Guys: I have a personal question for you. Just curious...

And someone said I should create a poll

If you were circumcised as a baby, do you regret it?

I was, and I have nothing to compare it to, so I can neither regret nor not.

It hasn't caused any problems, so I've got no regrets.

i like it this way, nice and clean, with a pin stripe. it's sporty this way!

:evilgrin:

but they are all forgiven.

"I'm out there, yvr girl and I'm Looovin' every minute of it"

(Not that there's anything wrong with that)

for several reasons.

i'm incredibly jealous of my intact brethren.

only those who were circumcised as adults can truly HAVE a preference. Anyone else just is as they were born or is as they were made to be shortly after birth.

(My husband pointed that out.)

It's like me saying "yes, I prefer having two feet, thankyouverymuch."

The part about regrets, though, is something that could be different.

But I'm sure the subject has come up. You can't believe they don't swap stories.

I'm just asking how they can have a preference if they have nothing to compare it to.

You can't PREFER to be circumcised if you weren't intact long enough to have any memory of it. A preference needs a comparison.

Now a man who was circumcised as an adult--he can truly voice a preference.

;-)

(And I don't know any men who were....)

(And I'm really not too sure this subject comes up too often among men.)

about the benefits, and drawbacks, of the nature of my member with anyone else.

If it works why complain.

A little tight now, but it adds length and I can do silly things with it.

You had it floating in a jar somewhere? I didn't know this was something you could change back.

but there is the misnamed foreskin restoration procedure. Many men have done it (it's not necessarily medical in nature).

It sounds like it would be invasive, uncomfortable, and probably costly, assuming insurance doesn't cover it.

Right?

I mean, an uncut man has not experienced the extra sensation the foreskin provides, so how would they know they're missing it?

on edit:
Oh, uh, LOL, what Bouncy said already. :)

i love mine -- and i love most others too.
i even love yours tjdee.;-)

I prefer sex, hygeine, and appearence as a circumcised guy.

My sexual drive started growing about a year before I was cut. I don't remember much about how things were like before I was snipped, because it was only a short period of time. I've gotten used to being circumsized for the past 10 years. I really didn't notice a difference.

The sensation's still there. I don't know if someone uncut would experience greater pleasure or if it's just a visual thing that excites some people.

and he said he doesn't mind.

just answering for him since he's SO shy

Can't regret what I couldn't control! Newborns aren't known for decision-making skills. :D

I have worked in the field of Pathology as a histotechnician for about 13 years now. I have seen three penises removed (totally) for penile cancer.

They were all uncircumcised.

I don't know if a study has been done on that, or not.

The sad part is, those three guys lost more than I had to start with....:cry:

whereas the chance of all complications from circumcision are MUCH higher than that.

So I'd say in a cost-risk analysis, leaving it alone wins by a mile.

(Penile cancer is one of the most rare forms of cancer.)

I've never hear of any.

And, speaking as a guy, whatever those complications might be, I'll take them instead of even a 1% chance of penile cancer. The prior poster doesn't have stats, but I've heard from more than one source that penile cancer ONLY occurs in uncircumcised men.

The other thing is this: When the Nazis take over this country, the fact that so many gentiles are circumcised in America will make it all the harder for them to identify the Jews so they can take them away.

Redstone

the baby. They are very real, after all, this is surgery.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/ (Warning: photos)

That contains a list of possible complications. Any surgery carries risk with it.

The skin around it would constantly tear,causing bleeding (and, at one time, an infection). Many body fluids would irritate it (sweat, urine, etc).
I know that he thinks that he would have been better off uncircumsized-he did talk about it.

That'd be me.

And it was a very, very good decision.


Now...I just want to start a count-down until the first person posts a comparison between surgical circumcision and genital mutilation...

10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1..

Why? Totally personal question, and don't answer if you don't want to but - why? Most guys I know would cringe at the thought of the surgery.

The reason is that my foreskin was slightly too small for my erection. This is quite common.

When I became regularly sexually active, it would get tiny tears, not unlike paper-cuts, which hurt like all get-out, and, needless to say, increased the risk of contracting blood-borne STDs if a condom broke (and when I entered into a condom-less relationship with my GF). They weren't large enough to bleed, but the skin was broken, and a break in the skin is a break in the skin.

