un cirumsized

[Sophz_Kandi]

I like you

I like your erm,.. towel.

*cough*

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I prefer Un-Cut.

More meat for the packin.
Never a bad thing

Oh yes, it all adds to a guy's girth. Foreskin is never wasted IMHO.

I appreciate that some people are circumsised for religious reasons but as I understand it, this procedure is supposed to happen to a guy within a few days of birth. It's not advocated in religious doctrine for adult males.

Yes, some adult males require circumcisions for medial reasons. This doesn't appear to be the case with the OP though.

So if we put those issues aside, for what reason would he have this procedure? Because one woman has said she won't give him a BJ? What kind of rational thinking is that?

HFY, I'm sure you're devoted to this woman but is she really worth this? Do you think she'd have a painful surgical procedure (with the attendant risks of infection etc) Just so that you'd go down on her?

She sounds immature. That is not a reason to go get the snip.

 

[Mercury_Maniac]

I like your erm,.. towel.

*cough*

thats not all i hope

 

[aimouse]

To clarity a small point, in most cases, circucision is NOT done for religious reasons, rather it IS done for cultural reasons.
It's a semantic point, but an important one.

And in most cases such prescriptions are rooted in times when soap & emphasis on personal hygene weren't quite as prevalent as they are now.

I could go on, but this is turning into a hi-jack, so I won't.

 

[age_matters]

is circumcision painful?

 

[Lalah]

I'd say modifying your body just to please hypothetical future conquests is a bad idea. You can never please everyone no matter what you do, so basing your decisions on perceived social pressures isn't too wise. The only person you can please is yourself. Are you comfortable like you are or would you be happier circumcised?

If you want my opinion on the subject I don't mind either, but I'm thinking about stopping having sex with circumcised guys because I'm getting sick of this whole debate.

 

[age_matters]

I'd say modifying your body just to please hypothetical future conquests is a bad idea. You can never please everyone no matter what you do, so basing your decisions on perceived social pressures isn't too wise. The only person you can please is yourself. Are you comfortable like you are or would you be happier circumcised?

If you want my opinion on the subject I don't mind either, but I'm thinking about stopping having sex with circumcised guys because I'm getting sick of this whole debate.

whao!

i have an uncircumsized one...

 

[boredgeek]

Is it painful? I'd have to go with yes. I read somewhere that even though the baby "forgets" about the pain as they age, it is still sore and painful for a month or so after the procedure. Certainly not going to put my kid through that when/if I have a boy.

Plus being uncircumcised means I can masturbate without lube and not worry about friction burns, hurray!

 

[age_matters]

Is it painful? I'd have to go with yes. I read somewhere that even though the baby "forgets" about the pain as they age, it is still sore and painful for a month or so after the procedure. Certainly not going to put my kid through that when/if I have a boy.

Plus being uncircumcised means I can masturbate without lube and not worry about friction burns, hurray!

interesting....
that'll put me off circumsizing

 

[VelvetDarkness]

is circumcision painful?

Yes.

It's a surgical procedure and in adult males it often requires stitches (though usually ones that dissolve after a few days and so don't need removing). It will be swollen for a while and not in a good way. Erections will be painful for a couple of weeks. All of them. Even the ones you get at 3am when you're fast asleep. Boxers and trousers will be uncomfortable. The head of the penis will gradually become used to life without a protective foreskin but in the meantime it will be sensitive to everything. There will also be a healing wound so there is a risk of infection.

Still want one?

 

[Paxter]

I certainly don't fancy the idea of any one taking my foreskin away. So I'm going to keep it. After all, as boredgeek pointed out I don't need to use lube when masturbating/being masturbated. I can keep my precious lube for other activities.

 

[FurryFury]

So i dont know if this belongs here but i was wondering what your thoughts were on uncirumsized dicks? cause my first girlfreind didnt mind, but my second one didnt want to give me a bj.

I'm all for them. I can't believe any truly thinking and caring person would get their son's cock cut on unless it were for a religious issue.

People in this country act really juvenile about this issue.

 

[age_matters]

Yes.

It's a surgical procedure and in adult males it often requires stitches (though usually ones that dissolve after a few days and so don't need removing). It will be swollen for a while and not in a good way. Erections will be painful for a couple of weeks. All of them. Even the ones you get at 3am when you're fast asleep. Boxers and trousers will be uncomfortable. The head of the penis will gradually become used to life without a protective foreskin but in the meantime it will be sensitive to everything. There will also be a healing wound so there is a risk of infection.

Still want one?

no thanks

not for myself...

