Cut or uncut

[dazzleman]

I find it nauseating.

Isn't nauseating a pretty strong word for what we're talking about?

[565]

Currently circumcision is done purely due to cultural/religious reasons in the US.  The vast majority of the time, little boys tend to look like their fathers.  If you are used to seeing your dick a certain way, you expect your kid's dick to look the same.

In terms of actual health benefit, there really isn't one in our society.  There were some people that studied STD transmission rates/ incidence of squamous cell carcinoma.  The relationship was weak at best on poorly powered studies.  Most of the effects were negated if you practiced any sort of hygene on it.  The people who try to claim any sort of benefit are trying to relay on those crappy studies, but the American society of pediatrics does not support these.  There is a interesting point in HIV transmission rates in a series of trials exclusively in sub saharian african males, but that is an extremely controversial (and ethically controversial) topic, and wasn't found in studies elsewhere, mostly likely due to a complete lack of penis hygene practiced there.

On the other hand, though relatively rare, there are some true risks to circumcision especially as you get older, and when I was on the urology service there was some seriously blotched circumcisions that resulted in mutilated/loss penises.

One thing I will say is that all the male medical students that actually witnessed the circumcision process first hand vowed never to get their children circumcised.  It is also one of the most poorly regulated "operations" in healthcare today. 

For most real operations, there is a surgeon, who scrubs into the case with sterile gloves, in a laminar flow regulated operating room, with completely sterile drapes/ tools/ gloves etc, with a decade of training in sterile technique.  Even with minor procedures, you follow a simplified sterile techinque.  When you sign off on your kid being circumcised.  You would expect that it will be a pediatric surgeon that will be cutting carefully into your little baby's penis, with your baby under careful anesthesia, in some sort of regulated OR setting.

But really here is the truth.  Usually it's not surgeons, but rather pediatricians or ob/gyns with virtually no surgical training, adhering to pseudo sterile techniques, without the use of any real anesthesia performing the surgery, usually in your baby's crib or a back table by the nursery.  Usually female doctors (because men naturally cringe that the thought of doing this) perform it with a disturbing air of detachment.   They often smear a anesthetic cream onto the penis instead of using true local anesthetic.  First off, this barely numbs any skin when used correctly (given time to work into the skin).  But the pediatricians never bother to wait for it to work.  Then they take a set of clamps and stick it into the foreskin, and stretch it out to break up adhesions.  This part is particularlly gruesome.  Then they pull the foreskin into this metal collar thing, and then a circular knife is swung around a template.  They don't really see what they are cutting, and honestly I think they miss alot of the time and end up cutting too much or too little.  They don't bother stitching up the wound, because stitching up a small wound like that requires good surgical skill.  They leave it open, and put an antibotic gel over it to scar in.  Of course the foreskin isn't exactly a hugely important organ, so it doesn't matter too much functionally.  But if you noticed you've got a funny looking penis, or someone else has a funny looking penis around the foreskin area, it's probably due to careless circumcision. 

It's funny to see the occasional circumcision done by an actual trained pediatric surgeon in the OR.  It's a careful procedure where they don't use the metal collar template and rotating knife, but rather very very careful disection through each layer, and fine closure with small sutures. It takes over 1 hour to do correctly, compared to the typical 4 minutes the pediatrican takes at the cribside.

[Rupert]

And there you go. Doc 565 has spoken.

[hotrodalex]

Currently circumcision is done purely due to cultural/religious reasons in the US.  The vast majority of the time, little boys tend to look like their fathers.  If you are used to seeing your dick a certain way, you expect your kid's dick to look the same.

In terms of actual health benefit, there really isn't one in our society.  There were some people that studied STD transmission rates/ incidence of squamous cell carcinoma.  The relationship was weak at best on poorly powered studies.  Most of the effects were negated if you practiced any sort of hygene on it.  The people who try to claim any sort of benefit are trying to relay on those crappy studies, but the American society of pediatrics does not support these.  There is a interesting point in HIV transmission rates in a series of trials exclusively in sub saharian african males, but that is an extremely controversial (and ethically controversial) topic, and wasn't found in studies elsewhere, mostly likely due to a complete lack of penis hygene practiced there.

