Circumcision: I'm more interested in what women think.

[Mike 03]

I never thought I would see the day when I'd be posting on this topic at Democratic Underground, but since it seems to have popped up (pun intended) what do women think?

I was "cut" so young I have no memory of it and couldn't care less, but I do know that the few women I have been lucky enough to be with have been happy, not traumatized, by the fact I had been "cut."

So my situation is a bit absurd and very neutral: Basically, I don't care, but it seems like my parents made the right decision.

But I want to know what females think.

Do you prefer circumcised males?

Do you prefer non-circumcised males?

Do you care either way?

EDIT:

Changed "females" to "women" on request.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Interesting inquiry!

Thanks for the inquiry!

[Dramarama]

2. I don't think I want to know *gulp*

[scarletwoman]

3. I've had lovers both circumcised and uncircumcised, made no difference to me.

If the guy was worth spending time with, whether his penis was cloaked or uncloaked was irrelevent. Once an uncircumcised penis is erect, the foreskin is pulled back anyway.

I could go into more detail, but I believe there's a rule about sex threads on DU.

;)
sw

[enlightenment]

6. Agree.

'nuff said . . .

[uppityperson]

8. agree. eom

[defendandprotect]

121. DU is anti-sex . . . ???

Once an uncircumcised penis is erect, the foreskin is pulled back anyway.

Yes, but the circumcized penis head is generally exposed and presumably there is a loss

of sensitivity just based on that. On the other hand, there is a feeling that this

often makes the male much more aware of his penis . . . perhaps in the sense of

irritation? Some also think that this exposure also creates a situation where the male

moves more rapidly into orgasm.

Does the circumcized penis have anything to do with all the VIAGRA being consumed now?

Remember, it wasn't until we pretty much had tobacco on the ropes that we discovered it

led to flaccid penises -- impotence, even in younger males!

I don't know ... maybe next time around we should have a scale of values that women

could vote on?

And, I just want to add this PS . . . that in the case of my son, I see it as the failure

being mine. That it was my responsibility to protect him and I didn't.

And, again -- there is no reason for circumcision -- Academy of Pediatricians are against it.

[SharonAnn]

133. My preference is circumcised, but then I married a man who's not circumcised.

And that has worked out well.

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. You should post this as a poll.

[HeresyLives]

5. Uncircumcised.

Totally unnecessary surgery.

[uppityperson]

7. I don't care, never made a difference. Who is attached is what counts

That said, I didn't circumcise my kid since it seemed unnecessary.

[DKRC]

19. Absolutely right nt

[Duer 157099]

9. Both are fine imho

Uncut was a little more interesting I thought.

I left my son intact. It's a hard decision, either way you go, you continually wonder if you did the right thing.

[Lady Effingbroke]

10. Either way. I don't really mind whether my SO is dressed for summer or winter.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iamthebandfanman]

13. yikes. what a weird reply. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

15. Yeah. And 'females' is not exclusive to humans. Includes sheep, goats, we won't go there. nt

[Bluebear]

21. You're really a bizarre piece of work.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

28. Uncut men suck, too. Good times had by all. (n/t)

[condoleeza]

61. Seriously???

[Bluebear]

80. Nice thing to post, ain't it?

It boggles the mind what people post just because they are anonymous.

[Marrah_G]

90. .........wow.

You are joking right?

[Bonobo]

94. What a piece of shit you are.

If a man said a similar remark about a woman, he would be bounced off this site and rightfully.

You suck.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. You Just Disrespected About 1.7 Billion Muslims

12 million or so Jews and anybody else who chooses circumcision for any reason.

But we're all tolerant liberals here.


Right.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. It makes a big difference.

I've had both, and the majority of them were circ'd.

Of course, the important thing is the person, not whether they were cut or not.

Given that, uncut feels far better due to the man sliding inside his own skin.


It's not a matter of the woman being traumatized by a man who is cut. It was several years after I became sexually active in college before I saw an uncut man. I started college in the mid 1970s. I'm in my mid fifties now.

I did not know that the uncut ones were "factory fresh". Then I found out why the foreskin was put there in the first place - to make it easier mechanically. It's possible to get it on a lot more often without getting sore. This is probably why the Victorian morality police didn't like it.

I hope I haven't been explicit enough to get this thread locked.

I've been with the same man for 15 years and that is the one thing I would change about him if I could -- that his parents had not cut off a vital part of him (hell, all the parts are vital & necessary except the appendix, I guess) before he could make the choice himself.

I wish that nobody would mutilate children's genitals, male or female.

[condoleeza]

63. Well, you make me feel much better about my grandson's future now

since my daughter was adamantly opposed to circumcision and I supported that decision even though I personally prefer the other.

[Virginian]

76. When you get older, it makes a difference.

We could save a lot on lubes if he had not been cut.

I was in a jewelry store in the bible belt where I overheard a man claim that if women were meant to have pierced ears, God would have made them that way.
Without engaging my brain, my mouth replied that if men were meant to be circumcised, God would have made them that way. When my ears heard that, I got so embarrassed I couldn't wait to get out of there. I don't know what the reaction was. I think I left before they had time to react.

[semillama]

102. You are awesome!

For the record, I have pierced ears and am circumcised.