 

[SweetErika]

Erika, I have agreed with every single one of your posts, except this one. The fact of the matter is circumcision is a religious ritual with significance to billions of people. Labeling those people as "mutilated" is extremely normative. Moreover, as evidenced by the fact that there are billions of them, it's apparent that male circumcision does not generally impede sexual response or function.

There are circumstances in which adult men require circumcision and/or choose circumcision for medical reasons. It does reduce the risk of penile cancer, transmission of HPV and possibly HIV.

If you don't find it attractive, fine. If you don't belong to a religion that engages in circumcision, fine. If you wouldn't have your son or lover circumcised, fine. I'm really surprised, given your usual voice of reason, that you'd make a blanket statement about those who have different tastes, beliefs, or parenting choices.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about people who are circumcised for religious or medical reasons. I disagree with genital mutilation based on religious doctrines, but I respect other people who believe it's an important, time honored, part of their faith.

As for doing it for medical reasons, OF COURSE I agree with that! I would certainly advocate for my male loved ones to have it done in the case of injury or unretractable foreskin that couldn't be fixed with less extreme measure or anything else that required the foreskin to be removed.

I don't consider reducing the risk of disease to be a good argument for prophylactic circumcision. STDs can be prevented other ways, and the risk of penile cancer is very, very small for ALL men (there are only 9-10 cases per MILLION in the US each year). It's MUCH smaller than breast cancer, yet we don't advocate for prophylactic breast removal unless it's almost certain the woman will get breast cancer. Likewise, I'm sure a small number of people get cancer on their earlobes; earloabes aren't strictly necessary (ears function without them), yet we don't encourage people to cut them off just in case they might get cancer down the line.

I'm sorry you object to my use of 'mutilation' so strongly, but it's really the best word that comes to mind as a descriptor for a procedure that (apart from religious and medical reasons) doesn't serve a medical purpose, is irreversible and takes off a part of the body that DOES have a purpose. Most people don't blink at cutting off girls' bits being called 'female genital mutilation' and I honestly don't see how cutting off foreskins is any different from that, so it deserves the same descriptor in my mind. So, given that, what would be a better synonym for 'mutilation' in your mind?

At the end of the day, MOST circumcisions are done for purely cosmetic reasons or out of sheer ignorance. Parents are afraid of their sons looking different than Dad or the circumcised boys in the locker room. Or, men want to look like the guys they see in porn, or do it because their partner thinks a cut cock is more attractive. A lot of people who have it done to their kids simply don't know any different because it's been routine in some countries for a long time.

Fortunately, more parents and men are getting educated on what circumcision really is, does and how painful and upsetting it can be. Most hospitals aren't doing it routinely, and some aren't doing it at all anymore; they require parents to take their sons to the pediatrician or another doc to have it done. Routine circumcision hasn't been recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for YEARS. Many insurance companies aren't paying for it unless it's medically necessary. Therefore, the requests for infant circumcision are declining and more and more American males are intact -- as they should be until they can make the decision for themselves.

If my stance on circumcision makes me unreasonable to you, so be it. I'm perfectly happy being in the company of millions (or billions, most likely) of intelligent, informed medical professionals, parents, men and women who have come to the same "unreasonable" conclusions on the issue based on "crazy" things like science, logic, fact and evidence.

 

[hehe_for_you]

oh, i would never get cut haha. I love my cock, just wondering what the general opinion on cut vs. uncut was, looks like us Americans are really the only people who care. I always wondered if guys who are cut could masterbate dry? Cuz i find it crazy painful if my skin is rolled back to far and rubs agaisnt my boxers or something.

BTW Sophiz or whatever, you're hot.

 

[satindesire]

*snip*


Most people don't blink at cutting off girls' bits being called 'female genital mutilation' and I honestly don't see how cutting off foreskins is any different from that, so it deserves the same descriptor in my mind. So, given that, what would be a better synonym for 'mutilation' in your mind?


*snip*

Most of the time, female genital mutilation is the removal of some or all of the clitoris, even the nerve roots. Sometimes it's only removing the clitoral hood, but cutting off the clitoral hood still prevents women from achieving orgasm. Cutting off a foreskin does not USUALLY affect a man's ability to achieve orgasm. There is a serious difference between female genital modification and male genital modification.

 

[TallGentleman27]

I think it's genital mutilation, and I think it's barbaric. I think much of what has been done in the name of religion is barbaric. I imagine in another one or two hundred years that most people will not be cut. Unfortunately, I have been modified. However, we did not continue it with my son. Also unfortunately, I will never know what it feels like to have a foreskin, which has been part of humans for ever since we existed, until very recently.

When it comes to things that have worked for many tens of thousands of years of human history and comparing them to relatively new "scientific" or religious advances, I prefer the old stuff (for the most part).

