Circumcision Battle *DELETED*

Post deleted by Partagas

Thanks for the story.

I don't know if your need to post the whole entire story.
Maybe you should edit it.

You know snip it down a bit

I saw that coming. :p


TIS

My 2 cents on the topic...

The foreskin is there for a reason, to protect the glans of the penis. It also leaves the glans quite sensitive, enhancing sexual pleasure.

If your religion dictates it, then so be it. But I am pretty much against what has been routine circumcision on newborns except in the extremely rare cases that it is medically necessary.

The decision (except in those cases) should be left to the boy himself, when he becomes of age. If he doesn't want it any more, then fine - that should be his decision. It's much easier to remove a body part than to get it back.

There is absolutely no reason for it to be removed simply because "everyone" gets it done, or because a parent may think it's "ugly". I think it's barbaric.

Is there any question as to what the answer to that would be?

Only because of the on-going mutilations here in North America could your question even sound humorous. If it wasn't so commonplace and "expected" for so long, then it wouldn't be an issue. :p

Other places in the world have no problem with it, why should we? Aren't we supposed to be a civilized culture by now?? Putting newborns through unneccessary pain for what many would consider cosmetic reasons is not civilized (IMHO).

PS - I should've known it'd be with DMC that I'd get into a penis debate!!

I don't think I follow what you are saying JG, I meant if it was me and I was 14,15,20,30,50 and someone said I'm going to cut your penis, I think I'd pass on it, no questions asked.

Oh! I read what you said backwards then, sorry... Now you're making more sense!

Geoff feels very strongly about foreskin, ironically he also feels foreskin very strongly.

Not so long ago, many pediatricians felt that circumcision was also better for cleanliness, especially with younger children...though many now say that isn't the case.

Way back when I had my kids, included in your estimated payment and/or insurance payment was the fee for a circumcision, should it be a boy, as though it were a given. Having only girls, I never had to deal with it, but is it considered not as necessary now as it was in the olden days?

TIS

Way to go, JGeoff!!

My friend adopted a 1yr old little boy from Russia a couple of years ago. The child was uncircumciced and my friend being an typical American woman, was just not used to the...um...look. Anyway, she told me she did plan to get him circumcised, but when she mentioned this to a doctor he STRONGLY advised against it, for just the reasons you mention above. At that point, there would have been absolutely NO reason to do such a thing except to please the mother. The boy would have gained nothing healthwise, and would had to have been put under general anasthesia. Although very young and assumedly resilient as most kids are, there was no telling how he'd react to the wound since he was no longer a newborn.

Needless to say, the mother finally did decide against the procedure. It will be entirely his choice when he's older.

Heck, I've changed the kid's diapers and it looks odd to me, too! But I haven't really seen enough of those things to really be an expert.

Apple

I don't want to know the details, either...but I bet he began washing under the ol' foreskin after that!!!

Glad I'll never get to meet your father-in-law...

Apple

And I'm sure you don't want him to know that you're
the one who told us about it !!

Apple

If he had experienced rejection by a woman a few times because he was uncircumcised, I'd bet he'd opt to get one.

The practice really didn't start in America until the Victorian era, when "germs are every where waiting to kill you."

Also out of (or born in) the Victorian era-

- White counter tops in the kitchen allow you to see germs. When a counter top is pure white, its clean.

- Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, Lenin

Those were messed up times. Needless to say, mainland Europe didn't follow the crazy Americans.

My entire point can be summed up as: evolution created such protection for men, and for a reason. Period.

And as I said, if for religious reasons you decide to have your kids mutilated, then, I guess that's fine.

But, besides that, there is absolutely, positively, 99.99% NO reason to have this mutilation done to any newborn!!

If someone thinks it's ugly (and it's not theirs) then that's the problem of our brutal society creating that imposed image to begin with. Quite ridiculous, if you ask me.

And I'm not blaming any parents who've made that decision for their children -- that was how it was -- but it is the 21st Century now, and no one's died that I know of, nor had any ill health whatsoever, from how GOD created us to begin with, 1000s of years ago.

Anuses can be quite ugly - why don't we extract those? *sigh*

It's b.s., as far as I'm concerned. But I stand by what I think: NO ONE should have ANY right to decide to SURGICALLY REMOVE A BODY PART from you, other than yourself.

Period.

Apparently you missed my entire point...

Many doctors do this operation for free. They just work for tips.

You forgot the " :rolleyes: " after that....

Sorry.

:rolleyes:

Thats right.... I'm a post count whore. :p

Apparently you missed my entire point... [/b][/quote]No, I think your point was that no one should have the right to remove a body part of another, so those decisions should be left to the owner of the body part in question when they are old enough to decide for themselves.

But suppose you had a child who was born with, say, ear lobes that were two or three times larger than normal sized ear lobes?

No healh issue involved, they just looked a little ridiculous based on our society's standards.

And the doctor tells you that while the baby was in infancy would be the best time to surgically correct the problem. Just a little snipping.....

Wouldn't you do it?

Now, I know that this example isn't the greatest. All men are born with a foreskin, so it's not considered a deformity, as three inch ear lobes would be.

But if you want to give me a "God" argument, then I could certainly argue that God intended for this child to have ear lobes that were three inches long.

Bottom line: It would be surgery performed for purely cosmetic reasons.

Look, religious reasons aside, if we could go back several hundred or a thousand years or whatever, and nip the practice in the bud (so to speak), so that today it was the American men with the circumcisions that were in the vast minority and those without were considered the norm, then I'd agree with you.

But, unfortunately, we can't go back in time and change the way we've been doing it for so long.

Now, I could be 100% wrong here, but I suspect that when a man's pants come off for the first time in front of a potential lover, that lover is expecting to see a circumcised penis, and that a good many people would, in fact, be completely turned off by the sight of one that wasn't.