[Starry Messenger]

14. I don't care.

If we're to the point where I'm going to see it, that means he is cute, sweet and funny as shit and I wouldn't give a shit what his junk looked like. (He just came in and corrected my punctuation. I only found out he was a total Grammar Nazi too after it was serious.)

[AlCzervik]

16. Maybe i'm alone here but i never really gave it much thought, actually any thought.

[GinaMaria]

17. I've only been with Circ'ed men

I've seen the non-circs a few times, but they just don't move me the same way. :shrug: Everyone has prefernces. I suspect there are people here who like short or tall partners, certain eye color, whatever. The trick is to find someone who preferes everything you are :-) Truthfully, if my husband wasn't circ'ed my feelings would not be any different for him.

Is this the kind of input you are looking for?

[Lorien]

24. Same here nt.

[DKRC]

18. 6 of one ~ 1/2 dozen of the other

so to speak. Never made any difference to me, but had some interesting conversations about the practice with men.
When I was pregnant my husband agreed with me not to circumcise our baby if we had a boy as predicted. Had a daughter so I haven't had to consider if I did the right thing or not in the years since.

[XemaSab]

20. I've seen a few cocks

and really, it doesn't matter.

A lot of Hispanic guys aren't cut, and damn, there are some hot Hispanic lads out there. :9

[omega minimo]

22. I THINK: WHY THE FUCK IS THIS THE TOP OF DU GD!!!!!!!!

:wtf:

[uppityperson]

23. Flooding in ND/MN, tornado in MS, sex sells, even here

[omega minimo]

37. are there any threads on how to aid those folks hit by storms?

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

27. It moved when you replied to it. n/t

[Bluebear]

29. =)

[omega minimo]

36. context is good, puntcuation is even better

:eyes:

[Starry Messenger]

54. "puntcuation"?

[omega minimo]

55. the "punt" of context combined with "vacuation" of the bowels or as it may be, the vowels

:hi:

"puntcuation"

[Starry Messenger]

56. Ah, thank you.

I don't know much about sports, being more the artistic type. Thank you! :hi:

[omega minimo]

75. that's what I thought. What a waste...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5338360&mesg_id=5338970

[Starry Messenger]

77. :)

:hurts:

[omega minimo]

78. Why did I think you had something?

[Starry Messenger]

86. 'Cause you didn't?

:toast:

[omega minimo]

34. It inspired a bowel movement when it was Top of GD on two random visits tonight

as ever, males focused on their dicks :yourock:

[Starry Messenger]

39. You might want to get that checked out then.

Sounds like a serious reaction.

[omega minimo]

46. ah Starry was that really worth it? Doubtful. But here's another

:kick:

The true smarm ass would have answered "B/C you kicked it there........"

:toast:

[Starry Messenger]

48. #27 n/t

[omega minimo]

49. oh counting...... too hard...........

[Starry Messenger]

51. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5338360&mesg_id=5338786

[omega minimo]

52. Yer right, you did try to say it. One more

:kick: :hi:

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. No shit. Take it to the fucking lounge.

"I'm interested in what the guys think about women who had..."

...except there's no freaking analogy. There is no analagous painful, harmful and elective surgical procedure performed on infant girls in which the aesthetics to their future sex partners are a consideration.

I think the discussion about health benefits vs. risk (and harm) is a legitimate discussion. What women think about the aesthetics of "cut" vs "uncut" dicks? No. Not just no, but fuck no.

[omega minimo]

44. C'mon LJJ, you can't be that uninformed, PLEASE??????????

"except there's no freaking analogy. There is no analagous painful, harmful and elective surgical procedure performed on infant girls in which the aesthetics to their future sex partners are a consideration."

PARDON ME but you have GOT to be fuckin kidding? Never heard of female genital mutilation?



#2

"I think the discussion about health benefits vs. risk (and harm) is a legitimate discussion. What women think about the aesthetics of "cut" vs "uncut" dicks? No. Not just no, but fuck no."

So it's the top of GD for no apparent reason for those who don't LIVE HERE, no context? just multiple threads on men and their dicks and what we think about them?


Come on. :yoiks: :banghead:

[lumberjack_jeff]

96. Female genital mutilation happens a lot where you live?

Seen a lot of threads here debating it's aesthetic merits? Whether "cut" vs "uncut" mades sex feel better for the guy?

[Crunchy Frog]

25. I'm not "happy" about anyone's genitals having been cut.

That being said, I think the personal characteristics of the person attached to the penis are more important than the characteristics of the penis itself.

I just had twin boys eight weeks ago, and I didn't have anything cut off of them. I think they will be in a better position than me to decide whether or not or not their penises should be surgically altered. I hope that women will judge them on the content of their characters rather than on the presence or absence of a foreskin. I also hope that they will not be judgemental about women's bodies.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

30. Congratulations on your boys!

:D

At least they never had to know the horrors of Bush!

[Bluebear]

32. Ain't that the truth!

[Crunchy Frog]

35. Thank you. They were born just after the inauguration.

[Stargazer09]

47. Adorable!

There's just something special about babies. :D

[semillama]

104. I had a son 8 weeks ago as well! Also didn't go for the cut.

I figure, they'll be the best person to decide what they want to do with their genitals. As long as they don't go for subincision...

