most definitely snip the kid. he'll thank you.

snip that nasty piece off

Wouldn't make a big enough difference to me to be arguing about it.. do a deal. Let her circumsize the kid if she does or lets you do x.

It's sanitary to shower every day. Don't butcher your child, man. Convince her of the benefits. Somebody made a great post about it a while ago here on GFY. I'll find it for you.

Do a deal with her, if she wants mutilate your son, she has to mutilate her clit also.

I can't believe a part of the anatomy that is rarely seen offends so many people.

its that head thing on top of your shoulders that offends me.
and it has that brain thing in it, all yucky and stuff.
you should cut off that head thing, thats where all the offence comes from.

please dont allow your son to be circumsized. Women who don't like foreskin are whores anyway.

I'm not cirumsized, and I'm damn proud to admit it.

Everybody should at the very least hear both sides of the arguement before doing something as terrible as mutilating their child.

So we can see that plenty is lost from circumcision. What is gained? Would appreciate it if one of the pro-cirumcision folks would rebutt.

yes you are crazy.....

circumsize....don't raise a child that will be ashamed in front of his friends or girlfriends when he grows up.

Ivy

Lots to be gained..and only the anticurcumcision folks can claim the "pros" of it.

Never heard a circumsized guy complain about it. They have lost nothing.

Here's a pro: sexuality The majority of females in the US find a circumsized penis much more appealing. Females also feel more with a circumsized penis because it gets much harder .

:2 cents:

Ivy

Think about it this way:

1) As a male you're more likely in a better position to understand the ramifications of the mutilation of your son, in terms of penis sensitivity and intimacy in his future

2) Since the minority of children in the US are now being cut as opposed to 30 years ago, if he is cut, he will be made fun of. Kids will say he is less than 100% because he's missing a part of his penis. If it's a matter of what looks better to female counterparts, when he's old enough to have relations, they will think his looks better because the number of uncut males will far outweight the number of cut males.

3) There can be problems with uncut penises but no more than the problems/complications associated with botched circumcisions. Problems of these sorts are rare in either case.

4) Sometimes you can't know what you've lost if you've never had it. If he's cut he will not have the option to get uncut. If he's uncut he can choose to get cut. If he's cut he won't know what he's missing.

5) Dismembering somebody for reasons of 'tradition' or religion isn't a satisfactory reason in our civil society. Many things in the bible are no longer practiced because we know they're morally and legally wrong. We follow the rule of law not the rules of the bible.

Pardon me, but that is the most piss weak "pros" list i've ever heard in my life. Honestly, how would you feel if your clitoral hood were removed at birth? Because that is exactly what these people are doing to their children.

And how could you say they lose nothing. Did you even read the list? Doubtful.

It'll be the other way around when his kid grows up. He will be ashamed because everybody else with be uncircumsized and he'll be the only one circumsized.

Like religion, circumcision is a barbaric tradition that should be left in the past.

Well... Obviously. Because it's more common in the US, women find it appealing.

It's human nature to find "common" things more comfortable.

There are many men getting reverse surgeories done to get back their foreskin and are angry at their parents for having them circumsized. No Carrier in this thread is at least one example of a guy that is circumsized and is complaining about it.

If you agree with male circumsicion, then you will have to agree with female circumsicion. If one is wrong, the other is also wrong.

You may be hot, but you lack reasoning. My dick gets as hard as a rock, and im not circumsized. And whats your source for saying most women prefer circumsized men?

As far as I'm concerned, if a woman is going to judge me by whether I have a little fold of skin or not, then she's fucked.

Snipping the foreskin is a religous thing, and a painfull and cruel thing to do to a baby who can't say no.

Oh and men who say they dont have any problems with being circumsized, thats probably because they were circumsized when they were a baby, and therfor have no idea what 10,000 nerve endings in the foreskin feel like.

Don't let your child be one of the last to undergo a dying indecent practice. I'm certain he won't appreciate being one of the few left standing with a chopped penis.

Ok...so I made a quick post with some personal opinions. I'm busy right now and no time to drama with you guys over this for the millionth time on this board :winkwink:

It's my opinion. It's that simple. I've been with both and I prefer circumsized. :2 cents:

It is most common in the US and more accepted. Female clit removal is not performed or common in the US so there is no comparison.

Have fun with this neverending debate :1orglaugh

Just giving a girls opinion , and no it's not medical , it's personal preference :Graucho

Ivy

or one of the few left who is missing 10,000 sensitive nerve endings.. not to mention one of the few left who still needs to use vaseline when he jerks off.

And that's why I'm moving my ass to japan as soon as I got enough cash.

I think you are wrong. There is overwhelming medical evidence which strongly suggests that circumcision reduces the risk of various types of disease, including AIDS and cancer.