If that is not the case, and no one cared, then I think I would agree with you. That's why I suggested a poll, BTW.

Ideally, of course, pants wouldn't be coming off until the people involved were in love, or at least in strong "like", or at the very least at a point in their relationship at which whether or not the penis was circumcised would make a difference but, unfortunately, we aren't at that ideal point in our society.

Sadly, I must confess that if I found myself involved in an intimate situation with a particular woman for the first time, and her genitalia, when initially revealed to me, proved to be radically different in some respect from what any of my five senses had become accustomed to in the past, I would probably be turned off.

I think this 'preference' for one may again be a mostly American thing. Which reminds me of a story....

Some 20 years ago I worked at a Greek Diner in Manhattan. A friend of dropped in and took a liking to one of our waiters...well, the two eventually went out & had some of that foreplay we're all so fond of , and the very next day first thing she mentioned was that this guy much as she liked him was not circumcised!! Because of this, she truly didn't know if she could continue dating and eventually hit the sack with him.

Well, he called her and she pondered over it, did talk about the 'germ' thing but really liked him and in the end they did go to bed and from what I heard a splendid time was had by all . My friend however, made a point of joking to me that the next time they got together she'd be sure to hand him a washcloth before they got too busy.

Now, this guy was Greek-born and had to be in at least his early 40's at the time. Which means he probably had had plenty of experience with women by the time he met my friend. As with shaved armpits, this circimcision thing may just be an American vs. European woman's preference.

However plawrence, I must question your theory about having your hypothetical son circumcised if for no other reason than to not have him rejected as an adult by women...for I would hate to see female babies altered in any way just from her parents' pre-concieved notion that she might one-day be physically 'rejected' by men. And of course, I don't mean when it involves a serious deformity which was clearly not what nature intended.

I think that even in hospitals, and with non-Jewish babies, this whole thing became common practice because of the germ issue. But in many cases, the decision probably is made by parents who are concerned about 'the look'. It will probably take a full generation to turn that around.

Regarding the 'pain' issue though...personally, I figure a newborn infant who cannot yet even think goes through so much discomfort just from being squirted out of that nice, warm, cozy womb that I don't think the minor alteration of a properly performed circumcision would really serve to traumatize that little boy for life. Nor do I think he'd 'remember' it years later. That's psychological hogwash.

Apple

It almost certainly is an "American thing", but the fact remains that reality is reality, and if you read my last post above, your friend's little adventure proves my point to some extent.

By the time things reach the point where everyone is ready to get naked it really shouldn't make a difference, but apparently, to many, it would.

And yes, it will take a generation or two to change things around, but since I don't see that happening yet (although it does seem to be starting to happen slowly), I'd opt for my son having the same, um, "look" as most American males do.

No, it doesn't really prove your point at all. Because as mentioned in MY post above, this guy was Greek and remained uncircumcised well into his 40's (and probably still is, wherever he is) ... which means that regardless of my own friend's misgivings (although she eventually gave in to physical desire), he had probably had many happy rendevous with women who had no problem dealing with that 'little something extra'. Obviously, no female preference had forced him to make the decision to have the procedure done.

Including his wife, whom he probably went home to after having that fling with my friend.

Ahhhhh, youth!!!

Apple

Wasted on the young...

Let's see how many potentially offensive comments are in here: :p (italics mine)

First off, I love it when MEN have such strong opinions about how they think uncut penises are "unsightly" - as if they think cut penises are more pleasant to look at. :p

So let's see... according to Plaw natural penises look a little ridiculous, are a problem, they need surgical alteration for cosmetic reasons, they are radically different, and, he's completely turned off by them.

As for any health benefits of circumcision, I think it's mostly bullshit. One just needs to clean himself - it's called a shower. :p Read this page called Circumcision Positions of Advocates and Critics and the other articles on that site, including Circumcision to Look Like Others and the rest.

Some highlights:

"Circumcision violates a major principle of medical practice: First, do no harm. It also violates all seven principles of medical ethics. (When circumcision is performed, it does not treat any disease, injury, or other health problem)"

"Circumcision involves cutting off normal, healthy, functioning tissue to prevent potential UTI (urinary tract infection) problems in the future. There is no disease or infection present at the time of surgery. If we were to apply this principle in trying to prevent other potential problems, then we would be pulling healthy teeth to prevent cavities. Clearly, this principle is irrational."

"Circumcised men do not know what they are missing. They believe that the sexual sensitivity they have without a foreskin is "normal." (Similarly, a woman born in Somalia who had been subjected to a severe form of female circumcision insisted that it had no impact. "It's the same thing. There is nothing different about my sexuality.") According to one man who was circumcised as an adult, sex without a foreskin is like sight without color. Those who have not seen in color cannot appreciate what is lost."

If anything, just read this summary ... and these myths from an organization called NORM (National Organziation of Restoring Men) who claim that "a 1991 survey of 301 males seeking restoration information showed almost 70% of those circumcised as infants or as children resent their parents for their circumcision."

Many mothers who have had it done are traumatized for years.

Even Jews are quesitioning the practice , and many choose not to do it. Here is a summary, including:

"In actual practice, many Jews circumcise because of cultural conformity, not religious reasons. ...Most circumcisions of male infants of American Jewish parents are done in hospitals without any religious ritual."

For even more, check out the sites by National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males ("The most ardent supporters of genital mutilation are men and women who are circumcised, trapped in a cycle of abuse handed down to them, which they perpetuate onto their children."),
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers ("Not one national or international medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision"), and
International Coalition for Genital Integrity ("...when the health professional acts to support the interests of the state or other entity instead of those of the individual in a manner that violates the human rights of the individual") [italics mine], and even Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.) which "intends to bring out the facts about this tragic practice."

Talk about human rights, try some of the articles on this page .

And lastly, since this is a long post...