[Crunchy Frog]

107. Congratulations!

:toast:

[Lyric]

26. I was married to an intact man, and engaged to a cut one.

From a purely personal standpoint (since you asked) I preferred cut. It's not because the cut guy was more skillful in bed--they were about the same. Overall, the length was about the same, too. But the intact guy was rather...pointy...down there. The cut guy was much thicker toward the end. It felt better.

For the record, my ex-husband was only left intact because of a small birth defect (meatus in the wrong place) and he HATED it. He said he was too sensitive, and it made doing certain things uncomfortable for him.

[kiva]

38. Yes, there are definite advantages to thick.

That said, I also agree that cut/uncut is far less important than the rest of the man.

[Lyric]

40. Agreed.

Both of those guys turned out to be losers, so what I said was purely about physical preference, as per the OP's request. If I had to choose between a worthwhile, intact guy and a loser who's been cut, I'd take the intact guy every time.

:hi:

[kiva]

42. Yup, non-loser way more important than

skin/no skin. :hi:

[redqueen]

31. I prefer

uncut.

[Lisa0825]

43. Me too. nt

[Touchdown]

41. Why?

is it theirs, or yours?

If we have to live with their natural odors, they should have to live with ours.

[Mariana]

45. Uncircumcised is much better.

Anyone who says the foreskin is "useless" is just plain wrong. It's there for MY pleasure as well as his. It provides me with exactly the right stimulation.

My experience is that in comparison, a circumcised penis is dry and abrasive.

I agree with the other women who answered that it's not any kind of deciding factor for me. I never discriminated on the basis of missing body parts when deciding whether to pursue a relationship with a man. Nevertheless, I'm glad my husband is intact and I would rather he remained that way.

Thank you for asking.

[chatnoir]

53. +1

What she said.

Esp after living in Europe, where it's rarely done except for religious reasons, I really saw how bizarre the whole US attitude to it was.

[Maru Kitteh]

67. My husband is not intact, but we both agree that it is a decision that shouldn't be taken

away from the person who must live with that decision later, against their will.

[buzzycrumbhunger]

84. dupe deleted

Argh. MB told me my post didn't work and I had to repost it. :(

[buzzycrumbhunger]

85. Uncut, please

. . . for the above reasons. Kind of sad to think that so many men will never know the difference, having been robbed of their foreskins, but they serve an important function. I was strong-armed into "allowing" my own son to be mutilated and have always regretted it (especially as I've since jettisoned the arsehole who insisted he must look like his dad), though he says he's okay either way.

And hey--if opinions don't sway you, how about Yul Brynner's penis? (Damn, he was fine. . . :9)

[Mojorabbit]

50. I prefer

circumcised. It is the man attached that counts ultimately but if I have a preference is is definitely circumcised.

[ContinentalOp]

57. Hey guess what? I don't give a shit what women think about this.

Nor should anyone else.

[Maru Kitteh]

60. I'm guessing you often feel you should be consulted as to when women

and/or their silly opinions should matter to you - OR ANYONE ELSE. Congrats. You are my first ignore in YEARS and years of DU. Blech. Have a lonely life.

[ContinentalOp]

64. I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion.

I simply am not going to advocate the routine genital mutilation of infant boys because some women find a foreskin "icky" or something. It find it offensive to even bring up this question. I would hope you would agree if the situation were reversed. Or do you think I could get away with a thread like "Abortion: I'm more interested in what men think"?

[FedUpWithIt All]

89. Have you READ the thread. The majority prefer uncut. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. Of course we've read the thread. The fact that the question is being asked is offensive.

If a grownup wants elective surgery to impress potential mates, that's his or her business. Basing the decision to do it on an infant by polling women's aesthetic sensibilities is unconscionable.

[FedUpWithIt All]

108. Since it is largely women deciding whether or not to circ an infant

I would think that any discussion involving these women, where they see that the preferences are quickly changing, would be welcome. In fact, if you WANT change away from circ, this discussion among women needs to become MORE common. You are foolish if you think that eliminating mothers from the discussion is doing any favors to the cause of doing away with infant circ. Educating mothers IS THE ONLY WAY you will see any change.

This thread shows that women ARE moving away from a circ. preference. The more places where mothers see this trend, the more likely they are to decide along with the trend for their son's future.

As to the offense...I am sorry that you are offended by a discussion about male anatomy. I understand. I am often offended by male discussions about female anatomy. The offensive male preference discussions also have the potential to influence surgeries. They hurt the feelings of those who are "not the preferred". And they occur nearly EVERY SINGLE DAY.

[demmiblue]

109. This was my concern, as well.

It must be a hard decision for a woman to make for their infant son.

For the most part, I am thinking of mothers who do not have the father around to consult, and the mothers who have partners who are ambivalent. I don't see why this discussion should only be limited to men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

111. A discussion about surgery on infants should not be based on "preferences"

You clearly don't understand the problem here.

When a pediatrician discusses this issue with parents and the conversation includes "it looks better" or "someday when he gets married..." under no circumstances should the pediatrician perform it.