Haven't you read the entire thread? Most of the 'circumsision prevets penile cancer' arguments were shot down years ago by people in the medical community. The whole idea the circumsision is somehow cleaner and safer was started by people trying desperatly to find a reason to mutilate their children.

From the Mayo Clinic (one of the most reputable sources there is). Compare the risk of circumcising an infant with the risk of not circumcising an infant. I think it is clear that it is much riskier NOT to have the procedure.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm...&bucket=staged

From the Mayo Clinic article I cited in an earlier post:


Decreased risk of cancer of the penis. Although this type of cancer is very rare, circumcised men show a lower incidence of cancer of the penis than do uncircumcised men.

One last point about the females not liking it.

Females accept many of us who have beer bellys, hairy backs, stinky underwear, and heck, even hairy palms. They're not going to care all that much about a piece of skin that is less than an inch long. I've never had problems with women of any culture and I've had my fair share of them *sigh*

How did mankind survive for millions of years before cirumcision?

.. The first one points out the religeous crap, the second points out it's clean if its circumsized... never mention uncircumsized men can wash their penis too, and the third one is personal preferance.. If a parent has a problem with a natural body part, its not up to them to decide to have it cut off. If the babies could talk, they'd all tell the fucker to drop the scalpel.

The foreskin is there to protect the glans. As humans, every part of our body serves a purpose (aside from the appendix.. which just sort of hangs around). If the foreskin really wasnt needed, we'd never have evolved to have the foreskin.

I bet you looove your glans, all rough and dessensitized from years of rubbing inside your pants.

It's not a never ending debate. The fact that circumcision rates are declining proves that the tide is changing. Okay, personal preference. I have no problem with that. But say one day you had a son, would you take away all those things from the post i quoted just because your persoal preference for a sexual partner was cut?

hell no, why would u wanna cut off a peice of your best friend!!

Every single REPUTABLE medical source I've seen says that there is a greater health risk in not circumcising an infant male. Although some sources suggest that the risk is not as great as other sources might suggest, I have never seen a REPUTABLE source that claims the opposite. Even if the risk is slight, I say CUT.

Some studies show that circumcision has a slight preventive effect for these AIDS and STDs; however, other studies show an insignificant or opposite effect. Either way, the bottom line is this: sexual practices have a much greater effect on the chance of becoming infected than circumcision status. If someone bases their actions on the belief that circumcision alone will protect them, they are taking unwise chances. And that's still not a good reason to mutilate a normal penis.

Would you mutilate your ears at birth if you knew it would reduce the possibility of getting ear infections? Give me a fucking break.. :1orglaugh

A religious reason is a perfectly acceptable reason to cut. I am so FUCKING SICK of you assholes smashing and bashing religion with every post. For many people in this world, faith gives them a reason for living. It gives them security and love and makes them happy. Even if it was all bullshit, it would be worth having just for those reasons alone.

With all the pain and misery in this fucked up world, I don't know why you idiots would deny something that makes a such difference in so many people's lives. The assholes on GFY who bash religion are some of the most unhappy, miserable sons of bitches I have ever encountered.

Please cite on of those sources of yours that suggest an opposite effect. You are SPINNING the facts because you are uncircumcised and you want peope to look like you. There are far better reasons for cutting, IMHO.

You are so fucking pathetic. Religion should never be a good reason to mutilate a human being. Parents who accept to mutilate their kids because they think it's for their own good, for God or whatever stupid reason are as pathetic as you.

I am circumsized. Now shut the fuck up. :glugglug

Prove it! :1orglaugh

Prove it ...this thread needs pics :Graucho


Ivy

"Research revealed this week asserting circumcision protects men against HIV has been dismissed by HIV researcher Andrew Grulich and thr Aids council of New South Wales in Australia, president Adrian Lovney. Melbourne University professor Roger Short told ABC Radio this week circumcision conferred ?considerable protection on men against becoming infected with the AIDS virus? due to the presence of receptor cells inside the foreskin.

Grulich, former president of the Australian Society of HIV Medicine, told the Star the research was being taken out of context. ?There are studies in Africa where there is inadequate access to hygiene where the presence of a foreskin may increase the risk of HIV ?? Grulich said. ?There is, however, no research in developed countries that being circumcised protects you from HIV. For example, one of the countries with the highest rates of circumcision in the world, the USA, has one of the highest rates of heterosexual transmission of HIV in the world. Now if the foreskin was the only site of entry for HIV into the penis, that would not be the case,?

Grulich said. Lovney agreed. ?I think it is dangerous to take findings in one setting and to apply them to another,? he said. ?Our view is that, circumcised or not, using a condom is still the safest way to protect yourself against HIV transmission in Australia.?