Are supporters for male circumcision also supporters of female circumcision ?

P.S. The circumcision rate in the USA has dropped to 60%. Soon, it'll be less than half, and the minority. :p

And for you women on the board, you might get over the "unsightliness" after reading this :

;)

Another reason why being an Englishman is better than being an American.

Is it me or are the words written in your example a little off base.

I kind of laughed at the part that reads: So I guess we can now call them "Helmets" (Without) or "Turtles" (with).


Hell, most of us have what we have. The choice was made for most of us before we even knew what the dam thing was. Most likely we think what we have is the best and the other way is wrong. Anyway, if that is your biggest problem in the world, more power to you.
By the way Geoff you are sounding more and more like a turtle to me.

I guess they didn't tell you that most American Doctors like to leave the foreskin on the smaller penis. They feel that the chap will need all the help they can get in the future when the ladies see that smaller member.
They like to remove the foreskin off the larger penis, because they don't want to scare the young ladies when they see the beast come out.

Exactly who am I potentially offending by any of these comments

Who am I offending here? The three-inch-long-ear-lobe crowd?

Are you saying that you wouldn't do anything about it if your baby was born that way?

So you wouldn't consider it a cosmetic problem then? You would let your kid go through life being called "Dumbo" or something?

Of course it would be a problem, and I don't see how anyone could possibly be offended by labeling it as such.

What possibly would be considered offensive about that?

If I said that someone got a nose job for cosmetic reasons, how could that be considered offensive?

That's my opinion, and if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

If what makes that offensive is that I'm implying that many people are so shallow that the sight of an uncircumcised penis would turn them off, my apologies.


Who does that offend?

Seems to me that that is my problem, not my partner's.

Nothing for her to be offended about; at least no more so than if I was turned off by any other aspect of her sexuality, such as technique, for example.

I'm giving you an opinion based on what I believe that some, many, or most American women think.

I think that there are women to whom it would make no difference, and they would have relations with a man if he were circumcised or not, if that was a man with whom they wished to have relations, and that there are women who would care.

I suspect that there are not women who prefer an uncircumcised male, but if there are, they would not reject one who was.

But I also suspect that there are women who prefer that their male partner is circumcosed, and would reject one who wasn't.

Me personally? I couldn't care less. I have no interest whatsoever in looking at other men's penises.

Where did I say any of that?

As I said, I couldn't care less.

I don't know about that...I've heard many jokes over the years insinuating that British men are quite boring as lovers.

Not to mention at times a bit quick on the draw (if you know what I mean

Having nothing whatsoever to do with a little snip here & there...!!

Apple

It wouldn't be offensive. Because in most cases, a nose job is the choice of the person having it...and done in adulthood, at their own expense.

I think what JGeoff is trying to emphasize is that sometimes the parent chooses circumcision for their child, and not for religious or medical reasons, but simply because it would make their son's penis 'look better'.

Although I've personally never thought it was that big a deal, when presented in that light it can't be denied that it is little more than mutilation.

Apple

Where did I say any of that? [/b][/quote]Plaw, I think you missed my intent. You used abnormal ear lobes (and "radically different" female genetalia) as analogies. Therefore, you're implying that a foreskin is an abnormal deformity that's ridiculous and something that's repulsive enough to need cosmetic surgery. Is that not the definition of an analogy? A is like B? :rolleyes: :p

Of course I'd try to take care of any MAJOR abnormalities the best I could if I thought the child would have a healthier and better life. (That's a whole other topic there - how far should we go to help our babies? Genetic alterations to make them stronger and smarter and more handsome??) However, a foreskin is not an abnormality or something to be ashamed of - as we're all born that way, and 80% (and rising, probably) of men on earth retain them without any problems whatsoever.

The only "problem" may be a feeling of being a little different. Many people have that "problem" - minorities, gays, very short people, very tall people, very fat people, very skinny people, those with disabilities of some kind. These aren't "problems" to me. They're not something that needs to be "fixed" because it's not "normal."

Luckily this "problem" of feeling different is decreasing each decade. Few more decades and circumcised men will be the ones feeling different in the showers.

Which is it? Some, many, or most? How many people are you sticking up for with your argument? lol Read some of those links I posted on Page 1 -- one study said 7/8 of women preferred it because sex was better. :p

WHAT?? Because you don't like it than no one probably does? Huh??

I really don't think most women would care. There are plenty of other ways that a man can repulse a women besides this. :p

If you took a poll here, or in most of America, you might get a majority to agree with you, simply because that's how it's been here, that's what we're used to, and apparently, that's what we consider "not ugly." But this world is bigger than the U.S. (believe it or not), and circumcised men are in the minority overall.

Read some of those links, and you'll see what pointless torture it is.

I said some, many, or most because I really don't know.

I'm certain there are some, but I don't know how many.

And no, I don't think that there are no American women at all who prefer an uncircumcised penis, but I'd guess that thsat as a percentage it's tiny - under 1% maybe, while I'd bet that the reverse is close to maybe 50%.

As I said....all guesswork here, and we haven't heard from too many of the ladies.

And if we did, I have a feeling - again, I'm guessing - that if there were any who found the uncircumcised penis to be unappetizing (poor choice of words, I know), they might be hesitant to say so, since it does, after all, indicate a certain "shallowness" on their part, perhaps?

(I feel like I'm digging myself deeper and deeper into a hole here, and one of the ladies is gonna come along any minute and cover me with dirt)

For someone who doesn't seem to know anything...

...what could you possibly be basing such numbers on?

As I said, you're probably right that the number of American women (and perhaps gay men) would agree with you somewhat. So I wouldn't expect too many of the Americans here to post saying they love it.

But what about you European women? If circumcision is so much less common on your side of the pond, is an uncut penis considered as "repulsive" to you as it is to Plaw? ( ) (Especially after all that about uncut men being better lovers - is that true?)