Medical knowledge changes over time. Discussions about circumcision of infants should be exclusively about medical necessity. I'm agnostic about the medical benefits of circumcision. What I'm not agnostic about is this: Basing the circumcision decision in any way about womens "preferences" is at best irrelevant, and at worst, unconscionable.

Let me put it another way. DU would not tolerate, for one second, a discussion about medical procedures on infant girls in which mens preferences for optimum breast size is a legitimate consideration.

[FedUpWithIt All]

112. First...pediatricians do not usually perform circs. OB's do.

Second...it is sometimes the Dr. making the lame excuses supporting circs. My OB suggested that my son should look like his dad. We decided that this was not a good enough reason to do a circ. This additional pressure from some Dr.s can be negated by allowing women into an open and real discussion about what is really happening in the adult lives of men and the relationships they have.

Third...perceived women's preference IS a major deciding factor in the decision a lot of parents make regarding this procedure. This concern for a son's future sexuality COMBINED with the false idea that it is less traumatic to have (?perceived preferential?)procedure done on an infant IS PRIMARILY why babies are still being circ'd. Break down these false beliefs and you have change.

Personally i think circ should be an elective, chosen by the actual person, ONLY. This is simply not the case in our society. We have to consider the realities of the situation and deal with them if there is to be any change.

The reality is that people use the preference argument when discussing the circumcision of their infants. Like it or not. Circumcision, in this country, has long been done for cosmetic and commonality reasons. Changing minds about the legitimacy of this practice takes open and realistic discussion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. My sons' was performed by a pediatrician.

If I had it to over again, I would not. I'd let him choose for himself now that he's an adult.

[Bonobo]

95. Put me on ignore too.

I have no interest in ever exchanging opinions with you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

97. Funny how "my body, my choice" has strict gender limits.

I don't care what you think about this either. Surgery done on an infant for any other purpose than medical need is wrong.

[Maru Kitteh]

58. I prefer my mate, but I would prefer his parents have not mutilated his penis w/o his consent

I would never allow anyone to hack off half of the lamellated corpuscles in my son's sexual organs without his consent.

[condoleeza]

59. Yeah, I guess I do care

Having a grandson who my daughter and SIL chose NOT to have circumcised for their own reasons, I just have to say that having grazed at both, I prefer circumcised. I know it doesn't make sense, nature makes you guys the way you are and it is only religion as far as I can see that ever had anything to say about cutting off that bit, but...I prefer the naked look.

[Maru Kitteh]

62. Is your familiarity with the circumcised penis a legitimate reason to deny a man

sovereignty over his own sexual organs?

Something to think about.

[condoleeza]

65. No, not at all, I actually believe that we shouldn't mess with nature on this

and if you have seen my other posts on this prior, I was completely supportive of my daughters choice not to circumcise my grandson. My husband is Jewish, he thinks the whole focus on this is ridiculous and refuses to attend any family bris, as he feels it is wrong.

I was simply stating my preference and I completely own that I have personal reasons for feeling the way I do. I had 2 daughters, it wasn't something I ever was faced with as a Mom.

[Maru Kitteh]

79. I agree. Mature humans can alter their anatomy as they wish.

Concurrently, I agree with you that it's easier with girls. A nurse doesn't come to your room and ask you if you'd like to remove any part of your newborn daughter's genitalia, as they do with a son, and there's no corresponding social pressure in the Western world to remove portions of female genitalia.

[1]

66. it makes no difference what women think...

asking women about circumcision is like asking men about abortion...

[condoleeza]

69. And so it goes, can't we all just agree to love each other regardless? n/t

[1]

73. oh, i agree to that...

and, for the record, i keep my junk clean.

you could eat off my junk...

[defendandprotect]

125. Let's "love" young newborn males enough not to do violence to them . . .

[ContinentalOp]

81. Yeah, I got put on ignore for saying that upthread.

I guess I didn't say it as politely. :shrug:

[1]

83. ain't no dishonor in getting put on ignore. especially in a circumcision thread...

[Mariana]

110. It does matter, and your analogy is flawed.

This is why. No man can legally force a woman to have an abortion against her will, but any mother can legally have her infant son circumcised without his consent, for any reason, at her whim.

[MonteLukast]

68. What this woman thinks:

If you don't get cut, you'd better wash more.

Nobody likes their "bits" to smell bad. I'm self-conscious to a fault about my own bits. I once broke up with a guy because he didn't wash enough. And he happened to be cut.

Blunt, but true.

[Touchdown]

71. A little insight on men.

I'm going to get kicked out of the boy's club for letting you in on this, but...

WE WILL DO ANYTHING FOR SEX. Change your car's oil, mow your lawn, mention "blow job" and you get a new refrigerator. So if all you want him to do is clean it up, he'll jump up off that couch so fast, run to the bathroom and will bring it back polished for you.

Yes, we really are that easy to lead around.:blush:

[Control-Z]

82. I feel the same.

I will admit that I associate uncut with not as clean because of a guy I dated. He, like far too many guys (cut and uncut), had all the confidence in the world that his junk was God's special gift for women to dessert on - whether it had been 10 minutes or 10 hours since he last showered. Ick. Cut or uncut, I don't want to have to ask/tell any guy to go clean it up. It should be that way to start.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I'll leave the religion out of it, given that one world religion does require it

as many other laws in the ancient land of Israel, mandated by a very angry god... and vengeful too... they seem to actually have a basis on public health and the observation of curious things in the environment, but just telling people to do it... no way... telling people GOD said such... another story...