So... at age 21, I was clipped, under a general anesthetic, and after about a week of rather uncomfortable oversensitivity, I was back in the saddle, so to speak.

But the best news was that sex was far more enjoyable, too. It's true that there are nerve-endings in the foreskin, but losing them didn't cause me to lose any sensation, and my personal theory is that what you "gain" in sensitivity by having a foreskin, you "lose" in sensitivity by having that foreskin partially covering other nerve endings.

So there you go.

More about CanuckAmok than you ever wanted to know, I'm sure.

With a foreskin you have all the nerve endings you were born with. Without it, you don't.

Hey at least you got to make the decision as an adult. That's what I agree with.

And a question (I've done research on this topic, ever since I found out I was pregnant over 10 years ago), because there is a medical theory about adhesions (what you described): when you were a child, were YOU allowed to retract your foreskin when it was finally detached, or did someone (mom, a well-meaning doctor) forcibly retract it, or do you know?

They've found that forcible retraction done before the foreskin is retractable is the #1 cause of adhesions. So the rule nowdays is "only the owner of the penis should be retracting anything."

You certainly don't have to answer any of this......I know it's quite a personal subject.

I was raised in England, so bathroom stuff was pretty much an avoided topic. Of course, if I had gone to boarding school or been a Member of Parliamnent, I'm sure things would have been different.

As far as the nerve ending theory... even when fully-retracted, the foreskin has to be "somewhere"...even if it's all bunched up toward the base, it's still covering a part of the penis which is exposed if one is circumcised.

I've been intimately familiar with an intact penis for fifteen years now and I've never seen that bad boy bunched up at the base.

That's why I was confused. It's not covering anything, especially when....ready to go.

It doesn't matter anyway. If you are happy, that's all that counts. I just object to taking the choice away from a boy before he has any say in it. (Routine infant circumcision) I say let him decide.

And the good thing for most intact men and boys is that very precious few ever choose to or have to get circed as an adult. I think the number is somewhere around 1-2%.

... that's different for every guy, re: bunching up. I guess it varies according to individual proportions.

Or something. Ha. :D

Thanks.

Where's the blushing icon?

I didn't mean that 'proportions' remark in an insulting way, if that's what you mean. The proportions of the foreskin. :D

I didn't take it that way at all. In fact, I'm now assuming Mr. Bouncy's fits him perfectly!

I can only speak for myself, but I swear sexual sensation is far more intense without a foreskin.

But I have never seen a legitimate article arguing the option of adult circumcision. But I've seen many "legitimate" statements comparing circumcision to genital mutilation, which is...if you'll pardon the expression, "a stretch".

Many guys don't get vasectomies, either, when they clearly could/should. There's something about having someone waving a scalpel around your goodies which understandably makes most men uneasy.

Footnote: I have a friend who was circumcised (under a gneral) around age 30 when he converted to Judaism, and he says there's no change at all in his enjoyment of sex, or comfort, or anything. Just goes to show you..."to each, his own".

I have not a problem in the WORLD with an adult male making that choice. He's an adult, they are HIS bits.

I just think babies should be given a chance to decide, especially because the chance of problems with the foreskin later are FAR lower than the risks involved in infant circumcision. Strictly from a cost-benefit analysis (which doctors do all the time), it doesn't make any sense to do it at birth.

Which is why so many insurance carriers are now labeling it "elective infant genital modification" and the like. They've pretty much given up the ghost on trying to say it cures problems, etc.

After all, it was first widely done to stop masturbation. We see how successful THAT was, LOL!

Really?

I did not know that.
Wow...that doesn't make any sense at all!

Stupid ancestors.

I even have some quotes from doctors and medical organizations around the turn of the century (19th to 20th--weird that we have to say that now) and they are quite eye-opening. Hell I'll get them now.

1860 "In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice to be continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantages; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate."
On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, Athol A. W. Johnson. The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.


1888 "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."

John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young," Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.

1891 "Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to patients of both sexes."
Jonathan Hutchinson, On Circumcision as Preventative of Masturbation, Archives of Surgery, vol. 2 (1891): pp. 267-268.