Could this be it?

Projection
Psychology

1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others
2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

Who woulda known Geoff would've fought so passionately for the rights of millions of penises around the country. :p

You are, and it ain't gonna be me.

However, it's been interesting to note throughout this thread that (my friend's story notwithstanding) you presume to speak for some, many, or most American women.

Even though you're guessing and really don't know.

Apple

What I really find interesting that I haven't seen many women on the board say much about it.

Usally they have comments about ever subject.

I have my own pole going on,( ) outside the board. I expect many answers from local women and a whole bunch from the ladies of Syracuse University. I think this may open some eyes after we hear from some of them. This may take a day or two, so be patient.

As far as preference, I would have to say that it would depend on whose penis it was. I don't think I would make a decision based on circumcised or not. If I really came to know and care for the man, I can't imagine that it would make any difference. I've been with Mr. Babe for almost a quarter of a century now (Gosh, that's just unbelievable), so I might be a bit out of the loop here, but I know that I was always far more attracted to what went on in the head attached to a man's shoulders. Getting to know the "little head" was always secondary. And when you do, it's usually dark, anyway.

I'll just dig myself in a bit deeper here, as long as no one seems to mind....

Unless your pollis beingconducted in total anonymity, I think that may will not give a truthful answer, since stating that they would care might be regarded as politically incorrect.

Also, you need to make the distinction in your results as to which answers come from women from cultures where circumcision is the norm, and which don't.

If you never found yourself with a man who was uncircumcised, though, you don't really know for sure exactly how you would react, do you?

So, the big question, SB......

Have you or haven't you?

And you too, Apple and TIS.

I say the "pole" or should I say the "poll"? Well, either way, the poll should include pictures of your poles. Then we can decide which one we prefer better.

In any case, this is a must routine here for baby boys, they usually get it over with right after they are born, and skin isn't that sensitive after a while as they grow, it is not like they've got it done yesterday.

I'd call it far from uncivilized and it is not all about beauty, since back in those days when the personal hygiene was not up to today's standard, this would've prevented a large percent of STDs and infections.

So it has remained a custom here, and I'm not sure I'm much against it. Parents decide and initiate lots of our habits and our way of lives. We can't tell vegan parents to give meat to their children, nor can we tell them if they should or shouldn't circumcise their children, when the outcome of the both customs has been proven to be safe.

Once again, you are ASSuming that it's so "abnormal" that it must be soooooooooo uncommon, how could a women have ever had an experience??

It must shock you to no end that 2/10 (American) men you know, and 4/10 boys you know, are physically whole/intact. In a decade or two, it'll be a majority.

But you practically ask how could a woman possibly have had any experience whatsoever with such loathsome deformed men!


Alas, you're probably right, though. No one's sticking up for my side of it. Maybe I'm just wrong thinking unnecessary mutilation of another (who can't decide for himself) is a violation of human rights and cruel. My bad. :p

Don't be too hard on me here.

The question was initially addresed to SB, who I know has been married and faithful (so she says, at least) for 25 years, so back in her wild days almost every guy probably had one.

And Apple & TIS, I'd guess, altho single today, are probably not exactly, um, hanging around with the younger generation.

But even if I was asking someone younger, I don't think that my question has the implication that you suggest it does.

(and if only 20% of American me today are "intact", that percentage isn't gonna shift to anywhwere near a majority in the next 20 years.

If there are presently, say 100 million men in the U.S., and 80 million are circumcised, and 20 million of them die die in the next 20 years, that will leave, 80 million, with 64 million circumcised.

And if they are replaced by 20 million, 16 million of whom are not circumcised, that will still live 68 million out of 100 million who are.)

And here I thought you stood up for human rights... :p

I'm not sure if I'm not a dyke, but the penis is overrated circumcised or uncircumcised. It really is not such a big deal guys. I know I'd settle with a guy without a penis if I love him.

Women love everything before the action better, or it might be just me.

Oh, Afs, thank you - that's so sweet!

Gee, JG, I was gonna ask you if you were circumcised or not.

Maybe that's the wrong question. :p

How far this human right thingy goes? Do we have to dictate to parent what they should or should not call their kids, if they should decide to remove their kid's appendix, make them have beauty surgery, keep a specified diet? It is a gray area. You'll be accustomed to the way you are raised and you will like it no matter what.

I'll answer that once I hear from some more women... :p

If you're not sure, you probably not.

Anyway, in a female homosexual relationship, the one referred to as the "dyke" generally would not.....

Never mind.

Medical surgery I have no problem with - why would anyone??

Personally, I also have no problem with parents raising their children vegan, or of some religion, or of some belief, or whatever -- because the person can always make up his own mind when he gets older. (Tho denying kids of Happy Meals at McDonalds should be considered cruel! )

But can removing 15+ square inches of skin from a defensless infant's body be reversed? Many have tried, through stretching apparatuses - but should they have to?

You can wear condoms, they make the organ insensitive as foreskin does. :p

But really, I don't think I should give opinion about this since I never had one.

And trust me, the way you've been raised is always present deep down. You hardly ever rebel against your customs, and if you do, the chances are high that you go back to the old routine. I've experienced this and I firmly believe in this. There is no way I put commas inside quotation mark, and I like American English better. Go figure...

Afs, my dear... this is backwards!

Circumsized men have less sensitivity because their glans are being worn down by being exposed to clothing all the time.

In fact, I actually disagree with the studies when they say that uncut men last longer - because if you're more sensitive, how could you not "finish" sooner?

But Afs, any time you wanna help with my study, you're welcome to come to NJ...

I was looking for passion and you want to study!

This penis thing is getting to you, isn't it?

Nah, not really... I couldn't care less... I was just trying to get into your pants all this time....

I agree with most of you here.