In this particular case, it does reduce STDs, and the spread of AIDS... yep, AIDS is new.. but STDs are not.

And as a medic... it also makes it easier to put a foley in yep, feel free to say "ouch"

So leaving the religion to the side, there are valid public health reasons for this

Now if you wonder about the dietary laws...

Cooking pork in a desert properly and avoiding trichinosis is hard, no wood

And keeping shell fish fresh... same story

Now the one that I usually go WTF, and I have yet to find a reason for is... not mixing fowl and milk, though I suspect that was purely... you can drink milk with fish... but not land animals

[MonteLukast]

72. Was Kalakukko...

... invented by Finnish Jews, then?

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. No pork so no

and I do not recall a similar dish in Eastern Europe either... I should ask my dad and mom one of these days

Though pastries with meat inside, pies, are fairly common across northern Europe

Oh wait, there is a type of pastry that would be filled with only meat and potatoes common in the Ukraine and Poland... just cannot remember the name

As to Finnish Jewish population... has been minuscule for evah

[Gwendolyn]

115. You're maybe thinking of pierogis, or knishes?

Either can be made with potato and meat mixtures.

As to the earlier post of why there is no mixing of meat and dairy... supposedly it's a reminder to treat other creatures with respect and compassion. Comes from the passage "thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk."

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Yeah and I figured the reason why, for health reasons too

milk and meat makes meat (or fowl) go bad faster as it decomposes fibers... after all I have yet to meet a chicken that sucks milk the wild (our sun conure loves milk)

[Gwendolyn]

129. Nads, I'm not sure it's about health reasons.

The new wisdom claims that the original "thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk" referred to a specific pagan ritual, supposedly one that conferred extra powers on the worshipers. Also, it claims to purport some sort of respect for the living creatures around us. In any case, the original doctrine doesn't account for the hours required between eating meat and dairy in today's world, since meat isn't likely to go "more bad" in someone's stomach if mixed with milk. Also, it seems that the whole health thing is rather odd, and wasn't the "reason" people discarded certain food, since pigs don't tend to decompose quicker than camels, shellfish don't go bad quicker than fish (which also have all kinds of pesky parasites attached to them). The current philosophy is that these admonitions were put into place to discern one people from another, keep them separate. That and the idea that shellfish, as well as pigs, are scavengers, and bottom feeders, therefore unclean.

In any event, not mixing meat with dairy is certainly a cleaner diet, and one that probably promotes a thinner lifestyle. All those cream sauces do nothing to promote a healthy diet. Some would say there was a wiser God looking out for people. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Two World Religions Require It

http://www.circlist.com/rites/moslem.html

BTW, I had a Seventh Day Adventist explain to me the origin and basis for the Old Testament dietary laws as Adventists follow both the Old and New Testament laws including the dietary ones.

[cali]

87. It doesn't matter one way or the other to me.

I'm having sex with a person, not merely an appendage. I didn't have my son circumcized however. Just didn't see the need for it.

[Dorian Gray]

88. I don't particularly have a preference

I've been with both.

[FedUpWithIt All]

91. I am in love with a man who was circ'd. We did not circ our son.

I have been with both. There are benefits to both.


If i love a person then to me they have the best anatomy that nature (or the Dr.) could give them.

[lostnfound]

120. Cutest baby ever.

So adorable. Okay, I had the cutest baby ever once, and as a baby he was a heart-melter for sure..but yours is just as adorable. Really.

[FedUpWithIt All]

128. Aw, thank you.

:hug:

He is not so cute this AM. Cranky boy.

:P

[mnhtnbb]

92. This 58 yo woman thinks technique is far more important than

whether a man is circumcised.

However, both hubby (who is not)and I chose to not circumcise our two boys at birth. Both of us
felt it was a barbaric custom related to making sure boys grow up fearing patriarchal power. (And hubby is a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst.)

[chemenger]

93. Plenty of medical reasons to justify circumcision

http://www.circinfo.net/cancer_of_the_penis.html

"The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms. The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a cesspool for infection, as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection. Rather, the foreskin tends to trap and transmit micro-organisms, both to the man himself, and his sexual partners."

"Penile cancer is regarded as an emerging problem. This large review also noted that public health measures, such as prophylactic use of circumcision, have proven successful. Neonatal circumcision virtually abolishes the risk."

"Phimosis (‘to tie with a string’) is generally regarded as narrowing of the foreskin orifice so as to prevent retraction of the foreskin over the glans. It may arise from physiological adhesion of the foreskin to the glans or to fibrous adhesions. It consists of a permanent preputial constriction often to a pinpoint. Trapped secretions and build-up of smegma predispose to poor hygiene, local infections, later penile cancer, and painful erections. Severe phimosis may lead to urinary tract infections, localized skin infections, pain when passing urine, retention of urine, kidney stones, and sexual dysfunction."