1895 "In all cases in which male children are suffering nerve tension, confirmed derangement of the digestive organs, restlessness, irritability, and other disturbances of the nervous system, even to chorea, convulsions, and paralysis, or where through nerve waste the nutritive facilities of the general system are below par and structural diseases are occurring, circumcision should be considered as among the lines of treatment to be pursued."

Charles E. Fisher, Circumcision, in A Hand-Book On the Diseases of Children and Their Homeopathic Treatment.. Chicago: Medical Century Co., 1895. p.875.

1895 "In all cases of masturbation circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally... To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice, not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm. It is true, however, that the longer it takes to have an orgasm, the less frequently it will be attempted, consequently the greater the benefit gained... The younger the patient operated upon the more pronounced the benefit, though occasionally we find patients who were circumcised before puberty that require a resection of the skin, as it has grown loose and pliant after that epoch."

E.J.Spratling, Masturbation in the Adult, Medical Record, vol. 24. (1895): pp. 442-443.

1899 "Not infrequently marital unhappiness would be better relieved by circumcising the husband than by suing for divorce."

A. W. Taylor, Circumcision - Its Moral and Physical Necessities and Advantages, Medical Record, vol.56 (1899): p.174.

1900 "It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitly sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein."

E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventative of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp.1869-1871.

1912 "Circumcision promotes cleanliness, prevents disease, and by reducing oversensitiveness of the parts tends to relieve sexual irritability, thus correcting any tendancy which may exist to improper manipulations of the genital organs and the consequent acquirement of evil sexual habits, such as masturbation."

Lydston G. Frank, Sex Hygiene for the Male Chicago: Riverton Press, 1912.

1915 "Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child's penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extreamly proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision."

L.W. Wuesthoff, MD. Benefits of Circumcision. Medical World, (1915) Vol.33. p.434.

1935 "I suggest that all male children should be circumcised. This is "against nature", but that is exactly the reason why it should be done. Nature intends that the adolescent male shall copulate as often and as promiscuously as possible, and to that end covers the sensitive glans so that it shall be ever ready to receive stimuli. Civilization, on the contrary, requires chastity, and the glans of the circumcised rapidly assumes a leathery texture less sensitive than skin. Thus the adolescent has his attention drawn to his penis much less often. I am convinced that masturbation is much less common in the circumcised. With these considerations in view it does not seem apt to argue that 'God knows best how to make little boys.'"
R.W. Cockshut. Circumcision. British Medical Journal, Vol.2 (1935): p.764.

I don't have a problem with circumcision per se, I just didn't want to make that decision for my son. I left him as he was born, and if he wants to be circ'd when he grows up, then at least it's his decision.

this thread reminds of the Y forum:
The National Forum on People's Differences

"Everything you wanted to know but were afraid to ask gets tackled here."

http://www.yforum.com/

situation and haven't decided what to do yet. Its not necessary, but it is advisable, and I've been dreading the decision.

but I know a guy in real life who went through trying to decide. He REALLY didn't want to do it, so he kept going to different doctors, getting second and third opinions and finally he found one who was well-read on alternative techniques for dealing with problems and he had success (I honestly don't remember what was done, and I didn't want to ask him really personal questions at the time, he just reported that he didn't have to....go under the knife after all and was quite happy).

Have you done some research on the internet?

I feel so weird butting in to this conversation, but when I started researching this before I knew what gender of child I was having, I continued reading medical journal articles by the dozens and somehow ended up having all this information about it that I really can't use. LOL!

Anyway, best of luck.

Actually. I'm aware of the alternatives and have talked to a doctor and a urologist, I'm just a little wary.

I'm just talking personal preference here, as are most others.

Get a proper informed decision from a couple of medical experts... then decide for yourself.

My $0.02 is that it was one of the best things I've ever done for my body, though.

You are one of the few who can speak with any authority on this question.

I've never seen uncircumcised so I don't have a reference for the change. I know nobody can really tell me either because that's probably over the line. But I wish I knew what everyone was talking about, I feel pretty naive about this.

What I think is that uncircumcised is like one long tube but I have no clue how that goes from that to helmet head... baffling.