The choice should be to the owner of the foreskin. This also according to the UN's universal declaration of human rights.

It's bad enough that religion is imposed on children (of course with the parents best intentions but nevertheless)but at least this damage is not as irreversable as chopping of a piece of skin.

The only valid reason would be a medical one.

Furthermore, I think it's a pretty sick habit / culture. WTF are people even thinking mutulating little children? In most civilized countries, female genital mutilation is forbidden, although less damaging, it should be for men as well, just out of the principle that you don't chop off anything untill the victim is at least 18 years old and agrees to it.

You must try a little harder for that. As a hint, expecting me to pop in NJ wouldn't get you in my pants, cuz I don't see myself coming over there anytime soon in my crystal ball.

15 SQUARE INCHES??

Have you ever witnessed a circumcision?

If it's maybe two square inchees I'd be surprised.

15 SQUARE INCHES??

Have you ever witnessed a circumcision?

If it's maybe two square inchees I'd be surprised. [/b][/quote]Actually, I used the smallest number I found in my recent research. I'm not sure if that's infant or adult size, cuz it does seem like a lot either way. Other numbers were over 20 sq inches!

But sq inches are deceiving sometimes. Maybe that's the stretched-out measurement, I don't know. But still...!

If a baby has 15 square inches of fore-skin, then it must be chopped off :p it would be very scary

Maybe an adult measurement...

Thinking about, my estimate of "two" is probably on the low side, but no way is it 15.

The infant's penis is no more than maybe an inch and a half long, and what can the circumference be?

2 x pi x radius x length
= 2 x 3.12 x 0.3 x 1.5
=2.82 sq inches

Multiply by stretch factor of 2 = 5.65 sq inches. No way the fore skin is going to be thrice as big as the entire penis!

OMG this must the first attempt at mathematical porn by anyone

15 sq inches would be what, like 5"x3"? (You know my math is bad!) But isn't that length times width equalling 15? If so, yeah, an infant probably wouldn't have, say, a 4" penis with about equal girth! God knows... cuz I don't wanna be called Infant Dick!

A baby's penis is usually 1.5" x1" meaning 1.5 square inches. 15" is way too big. Maybe they misplaced the decimal point?!

Please... a stud like me was born bigger than that! :p

I guess they must've been talking adult size then... cuz most of the measurements were over 20 sq inches, so.... yeah.

Oh wait, though... that's still huge!!

I bet that's it.

See above.

Maybe they were measuring adult size, and surface area. Cuz surface area would then make more sense. Stretched out as far as it goes.

I swear I read that stat on at least 3 different sites, so....

Sorry, it's late... I gotta CUT outta here!

Good night!

Isn't the number of square inches the same as the surface area?

We're not factoring in the thickness of the skin removed, which is miniscule, so what else could "surface area" mean?

I don't know about that...I've heard many jokes over the years insinuating that British men are quite boring as lovers.[/b][/quote]I could have made a really controversial, rather personal remark here.

I won't.

I can't believe such a debate has raged from circumcision. I'm actually cut (from a very early age and medical reason) and that's RARE in England except for Jews. I've been asked if I'm Jewish and I just do a Jackie Mason or other stereotypical Jewish impression. I aint getting insecure over my body for one moment.

I really don't see the problem or big issue here. Although I slightly lean towards JG's side. What's the point of so many pointless circumcisions in the US? I find it a little wierd.

I am the younger generation, and I have to say, every girl I've ever met who has been with an uncircumcised guy has run to her friends afterwards and said how much it put her off. Bearing in mind all my friends are around the 21 year old mark and are incredibly superficial, but that's the standard response. Personally, I don't care a hell of a lot, but I do prefer the look of them circumcised, which is what most girls base their responses on, the way they look.

There 'ya go, JG.....

Maybe that response will get the ball rolling.

Ha ha!!! And my first post this morning will be on circumcision. (If my parents only knew what I talk about in my spare time )

Truthfully, I am not a woman of "wide range" experience when it comes to this topic. :p I couldn't even tell you what an uncircumcised penis looks like,(no need to post a picture ) thus don't feel qualified to answer, only to say, if we are talking simply about "appearance", I don't think it would matter. And, as far as, how should I put it...performance, I can't imagine it would make a difference.

I really never thought about it, or realized til this thread that it was such a big deal to some men. I thought, for the most part, every male is circumsized at birth.

TIS

Another vote by someone who has never seen one.

It worries me that I've seen more cocks (cut and uncut) than some of these lasses.

I've seen/touched both. Several times.

Surprise.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned that there is little difference in the penis appearance when erect. That is when it really matters, right?

I know of two grown men who got cut as adults mostly for appearance's sake. They were both non-Americans who had moved here to the States. Truthfully, the "after" looked better than the "before" but it really didn't enhance performance at all. I honestly think I have been conditioned by society to think that it looks better "after".

My husband and I actually discussed at length what we would do if we ever had a son. My husband had a good point that he would only want to circumcise his son so that Son and Dad would be the same and not cause any confusion or body image issues for the Son. I stressed that if everyone would stop circumcising penises TODAY - in a number of years being uncut would be the norm.

I honestly do not see the need to perform such a procedure in this day and age when it does nothing to enhance performance. Trust me!

As for hygiene issues - there are plenty of places on a man or woman's body that can fester. Soap is your friend!

Wow. My first post in weeks...or is it months? Bad bout with insomnia last night and I actually found a non-political thread in which I could be passionate about something!

So much talk for foreskin. :p

I've seen/touched both. Several times.

[/b][/quote]Well! You trying to give us a heart attack? A little warning before you come popping back in here would be nice. Some of us old folk can't handle the shock.!

Great to see you back.

You thinking what I'm thinking RRA?

Waferthin beef and ham sub?

LDV !!

So nice to see 'ya.