On the other hand, though relatively rare, there are some true risks to circumcision especially as you get older, and when I was on the urology service there was some seriously blotched circumcisions that resulted in mutilated/loss penises.

One thing I will say is that all the male medical students that actually witnessed the circumcision process first hand vowed never to get their children circumcised.  It is also one of the most poorly regulated "operations" in healthcare today. 

For most real operations, there is a surgeon, who scrubs into the case with sterile gloves, in a laminar flow regulated operating room, with completely sterile drapes/ tools/ gloves etc, with a decade of training in sterile technique.  Even with minor procedures, you follow a simplified sterile techinque.  When you sign off on your kid being circumcised.  You would expect that it will be a pediatric surgeon that will be cutting carefully into your little baby's penis, with your baby under careful anesthesia, in some sort of regulated OR setting.

But really here is the truth.  Usually it's not surgeons, but rather pediatricians or ob/gyns with virtually no surgical training, adhering to pseudo sterile techniques, without the use of any real anesthesia performing the surgery, usually in your baby's crib or a back table by the nursery.  Usually female doctors (because men naturally cringe that the thought of doing this) perform it with a disturbing air of detachment.   They often smear a anesthetic cream onto the penis instead of using true local anesthetic.  First off, this barely numbs any skin when used correctly (given time to work into the skin).  But the pediatricians never bother to wait for it to work.  Then they take a set of clamps and stick it into the foreskin, and stretch it out to break up adhesions.  This part is particularlly gruesome.  Then they pull the foreskin into this metal collar thing, and then a circular knife is swung around a template.  They don't really see what they are cutting, and honestly I think they miss alot of the time and end up cutting too much or too little.  They don't bother stitching up the wound, because stitching up a small wound like that requires good surgical skill.  They leave it open, and put an antibotic gel over it to scar in.  Of course the foreskin isn't exactly a hugely important organ, so it doesn't matter too much functionally.  But if you noticed you've got a funny looking penis, or someone else has a funny looking penis around the foreskin area, it's probably due to careless circumcision. 

It's funny to see the occasional circumcision done by an actual trained pediatric surgeon in the OR.  It's a careful procedure where they don't use the metal collar template and rotating knife, but rather very very careful disection through each layer, and fine closure with small sutures. It takes over 1 hour to do correctly, compared to the typical 4 minutes the pediatrican takes at the cribside.

Eh, it's not like the baby will remember any pain after a few days.

[Eye of the Tiger]

It should be illegal.

[Onslaught]

Most guys in porn are cut.

[GoCougs]

Isn't nauseating a pretty strong word for what we're talking about?

Maybe, but that's my reaction.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Most guys in porn are cut.

Oh, so if you want your kid to be a porn star, go ahead...

[Onslaught]

Oh, so if you want your kid to be a porn star, go ahead...

I don't want a kid. I just want to practice making them. And you need to be cut to do that. 

[Laconian]

Unless you've built up callouses or scar tissue, I would disagree.

No, it's true. The foreskin is full of nerve endings, and the head is much more sensitive to touch when it is kept inside its protective casing.

You can purchase artificial foreskins that are made of silicone rubber. They keep the head from chafing. When worn for an extended period of time, they enhance the sensation for circumcised men significantly - and that's still just a fraction of what uncut men normally feel, since they also have the foreskin.

[Laconian]

Most guys in porn are cut.

They look better but that's about it. And Semitic religions love the fact that it makes masturbation less fun.

[Cookie Monster]

So, the reasons I've seen in this thread to cut are: societal norms (but seriously, who gives a fuck if someone else is cut or not?), questionable hygiene issues (never had any) and it grosses Coug's out.

The reasons not to cut: don't chafe, no questionable circumcision practices, and when he gets older, makes jizzing more fun.

Obviously not cutting is better.

[MrH]

I knew a guy in college who was horribly self conscious because he wasn't.