"In 1982 it was reported that 95% of UTIs in boys aged 5 days to 8 months were in uncircumcised infants."

"A number of studies have documented higher rates of cervical cancer in women who have had one or more male sexual partners who were uncircumcised."

"Ten studies since 1999 have documented high-risk HPVs in breast tumours. The type(s) in breast were identical to those in the cervix of women with cervical cancer. This led to the suggestion of transmission during sexual activity. In support of this women with HPV-positive breast cancer are significantly younger than those with HPV-negative breast cancer. Thus an uncircumcised male partner may also increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer, which is a very common cancer in women."

[defendandprotect]

126. All of nature survives uncirc'd . . .

Can we really blame cancers on the male penis . . . ?

That reminds me of the idea that abortion creates breast cancer!!!

The foreskin and smegma are necessary -- and shouldn't be considered disposable.

However, cleanliness should never be dispensed with!!

[canucksawbones]

139. penile cancer is virtually unknown

in circumcised men. However, penile cancer usually only occurs in males who get recurrent balanitis (a consequence of not cleaning behind the foreskin), but basically uncircumcised men are really the only men who get penile cancer.

Circumcision will be debated on and off for years to come yet. There are disadvantages and advantages to both and when I was in standard general practice I performed circs on request, I neither advocated for or against. I did make it clear that cleanliness was a must, a tight foreskin (which can't be determined until the foreskin becomes truly retractile at age 3+)is an absolute indication for circumcision, and abnormalities of the meatus are an absolute contraindication (as the foreskin may be needed at a later date for reconstruction)

G

[Maine-ah]

100. I have never personally seen an uncirc'd man

I've seen pics, but not IRL.

I don't think I'd really care one way or the other, as long as he knows how to use it.

:evilgrin:

[NNN0LHI]

101. Better to ask someone male or female who works at a nursing home

They are the people who get stuck keeping everything clean when the elderly men can't do it for themselves any more. Either that or it just doesn't ever get done.

Don

[schmuls]

103. Never did the wild thang with someone not cut, let alone seen one

but to be real graphic, doesn't the head pop out when an erection occurs, anyway?

[Control-Z]

114. With the boyfriend I had

who was uncut, the foreskin never fully retracted to expose the entire head. I don't know if it is the same for all men, though.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

106. Esthetically...

I prefer cut to uncut, but I have come to the conclusion that circumcision is a decision that that should be made only by each and every man, not imposed by parents. I really can't believe we happily cut off bits of penises for no reason that good hygiene and condoms can't cure. :crazy: That is just insane.

[etherealtruth]

116. Uncircumcised is my preference ...

... but, its not like I would not want to sleep with someone I was attracted to because they were circumcised.

[defendandprotect]

118. Evidently, someone here who wants "females" to disappear ---!!!

The opposite of male is female ---

The opposite of men is women ---

I've also been told by one poster here that "female" is wrong ---

Of course, it is not -- the poster is misguided!

[Withywindle]

134. It may not be technically "wrong" but I think it's dehumanizing.

Whenever someone writes "females" I always think, for just a second, "female what?"

A "female" can be anything from any species that has gender: you could be talking about cats, chimps, crows, frogs, plants, you name it. Not that there's anything WRONG with being, say, a female hemp plant or a female flamingo or a female platypus, but if you mean an adult female human, call her a WOMAN - that's what the word means.

Same reason I don't like referring to black PEOPLE as "blacks" or gay PEOPLE as "gays" It's putting the trait, the label, before the humanity.

[defendandprotect]

135. Technically it's inane . . .

the problem is not with anyone's use of the term "female, " the problem is with your distorted
interpretation of "female" as some kind of a slur ... !!!

Where you got this idiotic notion, I have no idea --- but let's try your inane reasoning ....

A "female" can be anything from any species that has gender: you could be talking about cats, chimps, crows, frogs, plants, you name it.

Try substituting "male" --- is there such a thing as a MALE cat, MALE chimp, MALE crow,
MALE frog, MALE plants ....????
Shall we also do away with the term "MALE" . . . ???

:eyes:

And, btw, generally ALL of us when we speak of an "adult female" do say "woman" --!!!
However, when we speak of the female gender which is not adult, we say "female" --
or young girl, young lady, whatever . . . but she is still female--
Even an adult woman is FEMALE, amazingly enough --- !!!

Further, there is no similarity between the examples you give below and the use of the
term "female."

Same reason I don't like referring to black PEOPLE as "blacks" or gay PEOPLE as "gays" It's putting the trait, the label, before the humanity.

As far as the term "blacks" is concerned I'm totally against any newspaper reporting which
uses that term -- or which identifies any other race by its color . . .
and I think we can improve communication if we all avoid referring to people by the color
of their skin.

"Gay" has long been in use and I've only heard the right-wing object to the loss of the
original meaning of that word. On the other hand, should the homosexuality community be
opposed to that term, I'd immediately stop using it in referring to homosexuals.

When you have time, please explain how you've arrived at the conclusion that "female" is
DEHUMANIZING

[Withywindle]

138. "female" is not dehumanizing in and of itself. I'm female and I'm proud.