Just in time for Fantasy Baseball

Thanks. I have been busy and otherwise occupied, what can I say???

I don't understand anything going on on the boards these days!

btw - I didn't see your take on men's penises. You can't tell me you don't have a preference either way....

I can only talk of MY experiences, of course!

Thanks. I have been busy and otherwise occupied, what can I say???

I don't understand anything going on on the boards these days!

btw - I didn't see your take on men's penises. You can't tell me you don't have a preference either way....

I can only talk of MY experiences, of course! [/b][/quote]My take on men's penises? They're too small.

15 SQUARE INCHES??

Have you ever witnessed a circumcision?

If it's maybe two square inchees I'd be surprised. [/b][/quote]15 + square inches- What the hell, did that cut off the poor kids leg!

Sorry Turi....if your post was meant to be a joke, the punchline just went over my head.

Care to enlighten me?

Plaw, Married and faithful so she says ???? What the heck does that mean? As for seeing the two different versions, and if I had a preference, I thought I did answer the quesion in my original post. I have to be attracted to a man's brain first, and the other is secondary, so it wouldn't matter. Can't you read between the lines? It's called discretion!!

LDV!!!

So nice to see you around these parts for once! Maybe more penis discussions will get you on here more often!

JG - yeah, leave it to a penis discussion to make me "come out"!

I read and agree with alot you posted then it hit me that I think we have had this discussion before in the past. :p

Ergo -


Nope. "Ridiculous" is subjective. When you HAVE to put your 3 day infant daughter under general anesthesia to remove an organ or she'll die, then you decide what looks "ridiculous" and if it is important enough to do just a little "snip".

Maybe you prefer we bring back foot binding? I mean we can't have all these girls running around with huge size 10 supermodel feet, can we? That looks ridiculous!! I bet if we band together as a society and start the practice of foot binding on infant girls, in 50 years we won't have many female feet larger than a size 4 in our country!

Wait. This has been done somewhere before???


Not all human beings are compatible with one another. This particular woman would not be compatible with your taste and expectations in women. You would be turned off? If I were this woman, would I want to feel like I was dating a 'gina inspector?

She obviously would not be your cup of tea. Move on until you find one that pleases your five senses.

And I have been meaning to give a shout out to SB's comment about it IS the bigger head that matters anyway. The big head controls all the other sexy functions anyway: the fingers, hands, tongue, nose, palms, cheeks, lips, toes, and yes last but not least nor notwithstanding - penis.

Not that it really has a role in THIS discussion...but I've been wishing I'd kept a photo posted long on an e-list I used to belong to. A man had actually had his one penis surgically divided so there were two.

I'm not sure what the reason would be for having this done, unless you're Fredo Corleone and want to do coctail waitresses two at a time.

By the way....both of them were circumcised.

Apple

Now that is something I HAVEN'T seen! Wonder what the motivation behind that was!

I saw the guy who had his tongue split in two. That was visionary ick-factor enough.

Apple, I think you just gave every guy on here a cramp/twinge or two reading that!

EDIT: I am assuming and hoping that he was a grown man when he opted (voluntarily) for that surgery. Therefore, to each his own!

OMG I go out of town for a day and I come back to see threads about toilet seat covers and circumcision. It's no wonder why I love the BB and the people on it.

This particular list (with the divided you-know-what photo) was, believe it or not...created for parents of children adopted from China! It was (and is) an all topic, no holds barred list on which anything and everything could be discussed or battled out. As with the GD forum here, only thing off limits was direct personal insults to fellow members Although some even disregarded that and remained unscathed (can anyone spell 'favoritism'?).

Anyway, I don't recall how or why the topic EVER came up but eventually there it was, posted in the photo section for all to see!!

And yes Partagas you are correct...after spending approx 5 years on that list, I can honestly say that the Gangster BB is a HUGE step up. Both in intelligence and common sense!

Apple

They should settle the case and snip half of the foreskin off (perhaps the right side)

The UN!? The UN!?

If you are asking what I prefer, no, I personally do not have a problem with women with "huge size 10 supermodel feet".

But if I lived in a society when and where foot binding was thought to make women more attractive, I would probably feel differently.

That's my point about circumcision.

I truly believe that if you surveyed American women today, and they all answered honestly, the majority would say that they find the uncircumcised penis to not be as attractive as the circumcised one.

But if and when we reach the point that only a minority of men are circumcised, then I think that the results would be different.

It's all a question of conditioning.

I'm reminded of the classic Twilight Zone episode in which a woman's face is wrapped in bandages for the first 27 minutes or so, and you don't see the faces of any of the other characters, who are all doctors and nurses.

From the dialogue that ensues, we are made to understand that this woman has undergone yet another operation in an attempt to correct her grotesque facial features, but when the bandages are finally removed at the end of the story and the doctors and nurses carry on about how the operation has failed, the faces of all of the characters are finally revealed and we see that by our standards she is beautiful, while it is the faces of the doctors and nurses that are horribly deformed.

as far as the "big head-little head" controversy goes, I agree up to a point.

I think that very few women would be willing to have sexual relations with a man that they find wholly unattractive, regardless of how much they might be attracted to his mind.

If I were attracted by his brain or his personality, then I wouldn't find him "wholly unattractive", would I? (by the way, not to go off topic, but that just reminded me of Robin - Holy Unattractive, Batman!) As for the circumcised/uncircumcised thing, by the time I would get to the point in the relationship where it would be "revealed", it honestly would not matter. I'd be so into him for so many other reasons that it wouldn't play a part.

If you are asking what I prefer, no, I personally do not have a problem with women with "huge size 10 supermodel feet".

But if I lived in a society when and where foot binding was thought to make women more attractive, I would probably feel differently.

That's my point about circumcision.

I truly believe that if you surveyed American women today, and they all answered honestly, the majority would say that they find the uncircumcised penis to not be as attractive as the circumcised one.

