alter someone's body without their consent, even if they are too young to give consent. Even the Jewish (who practice circumcision) wait until the child is an adolescent before they do it (I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure because I believe it happens around the time of their Barmitzvah). As for the size issue, well I'm uncut and as much as I hate to admit this I'm barely average. So it obviously didn't make mine grow any larger. If people clean themselves it really doesn't matter if they are cut or uncut.

 

[OUTSIDER]

Jewish boys are cut when they are baby's, a barmitzva is a religeous rite of passage that says their a man now, other than that your bang on.

 

[Guest]

i think that 2 factors are involved in this subject, first is a religious base as circumcision is legalized by both jews and muslims . second is the medical point of veiw as circumcision prevents smegma infection and lower the risk of cancer cervix in those females who have intercourses with uncircumcised men. thus i think that the issue of cut or uncut is already over according to each one's concept and beliefs

 

[StevenWill]

Not really

There is no real evidence that sex with uncircumcised men increases the risk for cervical cancer. The major factor in young women is simply number of partners, cut or not. England has very low circumcision rates yet no epidemic of cervical cancer. If they did, women would be marching in the streets demanding that men be circumcised. The big factor that puts young women at risk for cervical cancer is HPV or genital warts that are on the cervix and not detectable without an exam- and HPV comes from having lots of partners and not using any proptection such as condoms

 

[Yoc]

I had mine 'cut' at the ripe of age of 15.

My reason was a medical one. Unfortunately, my foreskin was so tight that either (a) it would not draw back over the head making an erection very painful or (b) if I did manage to draw it back, I had a devil of the time rolling it back (once flaccid).

To any male of any age it not nice (to put it mildly) but to a fifteen year old, this was almost life threatening.

In the end I went to the Doctors who advised me to get circumcised.

Incidentally, for all you 'uncut' people out there, the operation isn't the problem, but for a week afterwards it was bloody awful.

On the size front, I don't think it makes any difference. However, I have heard that the head of a penis can get larger after circumcision. Whether or not that BS I don't know since I can't remember what my penis looked like beforehand.

 

[StevenWill]

Phimosis

The condition you had is called phimosis, an unusually thight foreskin. If circumcision was painful for you, it is also true that it is painful for infants.

Parents with uncircumcized boys should encourage them to retract the foreskin when they wash and when they urinate. Sometimes regular retraction, which should be done anyway, will ward off phimosis. Sometimes the foreskin can be stretched, but serious cases usually wind up in circumcision.


Steve

 

[Trinka]

Not having a penis myself, I can't tell you if it feels "better" or not to be cut, but I can tell you this: uncut leaves more skin to play with and more possiblities for fun!

Either way the human body is a beautiful thing.

I can respond to the post about "world" penises - circumcision really is an american thing. Although I'm american, my husband is eastern european. He had never heard of a Christian or non-religious male being cut before coming here. In other countries, circumcision is for religious purposes.

 

[BlondGirl]

<<<"
Parents with uncircumcized boys should encourage them to retract the foreskin when they wash and when they urinate.
">>>

This is untrue--
You must wait until your child's foreskin naturally opens on its own-for some kids, that is at 4, for others, it is at 6 or 8--and it shoud never EVER be a painful thing.

 

[cymbidia]

A history of non-religious circumcision in America

Synopsis: Circumcision in America, the only country in the entire world to routinely and unthinkingly practice such barbarity, is waning. Educated people everywhere have realized there is no medical basis or need for such a procedure and are refusing it for thier sons unless medically necessary. As the elite do, so follow the rest of American society. Within a couple decades, most boys will not be circumcised as a matter of course in America, as is already true everywhere else in the world.


The subject of male circumcision is highly taboo in America. Most men would prefer not to think or talk about circumcision, and can become defensive when the subject is brought up. Many American men have never even seen an intact human penis.

Circumcision is not a benign surgery. Besides destroying a significant segment of the male's sexual equipment, it has a significant complication rate. Serious complications - severe hemorrhage, infection, loss of entire penis, or death - occur as often as 1 in every 500 circumcisions. According to one study, "Death as a complication from newborn circumcision has been estimated to occur in from 1 in 24,000 to 1 in approximately 500,000 cases".

These figures suggest that, with 1.2 million circumcisions performed in this country each year, at least 3 boys die each year, and for no other reason than that they were born in the United States. Prospective parents are not given these facts.

The U.S. is the only Western nation that surgically alters its boys in this manner. Everywhere else in the world, EVERYWHERE else, non-religious circumcision is extremely rare and performed for medical reasons only. In all these countries, intact males do not suffer from any of the diseases and discomforts claimed by American proponents of circumcision.

Genitally-intact Europeans are often very amused to hear the notions circumcised Americans have about the normal human penis. Notions about improved hygiene after circumcision appear ludicrous to intact men. The European medical community condemns the U.S. for a practice they call a barbaric violation of human rights. Europeans believe that males have a basic human right to an intact penis, a right to keep the body they were born with, and a right to body ownership and autonomy. For them it is a question of respect and dignity.

Men's Bodies

The foreskin is one of the most erotically sensitive parts of the penis. It represents 50% to 80% of the skin system of the penis, depending on the length of the penile shaft. It is a unique and highly complex organ. The average foreskin has over three feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerve fibers, and over 1,000 nerve endings. If unfolded, the adult foreskin would measure 20 to 30 square inches.