That's how.

http://www.cirp.org/

http://net.indra.com/~shredder/intact/anatomy/

Please note those websites are informational, NOT pornographic but they do contain drawings, etc. They warn you.

the foreskin off... the way I've always seen them is what's underneath already? I thought they were doing major reconstruction to get it to go from that loose skin all one piece to this completely different shape with a helmet after circumcision. But from the drawings it appears the shape with the helmet already looks like that underneath the foreskin? They just remove a top "covering" type layer of skin. Pardon the analogy- but like peeling a banana? I used to think, again pardon the analogy, that the banana peel is what they cut and stitched and completely re-shaped somehow miraculously changing it's shape completely. But now it seems that they just remove the peel and it looks that way already underneath.

I hope I don't offend anybody. I really do appreciate you taking the time to help me understand.

It already looks that way underneath.

And just for trivia sake, when erect and retracted, the intact penis looks exactly the same as a circumcised one (to the untrained eye).

Thanks. :)

I'm sure there are some illustrated resources on the net which can better illuminate you.

In theory, the penis expands enough during erection that the foreskin fully retracts, as in the animal kingdom...

What I've read (and take this with a grain of salt) is that human penises (peni?) are of such varying shapes and sizes that more often than not, the foreskin has to be manually retracted to fully expose the "helmet head"... but I don't know if that's true.

I didn't know that in theory it was supposed to do that.

I've had two intact partners (including current one) and they always had to push it back even when erect. Of course, once it's back, it's pretty much back for the duration. But I've never seen what you are describing should happen in theory.

Learn something new every day!

In that case, it makes sense.

Is there a preference (or even a noticeable difference) for girls?

I would say that most women are ...more familiar with the North American style.

are only being circumcised (in the US) at a rate of about 60% now, as compared to the late 60s when it hit a high of the mid 90% range.

That 60% figure is a US average, there are regional differences.

In other words, the girls of this generation will have a higher chance of having an intact partner than the women of my generation ever did.

I just lucked out and found a guy born in the US in the late 60s (which means by all rights he shoulda been circed without even his parents' permission) to a German father who said "You wanna do WHAT to him? Hell no!"

(Those were his exact words. It's a family story. Yeah, they're a bit odd.)

and prefer all the factory issued parts.

NOT because circed sex is bad. It's not.

But because intact sex is just.....in a completely different league. That's all I can say because I don't want to get this thread locked and I fear I'm treading dangerously close as it is.

I'll take em for all they're worth.

n/t

WHY did they do that to me??


perhaps it's part of why I go around all pissed off!!!


and dammit... it's so much more fun to play with!!



now... the preference crap... I prefer guys (w/o having 'had' a woman), some would then say that I don't prefer men? ugh

see definition @ dictionary.com::::: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=preference

:bounce:

:think:

And I don't regret not having been. :D

I wished I was when I was a kid because it's difficult being different, but I'm kinda glad I'm intact.

Now, if I had Canuck_Amok's issue, I'd have gotten el snippo. Ouch.

After all, he was born in the late 60s, when MOST of his male peers were circed.

He said it really wasn't a problem. He played sports, all that stuff. There was one time he said a couple of guys made a big deal out of it (he was in 7th or 8th grade) and he just said "Why are you so obsessed with my dick?" and they left him alone immediately.

:shrug:

Guess that worked! LOL!

:eyes:

They bothered him for quite some time about it and it got so bad he told his dad (he wasn't real close to his dad so that was unusual). It was his dad who told him to say that.

Were the eyes for me?

I took a lot more shit when I was a kid than I do now. I was SUCH a dumbass back then.

When I think of all the times I should have stood up for myself and didn't, I just cringe.

Oh well, we're making up for it now, right? LOL!

BTW, this is probably inappropriate to say (I hope not)and I'm not meaning this specifically FROM me to you, but there are women who prefer convertibles. It's not something very talked about, except among women who are dating/married to men with convertibles. We're like a secret fan club.

It is not a topic that comes up in normal conversation.

For a second there I thought you were talkig about cars. :silly:

It's an affectionate term. One girlfried of mine is married to a German guy, one is married to a guy born to Catholic parents (he's not a practicing Catholic anymore), etc.