[/b][/quote]That is why I made MY point that if we stop performing circumcisions TODAY - in 50 years society would not think an uncircumcised member would be unattractive but it would be the norm.

Do you think that if society dictates that small breasts are unattractive we (women) should all undergo surgery and get implants?

And I used the foot binding example to drive the point home that is it really worth risking the health of infants and young girls to conform to a ridiculous societal norm?

Define "attractive". We are not comparing an uncircumcised penis to a deformity are we? Like I said, if a woman is looking for the perfectly smooth shafted rod, then that is her call based on her expectations and taste and she should pick her men accordingly if it means that much to her.

Im just saying I wouldn't (and haven't )kick a man I am attracted to out of bed because of it, as when he is fully aroused it is kind of mute point anyway!

No, but many women do, don't they?

And implants have proven to be considerably more medically dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?

Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their daughters.

Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..

Ridiculous as it may be that's the reality of the situation - our society, unfortunately judges people on their looks to a great extent, and people take all kinds of steps to make themselves look more attractive for that very reason (nose jobs, breast implants, contact lenses and lasar surgery for the eyes) - and especially considering that circimcision poses no significant health risks that I am aware of, people will continue to adhere to the "norm" as long as circumcision continues to be the norm.

No, I certainly don't consider it a "deformity". Nor do i consider women with small breats, or people who wear glasses, or people with big noses to be deformed.

[quote]Im just saying I wouldn't (and haven't )kick a man I am attracted to out of bed because of it, as when he is fully aroused it is kind of mute point anyway! [QUOTE]

It may very well be a moot point when the penis is fully aroused, I suppose (I'll have to take your word for that, never having seen one), and I respect the fact that you wouldn't let something so superficial as circimcision determine whether or not you wished to have sexual relations with a particular man.

But relationships frequently involve the woman getting the penis to the point of arousal, and if she's turned off by the sight to begin with, it might be hard (no pun intended) to proceed from there, so the point may not be moot to everyone.

As I said, if you surveyed all American women and they answered honestly, I don't believe that the majority would share your point of view.

So?

We are eagerly awaiting the results.

No, but many women do, don't they?

And implants have proven to be considerably more mediaclly dangerous than circumcisions, haven't they?

Here's the difference, I think: I would suggest that if there were a way of predicting in infancy which women would have abnormally small breasts in adulthood and there were a simple operation to change that and make the developed breats fall within the statistical norm later - one that was simpler and less dangerous than breast implants in adulthood - many parents would opt for it for their dauheters.

Just as they would opt for reducing the size of abnormally large ear lobes..

[/b][/quote]Ya think so?

As a parent, no. Would I be doing my child a disservice letting him/her run around with abnormally, large....lobes?

Why do women's breasts have to fall into the statistical norm?

Are you saying that "abnormally small breasts" are .."wholly unattractive"?

Could a man not find myself - as a woman - "attractive" with "abnormally, small breasts"?

I actually happen to have - by societal standards - a nice, rather large rack. Is this supposed to make me more sexually attractive to the male species than my small-busted counterparts? Warning, if you say yes, I am going to come completely unglued!

Women get implants because they want to conform to society's norms. But they make that choice in adulthood. If society deemed females to be more "attractive" as blondes, should all us brunettes artificially dye our hair? Yeah, some women do as a CHOICE. Why conform to a set of standards - JUST BECAUSE.

I'm really loving the guy right now who once said he fell in love with me because of the crinkle in my nose when I laughed. What if my parents had opted to have that FLAW removed at birth? What, with smooth rods, large perky breasts and perfectly sized earlobes, where do we draw the line of trying to create perfect looking people?

Very true. "If" she is turned off, then she is obviously not attracted to this particular man.

You know, not every man that is cut has an attractive penis either!

I would rather judge each on his own individually instead of categorizing a man's penis beauty on whether or not he is cut or not.

As I said, if you surveyed all American women and they answered honestly, I don't believe that the majority would share your point of view.
You are most likely right when you say "American" women. Most American women don't really know any different. But I guarantee you stop the practice of infant circumcision today and in 50 years American women would be hot for the uncut guys. They wouldn't know any different!

Yes, I believe that you would.

Why subject the child to unnecessary teasing and ridicule over something that can be changed with a simple snip?

You want your child to go through school being laughed at and called "Dumbo"?

If we were talking major surgery or something, that would be different.

It's not a question of "they have to".

They do, just as just about anything else does that is measurable.

And I think that many or even most people would prefer that some aspects of their person fall within the statistical norm, rather than outside of it.

Me? No. AAMOF, personally, strictly from the POV of what I find to be sexually attractive, I much prefer smaller breasts to larger ones.

Of course a man could. I probably would be one of those who did.

But I think if you polled American men, and they were forced to answer honestly, you would find that more prefer larger rather than smaller, although I believe the results woukld be closer than they would in the women's "Penis Preference Poll".

Wel, at the risk of ungluing you....

I'm not sure you mean by "supposed to." It's certainly not "supposed" to, strictly speaking in the use of that term..

Besides, a man obviously considers other factors in deciding the relative sexual attractiveness of a woman besides the size of her breasts - legs, backside, face, dress, etc.

And, speaking only for myself, of course, I absolutely consider the woman's mind, although that particular factor only seems to gain importance as the relationship progresses. If it's simply sex for the sake of sex, most men (myself included) tend not to be too concerned with that the first couple of times.

But if breast size alone was the only factor being considered, then yes, I believe that most men find women with larger breasts to be more sexually attractive than those with smaller ones.

But again, I'm not really sure what you mean when you say "is it supposed to?"

Agreed.