Cut.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I knew a guy in college who was horribly self conscious because he wasn't.

Cut.

He has a choice.
Babies don't.

[93JC]

I don't really see the point in circumcision. I'm not religious so that's moot, and there's nothing unhealthy about having a foreskin. A foreskin might have introduced health complications in the distant past when society was much less hygienic but it's not an issue today, not when most men bathe at least once a day.


EDIT: LOL @ GoCougs' crazy revulsive feelings about uncircumcised penises.

[NomisR]

You don't know dick about dicks. You'll disagree with anything just to be a troll.

He's an expert on dicks obviously, he's seen and smelled plenty of them to judge.

[mzziaz]

Beat me to it

[r0tor]

Oh, so if you want your kid to be a porn star, go ahead...

Umm who wouldn't?

[omicron]

I don't really see the point in circumcision. I'm not religious so that's moot, and there's nothing unhealthy about having a foreskin. A foreskin might have introduced health complications in the distant past when society was much less hygienic but it's not an issue today, not when most men bathe at least once a day.


EDIT: LOL @ GoCougs' crazy revulsive feelings about uncircumcised penises.

+1

[Eye of the Tiger]

No, it's true. The foreskin is full of nerve endings, and the head is much more sensitive to touch when it is kept inside its protective casing.

You can purchase artificial foreskins that are made of silicone rubber. They keep the head from chafing. When worn for an extended period of time, they enhance the sensation for circumcised men significantly - and that's still just a fraction of what uncut men normally feel, since they also have the foreskin.

No. You need to get a tugging kit. You pull what skin you have left into a cone with a strap or a weight on it. I may not develop a mucous membrane, but it'll be better than nothin.

[GoCougs]

Most guys in porn are cut.

Ewww - imagine the health and hygiene (H&H) consequences of that profession. Dudes gotta be cut.

[GoCougs]

No, it's true. The foreskin is full of nerve endings, and the head is much more sensitive to touch when it is kept inside its protective casing.

You can purchase artificial foreskins that are made of silicone rubber. They keep the head from chafing. When worn for an extended period of time, they enhance the sensation for circumcised men significantly - and that's still just a fraction of what uncut men normally feel, since they also have the foreskin.

If the nerves are still there and the skin isn't compromised I'm having trouble seeing how actually. Could be in the mind (the biggest sex organ high school health class drilled into our collective heads). And my somewhat anecdotal observation (using the term loosely) of the two guys I know who got cut in their adult years (both Indian) says uncut is much better - both cleanliness and feeling.

Never really had chaffing issues, other than when I was abusing myself when having myself of course.

[Madman]

This is a horribly barbaric practice that should be outlawed!  Subjecting defenceless children to this sort of mutilation (in most cases without any form of anesthetic) is the height of infant cruelty.

[Onslaught]

Kids have all kinds of shit happen to them. You ever see one get it's shots? The damn needle is as big as his body. I was a baby at one time and I was cut.
I don't recall any of it and I'm happy my parents had it done. If not I'd be some freak with skin all over the end of my wang.

[Rupert]

The more I think about it (not that I think about these things often... *shiftyeyes*), the more it seems like brutal genital mutilation.

[Madman]

The more I think about it (not that I think about these things often... *shiftyeyes*), the more it seems like brutal genital mutilation.

That's because it is.

[cawimmer430]

Ah, a bodily modification!

Why not give the little guy a boob job while we're at it? 

[dazzleman]

The more I think about it (not that I think about these things often... *shiftyeyes*), the more it seems like brutal genital mutilation.

Cutting the whole thing off would be.

[68_427]

Kids have all kinds of shit happen to them. You ever see one get it's shots? The damn needle is as big as his body. I was a baby at one time and I was cut.
I don't recall any of it and I'm happy my parents had it done. If not I'd be some freak with skin all over the end of my wang.

Lol.  Like

[Rupert]

Cutting the whole thing off would be.

No, that would be amputation. Mutilation implies bloody deformation, not amputation.