 

[Pegger_Man]

I also think it should be seen for what it is - genital mutilation. I don't think we should accept religion as an excuse for its practice. There are areas in Africa where female genital mutilation is practised as part of the religious culture and it is rightly condemned by the wider world. I think it is high time we considered circumcision in the same light.

Of course it does not just affect the man concerned. A circumcised partner is known to be a significant contributory factor in dyspareunia (painful intercourse) in women.

 

[deaflepperd]

So i dont know if this belongs here but i was wondering what your thoughts were on uncirumsized dicks? cause my first girlfreind didnt mind, but my second one didnt want to give me a bj.

I've run into that before also. I'm uncirc'd, and I've only had one woman uncomfortable giving me a BJ. But she still did it (& I reciprocated)

More and more boys are staying intact, so this may not be an issue for future generations.

 

[SoleDesire]

I'm sorry you object to my use of 'mutilation' so strongly, but it's really the best word that comes to mind as a descriptor for a procedure that (apart from religious and medical reasons) doesn't serve a medical purpose, is irreversible and takes off a part of the body that DOES have a purpose. Most people don't blink at cutting off girls' bits being called 'female genital mutilation' and I honestly don't see how cutting off foreskins is any different from that, so it deserves the same descriptor in my mind. So, given that, what would be a better synonym for 'mutilation' in your mind?

My issue is not necessarily with your description of the process. It's with your description of the millions of people who've had it done. Would you partner appreciate you describing him as "mutilated"?

This reminds me of the ongoing war between two women in my family. One of them is Hispanic and from a culture that pierces the ears of baby girls. The other is very WASPy, didn't even have her ears pierced until she was in her 20s. When Woman 1 had her baby girl's ears pierced, Woman 2 had a fit. "How could you mutilate this beautiful, perfect child?! It's abuse!" Woman 1 became equally incensed -- "How can you look at my beautiful, perfect child and call her mutilated because she looks like every other beautiful perfect baby girl in my family? You're sick!"

I'm not comparing ear piercing to circumcision, but I am saying that when people start throwing out inflammatory words like "mutilation" about cultural/religious practices, nothing gets accomplished. A brief, unscientific poll of circumcised men of my acquaintance indicates that they don't see themselves as mutilated at all, thank you very much. And, interestingly enough, more than one uncircumcised man of my acquaintance has told me that he would have his son circumcised.

At the end of the day, MOST circumcisions are done for purely cosmetic reasons or out of sheer ignorance. Parents are afraid of their sons looking different than Dad or the circumcised boys in the locker room. Or, men want to look like the guys they see in porn, or do it because their partner thinks a cut cock is more attractive. A lot of people who have it done to their kids simply don't know any different because it's been routine in some countries for a long time.
...
If my stance on circumcision makes me unreasonable to you, so be it. I'm perfectly happy being in the company of millions (or billions, most likely) of intelligent, informed medical professionals, parents, men and women who have come to the same "unreasonable" conclusions on the issue based on "crazy" things like science, logic, fact and evidence.

It is ALWAYS unreasonable to assume that people who make different choices than you do are simply ignorant. Or that they make those choices for stupid or shallow reasons. How can anyone listen when you start from that standpoint?

I'm having a tremendous problem with this thread, not necessarily because I believe in circumcision per se, but because, God, you people sound so ethnocentric. It's barbaric, it's only cultural, blah blah blah... Do you not realize how that sounds to the people you're denigrating? People who, btw, DO make up the majority of the world -- they just are too busy making your computers to buy their own. Am I the only person on Lit who looked at the study this week that showed that the majority of surveyed people in countries across the world viewed Americans as arrogant?

Again, it accomplishes nothing to label. This week, there was also a demonstration by African women for FGM, saying that it helped them be good, virtuous women. They showed the "implements" used to perform FGM, blades that were blunted and/or unsterilized. I don't believe in FGM, but these women are offended that the west views them as savages. Why not start with teaching them basic methods of sterilization and maintaining surgical implements, instead of denigrating their whole culture? They love their children, just like we do; they don't want them to get sick or die. Tell them they're barbarians, they won't listen to a single word, and more little girls die of infection. Give them respect for the human beings that they are, and you may eventually be able to persuade them to stop FGM altogether.

The OP wanted to know if not being circumcised would bother women. The answer is, sometimes yes, but you can reduce the chances of that being bothersome by engaging in some specific hygiene practices. Personally, I'm glad to have that information, not because I have a penis at all, but it's good to know.

 

[Laila_Aurora]

...................

 

[SweetErika]

SoleDesire, you're twisting words (mine and others') and doing some other things that don't have a place in civil discussion/debate, so I'm not going to engage with you on this topic anymore.