But "female" is best used as an adjective. To use it as a noun is to render whatever being is being described that way into a mere function of its reproductive role. To use "male" as a noun with no indication as to what kind of being you're describing does the same thing, but it's less culturally loaded because MEN do not have a long history of being reduced culturally to nothing but their reproductive biology, whereas WOMEN do.

As to why you went so spectacularly nuclear over a mere matter of taste in word usage (which is important, but your response was a willy-nilly rant that completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.)

There's nothing wrong with "gay" or "black" as an ADJECTIVE either. It's as a noun, as if that is the sum total of the person described's existence, that irks me.

is that more clear? I hope so.

[defendandprotect]

140. So we can't use either "male" nor "female" as a noun . . . according to you . . . !!!???

And what a relief to see you admit this . . .

"female" is not dehumanizing in and of itself. I'm female and I'm proud.

And I think you've just used "female" as a NOUN in both of those sentences!

To use it as a noun is to render whatever being is being described that way into a mere function of its reproductive role.

Is that what you just did ... described yourself as a mere function of your reproductive role??!!

Of course not!

(Adjective -- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a female person; feminine: female suffrage; female charm -- a female readership. )


As to why you went so spectacularly nuclear over a mere matter of taste in word usage (which is important, but your response was a willy-nilly rant that completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.)

Your efforts to get posts at DU changed to language with agrees with your distorted thinking
requires response -- sorry if you don't like that!

For instance, explain to us how this post you wanted changed dehumanized females?

And, again, "females" is used here as a NOUN!


But I want to know what females think.

Do you prefer circumcised males?

Do you prefer non-circumcised males?

Do you care either way?

EDIT:

Changed "females" to "women" on request.

Further, since the poster is using the term "males" . . . it is "females" which
is the opposite and correct reference. In order to be in agreement, "males" would
have to be changed to "men."

Again, you're simply putting more on display your distorted thinking overall . .

But "female" is best used as an adjective. To use it as a noun is to render whatever being is being described that way into a mere function of its reproductive role. To use "male" as a noun with no indication as to what kind of being you're describing does the same thing, but it's less culturally loaded because MEN do not have a long history of being reduced culturally to nothing but their reproductive biology, whereas WOMEN do.

Perhaps we should also avoid all discussions of birth control or choice because that might
"dehumanize" females as well?

There's nothing wrong with "gay" or "black" as an ADJECTIVE either. It's as a noun, as if that is the sum total of the person described's existence, that irks me.

is that more clear? I hope so.

No -- there is EVERYTHING wrong with the use of "black" in referring to African-Americans.
It shouldn't be used in any manner -- noun nor adjective. Nor should we refer to any other
peoples as "red" nor "yellow" -- !!!

"Gay" has long been in use to describe homosexuality -- and I've heard no request from the
homosexual community to drop that term. If you have let us know, please . . . !!!

[Withywindle]

143. No, I used "female" in ts adjective form.

"I'm female" - that's an adjective. "I'm A female," that's a noun.

You know, I'm not the same person who asked the original poster to change his language. I'm not the only one who feels this way.

But I don't feel strongly enough about it to get as worked up as you.

[defendandprotect]

141. dupe

And what a relief to see you admit this . . .

"female" is not dehumanizing in and of itself. I'm female and I'm proud.

And I think you've just used "female" as a NOUN in both of those sentences!

To use it as a noun is to render whatever being is being described that way into a mere function of its reproductive role.

Is that what you just did ... described yourself as a mere function of your reproductive role??!!

Of course not!

(Adjective -- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a female person; feminine: female suffrage; female charm -- a female readership. )


As to why you went so spectacularly nuclear over a mere matter of taste in word usage (which is important, but your response was a willy-nilly rant that completely misunderstood the point I was trying to make.)

Your efforts to get posts at DU changed to language with agrees with your distorted thinking
requires response -- sorry if you don't like that!

For instance, explain to us how this post you wanted changed dehumanized females?

And, again, "females" is used here as a NOUN!


But I want to know what females think.

Do you prefer circumcised males?

Do you prefer non-circumcised males?

Do you care either way?

EDIT:

Changed "females" to "women" on request.

Further, since the poster is using the term "males" . . . it is "females" which
is the opposite and correct reference. In order to be in agreement, "males" would
have to be changed to "men."

Again, you're simply putting more on display your distorted thinking overall . .

But "female" is best used as an adjective. To use it as a noun is to render whatever being is being described that way into a mere function of its reproductive role. To use "male" as a noun with no indication as to what kind of being you're describing does the same thing, but it's less culturally loaded because MEN do not have a long history of being reduced culturally to nothing but their reproductive biology, whereas WOMEN do.

Perhaps we should also avoid all discussions of birth control or choice because that might
"dehumanize" females as well?

There's nothing wrong with "gay" or "black" as an ADJECTIVE either. It's as a noun, as if that is the sum total of the person described's existence, that irks me.

is that more clear? I hope so.

No -- there is EVERYTHING wrong with the use of "black" in referring to African-Americans.
It shouldn't be used in any manner -- noun nor adjective. Nor should we refer to any other
peoples as "red" nor "yellow" -- !!!

"Gay" has long been in use to describe homosexuality -- and I've heard no request from the
homosexual community to drop that term. If you have let us know, please . . . !!!