The foreskin plays a large role in sexual function. When sexually aroused, its lips expand and unroll over the glans. The glans stimulates the foreskin, and the foreskin stimulates the glans. The foreskin functions much like the eyelid. The inside of the foreskin and the glans of the normal penis are glistening and red, just like the inside of the mouth. The foreskin has glands that produce a natural moisturizer and lubricant called smegma. Smegma serves the same purpose as tears do in the eye: it keeps everything moist, clean, and lubricated.

Men's History

Why and how did this practice of routine infant circumcision begin in the United States?

Non-religious circumcision was introduced into this country on a very small scale in the 1860s for a single purpose - to stop masturbation. Circumcision was used as a deliberate surgical intervention to debilitate and desensitize the penis.

During the Victorian era, physicians believed that almost all sexual activity was dangerous to physical and emotional health. Masturbation was viewed as the most dangerous form of sexuality and was named as the cause of every known disease, from blindness to nervousness, insanity, venereal disease, tuberculosis, and death. With every credible American doctor and medical association issuing dire warnings about masturbation, all steps taken towards its prevention were deemed justified.

A remedy for masturbation was seen in the form of circumcision. The operation was performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic as the pain of the operation was supposed to produce a horror of touching the penis ever after.

By the turn of the century, circumcision had become the norm in america for all young boys, and especially the boys born to wealth. Additionally, by this time, amputation of the foreskin had been "scientifically proven" to cure and prevent diseases ranging from insanity to epilepsy, malnutrition, hip-joint disease, paralysis, eczema, tuberculosis, headache, hysteria, alcoholism, criminality, and heart disease.

In 1928, the American Medical Association published an editorial in its journal calling for the routine circumcision of all male infants at birth. The primary justification for routine circumcision was the prevention of masturbation.

During World Wars I and II, many soldiers were forcibly circumcised by military doctors under threat of court martial. Therefore, returning WWII veterans were conditioned to believe that circumcision was the only correct thing to do. They were told it was hygienic, that it prevented disease, and that conformity was necessary. Young parents were not allowed to object when their newborn boys were automatically circumcised after being delivered in hospitals; in reality they had no choice. At that time, hospitals did not require parental consent to perform this surgery and virtually all American hospitals did them automatically, without even telling the parents it was to be done.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, this abusive situation was reformed. Hospitals and doctors were required to obtain informed consent from patients for any medical or surgical procedure. Circumcision now required consent before a doctor was legally allowed to amputate, but since a baby is unable to give his consent, parents were assumed to have the power to give consent on behalf of the baby.

By the early 1970s, over 90% of newborn boys were automatically circumcised. In 1971, the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the medical literature on circumcision and determined that circumcision, after all, was not medically valid. The circumcision rate began to fall dramatically. New medical excuses continue to be invented for the surgery, but all have been disproved by European studies.

Men's Awakening

In the 1980s, an awakening began with regard to this issue. Many American men began to realize that something important had been taken from them, something that was a normal and natural part of their body. Many began to question the myths which told them that their genitals were inherently "dirty" and in need of surgical reduction.

Today, American men in increasing numbers are becoming aware that they had a right to all of their reproductive organs and that no one had the right to remove part of their body. Men are now demanding the right to control their own sexual organs.

Marilyn Fayre Milos, a registered California nurse, founded the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. NOCIRC is now the nation's leading human rights organization for body ownership rights. The National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM) was founded by Tim Hammond in 1992 in San Francisco, and has awakened millions of men to this men's movement issue. One recent NOHARMM survey of hundreds of victims of circumcision proves the lifelong negative consequences of this sexual alteration.

Men's Destiny

American men, especially those who are educated, are well on thier way to understanding that nature knows more about designing the penis than do American doctors. Parents do not have the right to force circumcision on their sons. The only person who has the right to consent to the amputation of a normal, healthy, functioning body part is the person who must live with the consequences.

Many circumcised American males unnecessarily feel uneasy and threatened by the men's pro-choice movement. However, the movement against infant circumcision is no threat to circumcised men. The men's pro-choice movement is fighting for the freedom of American males to keep the sexual organs nature intended them to have. Parents have nothing to lose and everything to gain by leaving their sons intact. Permitting their offspring the dignity of an intact body and protecting the basic human right to self-autonomy is both good and noble. Everyone has the right to an intact body.

~~~~

My 5 year-old son, Connor, is intact.
I hope that when he grows up, he's among an ever-increasing group of educated and open-minded men who, throughout this new century, will have sons of their own, new little American boys who are left as they were born, with all thier parts intact.

 

[BlondGirl]

I have read often that most cases of "medically necessary" circumcision were due to medical lack of knowledge. If your doctor has never had a foreskin and never dealt with one and has no experience in treating a foreskin when the rare one with a problem presents itself, they will remove it simply for convenince.
It is easier to chop off that body part than it is to treat it from the medical POV.

The adrenal glands were once removed out of ignorace also.

(I wonder just how sensitive my clit would be if it was rubbed all day long by my clothes. No wonder there are so many men suffering from impotence. Heavy sigh.)

 

[StevenWill]

Well said

Well said BlondGirl, and hello from a native Houstonian. Stay dry during all this rain!

steve