 

[SweetErika]

....
I have had wonderful times with uncut men. and without any odor (because *suprise!* they were clean)

PLEASE think it through...PLEASE.

Yep, and anyone considering it may want to read these threads about guys' post op experiences:
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=318223
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=521886

There are more, but those were in The Blank Manual sticky.

 

[deaflepperd]

The thought of someone cutting on me "down there" just makes me ill. I like the little guy just the way he is. Wait. I didn't mean little guy...I meant....well you knwo what I meant.

 

[gregor2001us]

Yeah, I wasn't talking about people who are circumcised for religious or medical reasons. I disagree with genital mutilation based on religious doctrines, but I respect other people who believe it's an important, time honored, part of their faith.

As for doing it for medical reasons, OF COURSE I agree with that! I would certainly advocate for my male loved ones to have it done in the case of injury or unretractable foreskin that couldn't be fixed with less extreme measure or anything else that required the foreskin to be removed.

I don't consider reducing the risk of disease to be a good argument for prophylactic circumcision. STDs can be prevented other ways, and the risk of penile cancer is very, very small for ALL men (there are only 9-10 cases per MILLION in the US each year). It's MUCH smaller than breast cancer, yet we don't advocate for prophylactic breast removal unless it's almost certain the woman will get breast cancer. Likewise, I'm sure a small number of people get cancer on their earlobes; earloabes aren't strictly necessary (ears function without them), yet we don't encourage people to cut them off just in case they might get cancer down the line.

I'm sorry you object to my use of 'mutilation' so strongly, but it's really the best word that comes to mind as a descriptor for a procedure that (apart from religious and medical reasons) doesn't serve a medical purpose, is irreversible and takes off a part of the body that DOES have a purpose. Most people don't blink at cutting off girls' bits being called 'female genital mutilation' and I honestly don't see how cutting off foreskins is any different from that, so it deserves the same descriptor in my mind. So, given that, what would be a better synonym for 'mutilation' in your mind?

At the end of the day, MOST circumcisions are done for purely cosmetic reasons or out of sheer ignorance. Parents are afraid of their sons looking different than Dad or the circumcised boys in the locker room. Or, men want to look like the guys they see in porn, or do it because their partner thinks a cut cock is more attractive. A lot of people who have it done to their kids simply don't know any different because it's been routine in some countries for a long time.

Fortunately, more parents and men are getting educated on what circumcision really is, does and how painful and upsetting it can be. Most hospitals aren't doing it routinely, and some aren't doing it at all anymore; they require parents to take their sons to the pediatrician or another doc to have it done. Routine circumcision hasn't been recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for YEARS. Many insurance companies aren't paying for it unless it's medically necessary. Therefore, the requests for infant circumcision are declining and more and more American males are intact -- as they should be until they can make the decision for themselves.

If my stance on circumcision makes me unreasonable to you, so be it. I'm perfectly happy being in the company of millions (or billions, most likely) of intelligent, informed medical professionals, parents, men and women who have come to the same "unreasonable" conclusions on the issue based on "crazy" things like science, logic, fact and evidence.

Well worded Sweet Erica!!

This obviously is a touchy subject, but you have done a very good job of providing your views and making a balanced presentation.

For those who do not feel that the word "mutilation" is a good one to use, I can understand your reasoning. But you also need to understand the reasoning behind using the term "mutialtion", beyond the fact that in some peoples eyes it is. While i cannot speak for Sweet Erica or others, I can give my feelings about why I support usiing this term. In short it is the RIC issue. Routine Infant Circumcision. If only adults were circ'd, then it is no big deal, do what you will and enjoy the consequences, be they good or bad.

But our society currently, and our medical community especially have a prevasive way of pushing routine infant circumcision, in a very passive-agressive way. The loss of sexual function, change in appearance, and risks are continually minimized, if they even come up. Mostly they are left unsaid. And this is the US, a place where we have adopted such ideals as "first do no harm", "parents and doctors are legally compelled to advocate for the childs best interests", where there is a great body of decision making that guides one through balancing the advantages vs dissadvantages of a particular action, and where doctors cannot be compelled to provide care that is against their ethics.

But all of this seems to fly out the window when RIC comes up. The advantages are stated in isolation and with solid conviction, as if well supported and able to stand on their own. This creates a situation where parents are NOT given the information needed to make a thoughtful decision.

So I feel it is important to shake this mindset up a bit. As has been done with FGM. If someone say that it is no big deal, millions of people have a great sex life circ'd so it can't be a big issues, then it is equally valid to say it results in mutilation and it hurts your ability to have sex and is morally and legally wrong to do to a child. Both may be considered extreme simplifications, both are equally valid. And both help make the point that the speaker/writer feels is important to make.

Regards