[Thickasabrick]

137. What is wrong with saying female.....did I miss something? n/t

[defendandprotect]

119. I think it's an interesting question --- and glad you're asking--!!!

I'd also be interested in what females who have experienced both circumcized and

uncircumcized males think . . ! My vote is for uncircumcized.

But . .why would you be surprised that circumcision is a topic which is of interest at DU?

I was "cut" so young I have no memory of it and couldn't care less, but I do know that the few women I have been lucky enough to be with have been happy, not traumatized, by the fact I had been "cut."

Here's the thing . . . you have no experience of both sides of this -- only one side.

Additionally, I would have to say I always had a gut reaction to the idea of circumcizing
a newborn male and it was negative. I really didn't have any info on it at the time my
son was born and, sadly, I left it up to my husband . . . but asking him to look into it
and research it and rethink it . . . because he was circumcized and I knew that he thought
our son should be. I twas only much later that I came to realize that there was a lot of
info which backed up my instincts.

There has been a lot of interference with childbirth -- women are hospitalized as though it
were some kind of a disease and often separated from the newborn, though, fortunately a lot
of that is changing. The revolution of the '60s was about childbirth at home and not drugging
the mother into a coma. But look at where we are now! I think at least 1/3rd of all births
are now by cesarean section -- and many of those by appointment!!

Coming back to the newborn male -- before he has even barely been seen by his parents he is
whisked off by strangers and strapped to a board and has a circumcision without anesthesia!!
I can't think that's a good thing. Neither can I think it's good for the mother/child
relationship -- trust/bonding. This is certainly an act of violence on the newborn.
He's just been thru the trauma of birth. He should be close to his mother and able to trust
her. That's how I see it. I feel it was wrong to have my son circumcized -- what I heard
mainly from my husband is that he should "fit in" and look like everyone else!
And, I've touched on this issue with my son, whose first comment was also that he preferred
looking like everyone else!

As a sexual partner, I would certainly vote for the uncircumcized male.

In my experience, more staying power.








So my situation is a bit absurd and very neutral: Basically, I don't care, but it seems like my parents made the right decision.

But I want to know what females think.

Do you prefer circumcised males?

Do you prefer non-circumcised males?

Do you care either way?

EDIT:

Changed "females" to "women" on request.

[willing dwarf]

122. There's only one difference I've noticed

The guys I've been with who were circumcised were no different (better or worse) than the guys who weren't, but one distinguishing difference I have noticed is this: the uncircumcised guys are a lot kinder, sweeter and more pleasant to be around. They're less edgy and defensive too.

Now, it could be a completely cultural thing or a psychological response to events that happened or didn't happen years before. All I know is that I'd rather spend time with the guys I've known who were not circumcised.

Cheers!

[defendandprotect]

123. Just occurred to me that you should probably also ask homosexual males ....

which they prefer and why --- !!!

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. My brother was in his mid 20's & married when he had the surgery.

His first wife, and her gynecologist insisted. The marriage only lasted a couple of years, and 20 years later he still regrets having had the surgery. He complains of a sensation deficit as a result of the surgery. He is now on his third wife. I think the surgery really played with his head.

[Thickasabrick]

136. That is really sad n/t

[Withywindle]

127. I don't see why women's opinions ought to matter that much.

I AM a woman. I'm not about to take a poll of men asking whether they think I should have breast implants or not, or take the Gardasil vaccine or not, or have an abortion or not, or whether I should have cosmetic labial surgery or not, or whether I should shave my crotch or not.

Self-respect dictates I ought to tell any man who has unsolicited commentary to offer on my body to step the hell off. So why should you guys care about what a woman has to say about cut vs. uncut?

I'm an American, and weirdly, I've never actually had a chance to get up close and personal with an uncut cock, but I'd have no problem with it if I did. I think it might be fun to experiment with it, but otherwise I would have no strong feelings. It's not a serious factor in attraction vs. unattraction.

I don't ever want children, but if I had a son, I wouldn't have him cut - nothing I've seen proves to my satisfaction that it's necessary, and as far as I'm concerned, life-saving necessity IS the minimum of proof required to do permanent alterations on those who can't consent.

[Gwendolyn]

130. I agree. It should be a man's choice.

The original reasoning for it was to keep tribes separate, and also to mute sensation so that males would occasionally stop their incessant fornicating in order to build huts and other useful societal items. The uncircumcised penis feels better but the circumcised example looks cuter and requires less care taking. But then again, women also must be constantly vigilant about their own cleanliness.

Edited to add: The circumcision thing is the male equivalent of female hysterectomy where the medical profession just keeps finding reasons why it "should" be done, for their own gain.

[defendandprotect]

142. Glad you get it --

And after making clear that guys shouldn't care what a woman has to say about cut vs uncut . . .

And aftere making clear that I don't ever want children, but if I had a son, I wouldn't have him cut - nothing I've seen proves to my satisfaction that it's necessary, and as far as I'm concerned, life-saving necessity IS the minimum of proof required to do permanent alterations on those who can't consent.

you nonetheless state your preference. And, good for you!

[lonestarnot]

131. Helmet head, ant eater, both dicks.

[Pastiche423]

132. Circumcised