And no, it's not a topic that comes up in normal conversation. LOL, we aren't normal, I guess. Just friends, all women, chatting. And it came up.

...send her my way.

I've talked to them. (The single ones.) And even if they don't prefer convertibles, anyone can be converted. I was. My friends were.

We kind of deal with sort of the same thing you dealt with growing up, only it comes from our female peers. The first thing a lot of women say is "EWWWWW!!! HE ISN'T???? ISN'T THAT JUST GROSS???"

"Um, no, it's not gross at all. In fact, I quite prefer it that way."

Then their heads explode. Then they lay all the myths about it on us. Nine times out of ten they've never even SEEN a convertible in person. So we have to correct all this misinformation. I've found myself saying things like "It's called a shower. When taken on a regular basis, my husband is just as clean as yours" and "um, if ANY guy has 'white stuff coming out' that's not normal and he should see a doctor. So no that doesn't happen, I've never seen it happen" and "yes, it works just fine, believe me."

Etc. I even had to explain to one woman that the convertible top doesn't permanently stay in place. She thought it was sort of cemented there (ouch). I was nice when explaining it, because she truly didn't know.

I'm like a damn suburban Sue Johanssen.

"It's called a shower..." I've said much the same thing.

Oh, if the top stayed in place? OUCH!!!

I also maintain that the statue of David by Michelangelo is really me, but no one buys it. :D

It wouldn't pay to carry around big regrets for something impossible to change.

Still, because I have so thoroughly rejected religion that is a pup from the same bitch as the circumcision tradition, and because there is no way to really know if it diminishes sexual pleasure (but it makes sense that it very well may), I am mildly bothered by the whole damn thing. And yet, I must admit that my penis is a thing of great beauty and glory :+

I don't think they could sew it back on.

I don't think it was the original.

would not want to have to explain the days off to my boss.

of stretching out the skin that is there with weights, tape, etc. and it takes a long time. It doesn't actually restore the foreskin, as that is gone forever (the frenulum is also never recovered), but it does restore a protective function for the glans and some men can gain back some sensitivity from that. From what I've read of it (and there are detailed websites, NOT porno stuff, I would avoid that because you will then find circumfetishists...not a pretty thing at all) the men who choose to do it are usually pretty happy about the results.

<eom>

When you start researching one particular topic, such as routine infant circumcision, as I did when I was pregnant a LONG time ago, it frequently leads to other topics, then other topics, etc etc.

Especially with the internet, when you do a google search, odd things come up on the results. When I first saw the phrase "foreskin restoration" I thought "Now HOW the hell does that work?" so I checked it out. Ah, question answered.

Here's something else weird I know. Hospitals frequently sell infant foreskins to companies that make VERY expensive facial cream for women. I've forgotten the name of the most popular one (Oprah swears by it and it's like $55 for a half ounce), but the "growth complex" in the cream is actually from infant foreskin. The foreskin is said by researchers to be more sensitive to touch than the fingertips, lips, or eyelids. And in infants, of course, those cells are marvelously soft. So they use them for that!

pieces of infants for cosmetics. Something almost Nosferatu. A canibalistic vanity at the cultural level.

I don't know. Just sick.

only to find out bits of baby foreskin is in it.

Ewwww. They already use placenta, too. That's bad enough. But infant foreskins belong on infants, not on my face.

As part of a religious ceremony.

I have no regrets about being circumsized. I had two penile infections before the age of 12. I haven't had any since I was snipped (over 10 years).

Do you know what "smegma" is?? Do you wanna know how to avoid it?? Get circumsized.

"Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma." Thomas J. Ritter, MD

"An infant's glans is very delicate and can be seriously irritated by urine. The foreskin acts as a cover for the glans and produces smegma for a protective coating." (p. 55) / "As to smegma, the normal secretion produced under the foreskin, Gairdner claimed that this substance protects the glans. This is particularly important if wet diapers are left on too long, since decomposition of the urine can cause irritation of the glans if it is not coated with smegma." (p. 64) / "here is not a shred of evidence to support to theory that smegma is carcinogenic." (p. 91) / "All animals produce smegma, and none is circumcised. When mammals reproduce, smegma is deposited. If smegma contained a carcinogen or even an irritant, then the propagation of the species would be jeopardized. No such phenomenon exists." (p. 106) (Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy, by Edward Wallerstein, Springer Publishing Co., 1980)

"If allowed to accumulate for several years, smegma might possibly cause some irritation. But, even this is doubtful." (Modern Sex Techniques, by Robert Street, Lancer Books, NY, 1959, p. 154)

http://www.foreskin.org/smegma.htm

So why would a guy avoid it?