But as I said earlier, if it was totally predictable in infancy which women would end up with abnormally small breasts (using abnormally to mean "outside the statistical norm" and not to suggest an "abnormality") and if there were a procedure that could be performed in infancy that was as uncomplicated as a circumcision and obviated the need for the more complicated and dangerous breast implant wich would be made by choice in adulthood, I believe that most parents would opt for the former.

Of course not.


Should all women who wear glasses get contact lenses because many or most men may find the "no glasses" look more attractive?

Should all women with small breasts get implants because many or most men find larger breasts more attractive?

The difference is, though, that few men consider brunettes in general to be unattractive.

It's just that many consider blondes to be more attractive.

Same, I think, with breast size or glasses.

But with circumcision, I believe that a woman's like or dislike would tend to be more definite. Of course I could be wrong about that.

But speaking very generally here, no man is gonna turn down sex with an attractive brunette simply because he prefers blondes, whereas a woman might be totally turned off by an uncircumcised penis, even if she finds the rest of the man attractive.

It's not simply "just because".

It's because that by adhering more closely to societal norms and preferences, it becomes easier for some, many, or most people to go through life.

I'm by no means saying that that's the way it should be, but the reality is that that's the way it is.

That's what I've been saying all along, isn't it?

And if I left out "American" in any of this when talking about "women", it was an oversight.


[quote]I'm really loving the guy right now who once said he fell in love with me because of the crinkle in my nose when I laughed. What if my parents had opted to have that FLAW removed at birth? What, with smooth rods, large perky breasts and perfectly sized earlobes, where do we draw the line of trying to create perfect looking people? QUOTE]

Everyone draws their own line.

Are you saying that if I wore glasses and I opted to get contact lenses, it would be because I would want to be more attractive to men because they prefer the "no glasses" look? Oh boy. You mentioned Lasic in a past post as well.

You don't think it would be for ease and convenience? The fact that I could run better without them on my face, drive and wear sunglasses or just not have to carry the darn things (glasses) with me in my purse everywhere I go? Maybe the non-glasses look would make me more attractive but wouldn't that just be subjective to the potential looker?

I can see we could debate this all day long and we can agree to disagree. Im just thanking MY lucky stars you're not MY father. God Forbid my ear lobes would be on the large side and you would have me snipped at birth! I applaud you for your intentions, but I just would not risk my son/daughter's health for something a so insignificant as a bigger than average "lobe".

I think we agree that these are choices people can make once they are adults.

As I stated earlier, I know two men who as adults chose to have themselves circumcised. They did so for their own personal reasons. I did note that they were both foreigners who moved to the States but whether they wanted to conform to American standards or if it were something else, I dont know. But I know of other men who are not cut - and don't seem to care and it doesnt appear their sex life is suffering.

If I would have had a son, I might have had it done - only because his father was. Hard to say since I never had a son. But if we just stopped doing it altogether, it wouldn't matter!

Agreed.

However - that is called sexual uncompatability. Happens all the time. A woman could also be totally turned off by a circumcised penis dependent on many factors.

And if an uncut guy is just so terribly ugly down there, picture your date wearing the most ugly, God Awful sweater. There is enough about his looks, appeal and personality to look past the sweater. If you and he are compatible, imagine getting past the sweater and taking it off. And of course, the sweater always comes off faster with a little help from the Lady! There you go.

You would be surprised what a person can look past when you like someone, find aspects of them sexy and are compatible with each other. I mean, you are not perfect are you? :p

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Since you're using ear lobes as an analogy, then we can extract from this that you think that uncut boys would also endure "unnecessary teasing and ridicule" and being "laughed at."

Are you just ASSuming this? What makes you think at all that uncut boys are being teased and ridiculed because of that?? Kids tease each other about almost everything - but I never noticed any teasing in school over cut/uncut, short/long, hairy/hairless, or anything else in the lockerroom (except for boners ).

Just to be fair here -- to show I'm not a hard-hearted man -- let me present an opposing article called BENEFITS OF CIRCUMCISION which also really sticks it to the "Anti-Circ Lobby Groups" that I had linked to earlier, and their "propoganda."

Obivously, this is quite a debate. And as such, both sides think they're right. As is often the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I only got started on this debate, here, because I was attacking Plaw's logic. I will continue to do that if necessary ( ) but don't want to give the impression that I am overly concerned about this issue. I really couldn't care less what people choose to do - nor do I consider this a big issue in the grand scheme of things.

JG, will you stop using words like hard and big in this thread!!

No, I'm using snipping ear lobes as an example of a minor type of surgery that a parent my choose to have performed on an infant so that his way in life might be made easier as he gets older.

In no way am I suggesting that an uncirumcised boy would be met with ridicule or teased by other boys.

I am merely comparing the types of surgery -crcumcision with ear lobe snipping - and the fact that the failure to get either might result in negative consequences down the road.

I am not suggesting that the consequences in either case would be the same.

Let's reverse it:

If I compared open heart surgery to save an infant's life with a C-setion to save an infant's life because the baby was being strangled by the umbilical cord, you wouldn't say say that I was saying that open heart surgery is as serious an operation as a C-section, would you?

And I fail to see where any of my logic was faulty.

You keep saying "P. Lawrence assumes this" and "P.Lawrence assumes that", but the only guesses (not assumptions) that I've made and opinions that I've expressed throughout here were guesses and opinions about what people think and why they sometimes do what they do.

I never made any of the assumptions that you keep saying I made.

If he doesn't then he needs to provide visuals.

Fair point about the contact lenses.

My guess, though is that some, many, or most people who wear contacts instead of conventional glasses do so for cosmetic reasons.

And of course it's all subject to the view of the "potential looker."

Beauty is, after all, in the eyes of the beholder.

Remember, I'm the guy who prefers small breasts to large (unlike most men, I think), and I also find glasses to be quite sexy as, to me at least, they impute a look of intelligence to the wearer.

I thought that went, Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.