Also, see http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/wright1/

well then call it something else.

I've found in real life, people rarely ever use that word anyway.

And I'm sure not gonna get any of my bits cut off to avoid any....stuff like that or words I don't like, which might I add, can be far worse in women. LOL!

sometimes ignorance really is bliss. :9 B-) O8)

And I haven't had one for 10 years (post-circumcision)??

You're a woman. You wouldn't know what it's like, anyway...

I just don't like something that's perfectly natural made fun of.

I can't comment on your case, because I don't even know what type of infection you are talking about.

I don't know if your foreskin was forcibly retracted before it was ready, causing adhesions, which often leads to infections.

I don't know.

But please don't malign something like that. Smegma is natural, it's meant to be there.

...*taps foot*...I'm waaaaaaaaaaaaiting...

I don't have it.

What could I possibly be doing with it?

I just demand it be returned to me!

(Infant foreskins are sold from hospitals to the manufacturers of pricey skin creams for women. Apparently those things are awesome for plumping up fine wrinkles.)

Want to halt aging? Try the penta-peptides in Procter & Gamble's Olay Regenerist, the copper peptide's in the Neutrogena Corporation's Visibly Firm With Active Copper, or the "insulin-like growth factor" in Ré Vive. Need moisture? Try Dove's Essential Nutrients, derived from research done by its parent company, Unilever, on the natural moisturizing mechanisms in skin. Want to try even more esoteric science? Let Lab21, a tiny New York company, analyze your DNA from a cheek swab and use the results to customize your eye creams and face scrubs. Or, see if your dermatologist stocks one of the new products that include human growth hormone, an extract derived from a baby's foreskin.

http://www.sensualism.com/beauty/skin.html

(I'm joking about yvr, though!!!)

You are trying to disturb me aren't you?

Oh and don't worry, unless you buy a skin cream with anything called "TRS complex" or "human growth complex" you are ok!

(Though it might have placenta....)

;)

The penis that will never be. :-(

As long as men want to tell women what to do with their bodies women should tell men to do this to theirs.

I think babies should be left the way they arrive.

And I'd rather get men to stop telling women what to do than have a world where women have no control over their bodies and men are forced to be circumcised before they can make a decision about it.

:hi:

Baring medical conditions, I've never met a man who seemed unhappy either way. Seems to me, if you love the man, you love the parts as they are. That's what I'd want. :shrug:

and snipped my Post-Dispatch off. (Credit goes to Mr. Dave Barry for that one.)

A very close friend of mine had to deal with her father being "clipped". He's diabetic and was having a lot of problems with repeated infections. Somtimes they are hard to get rid of, especially when you're a diabetic. My father has problems with a plain cold.

Now, this man is not slovenly or unclean. I can suppose that his "area" wasn't either. I know that he did well, but was terrified of the surgery. Now, he's doing great, much better now that he doesn't have to worry about infection.
=======================================

We had our son 'done' when he was born with no problems. Ethan handled it fine. However, another friend of mine had nothing but problems when her son's was done. I guess it just depends on the doctor doing the surgery.

it's not a chance some parents (more and more) want to take (the complications).

I'm curious if you were there (in the room) when your son was 'done.'

On edit: you lost me on the fathers' story. Your father has problems with a plain cold? What does that have to do with circumcision?

And I guess diabetes could cause all kinds of problems. But at least in his case (your friend's father) it was medically indicated.

I was circumsized as a baby, but I honestly never think about it. So, I don't regret it.

I was circumsized as a baby, but I honestly never think about it. So, I don't regret it.

a sandstorm.

I typically don't go loping off parts of my body because of others' religious traditions.

As for the so-called hygiene argument - its not something that fifteen seconds in the shower can't cure.

for removing mine. :cry: