circumcision

Sammygirly,

First, thanks for your candor. It's great to hear a mom's take on this issue. Making such a crucial decision isn't clear sometimes is it? -- when your "preference" may not necessarily be the correct answer or what's in the long-term best interest for the child...(serious) health issues aside of course.

More and more often, it appears that "routine" circumcison is something that can indeed be delayed until much later in life

I was cut as an infant; but I don't blame my parents.
More than likely, your son won't either.

But, I certainly would have preferred to have made that all-important decision for myself when I was an adult.

Thanks again, for sharing.

Finedessert: The below was taken from the" BULGE REPORT ", it was posted to answer if Prince William was cut or not. If the story is true I think this is the way to go, let the young man make his own decision on being circumcised when he reaches the age of consent.

"The story as I have heard it: When William was born in 1982, there was a big debate over who was going to slip the tip. The Queen wanted a Jewish rabbi and some suggested that, for safety reasons, it be done by a doctor in a hospital. But Princess Diana would have none of it. She insisted that the practice was barbaric and that William would retain his foreskin. She won. At Age 15, after coming back from a military training exercise, William took a few days off from Eton College and went to a hospital for what the press called "elective surgery". The big rumor is that he had the tip snipped then by his own choice."

Grandpa

Which leaves the question of why British royals circumcise anyway.

prepstudinsc: re: British royals being cut
I heard that it's just an old tradition that goes back to the Victorian era. The royal family had their son circumcised as a means to dissuade masturbation. (If I remember corrctly) The tradition has just been carried on to this day.

It's really no different than the reasons that we Americans are generally cut. My dad dropped dead at age 32 when I was just a few months old. According to his autopsy report, he was cut. Both my parents were/are in medicine, so I'm sure the decision to circumcise me was partially tradition (my dad was cut) and the fact that my parents were looking at the facts as they were taught in school in the early-mid 1960's.
I am glad I'm cut, I don't remember anything about it, since I was only a few days old when it happened. I have a nice circumcision, without any skin bridges or stuff, so who cares. I think mine looks better cut.

ORCABOMBER: Well, they just have to be different, don't they?

i found this in the nytimes today - you have to register i think to read...but no big deal. i can vouch for the accuracy of some info....circumcision cures alcoholism...i am cut and really don't like the taste of alcohol.

;D ;D

where'd they get these ideas.

check it out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/na...odaysheadlines

jay

bradleeM: The reason why that Britain and America circumcise is because there is a very strong belief that these two countries are descendants of the Hebrews and are bound by the covenant that God made with Abraham and his offspring. All of Abraham's descendants circumcise their male offspring.

There are those that find medical reasons for circumcising that do not feel comfortable with the religious reason. But that is really the reason behind those two countries circumcising. Also the British Royal family believes they are the direct descendants of the Royal line of Israel begun by David, each of their monarchs are crowned on the seat of David and over the Rock from Jerusalem that both David and Solomon were crowned.

I know this is more than you wanted to know, but there are historical reasons for a lot of things going on today that people are not aware or do not remember.

[quote author=bradleeM link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=30#36 date=01/23/03 at 10:50:04]The reason why that Britain and America circumcise.....[/quote]

Actually, I haven't met that many Brits that were cut. In fact, once in The Hoist in London I was continuing a conversation with a guy while I was taking a pee, and it got around to where I was from. When I said I was from the States, he replied:"

"Really? You're American? I would have guessed you were from London, just, er, Jewish."

I took this to mean that Londoners expect gentiles to be uncut, which is consistent with my limited experiences.

I'm familiar with the cult Brad mentioned, though. They're called Identists, and they're very racist. They also think the rest of us are soulless "mud people". They'd be laughable if not for their semi-ritual murders. (They also think Jews are descended from Satan via Ham's wife.)

Lost Tribes theories are a dime a dozen. Actually, anthropology began as an ad hoc hypothesis to "explain away" all these peoples who couldn't possibly be related to Genesis.

bradleeM: Hi Jon,

Not familiar at all with the group you mentioned. That is a new one on me.
The only group that I am aware of that teaches what I mentioned was "The Worldwide Church of God". There may be others. But the information they provide is from historical sources, current and past, as well as the Jewish and Greek bibles.

They also teach that it does not matter if you are circumcised or uncircumcised, if you live in America and UK and are descended from them (like Canadians, Australians, Asian Indians, Chinese, and Filipinos) you are a part of the that heritage. America, alone has over 144 nationalities represented, and the UK is a part of a Commonwealth of Nations (50 total I believe). The concept of the Lost Tribes is the fact that the people living today are not aware of their heritage and so they practice what they want............such as, freedom of circumcising or not circumcising.
That church ( I am not a member, just enjoy history), does not teach racists ideology.

If you live here or there, then you receive the blessings that were bestowed on Abraham, until there is a change.

Hope that clears it up for you.

It is sad that any group believes that any human being is less of one because of what he looks like or his ethnicity.

this has been an interesting thread; it has made me think about issues that i never considered. i always assumed if i had a son or sons they would be cut; now, i am not so sure. the bit about no anesthesia during infant circumcision.....yeeeow!

one of my buddies in highschool used to say "sounds as much fun as teenage circumcison." all of us cringed when he said it...imagining a woodie splitting the stitches. maybe, Princess Di got it right...let the kid decide.

jay

7x6andchg: Well from the poll results it's pretty even.... 40 votes cut to 32 for "au naturel"

Here's a spur off this topic - having only had the "cut" version - what is the real difference in sensation? I realize that this could be hard to describe, but I know that my glans and frenelum (SP?) are pretty sensitive already...I find it difficult to imagine that there is, out there, even MORE sensation...but perhaps there is. Are we 40 men missing something we can only dream of?

Just curious
7x6&c

ORCABOMBER: Well, I get more sensation, well, if you compare it rolled down to when "au-natrel" then the difference is massive! :o Probably because my glans is relatively soft underneath.

Okay and getting cum "gummed" in there is an unforgettable experience.

after work today, I went out for a birthday beer (..errr make mine coke) for another newbie. The conversation got around to a brand new father and the decision to cut or not. there was general agreement among the guyz that he should be cut...and i mentioned some of the views on this board and said that i thought that if i ever had a son, i would let the kid decide at 15 or so.

the birthday boy said, "bad idea! my parents decided not to cut me...so everytime i got a hard between 14 and 15, the skin attached to the glans would tear a little. i had a sore dick for like 2 years and was too shy to ask or tell anyone about it. i was afraid they would find out i had been jerking off."

so is this a common problem among uncut? what should he have done...gone to see a doctor?

jay

[quote author=jay_too link=board=health;num=1041029002;start=30#43 date=01/28/03 at 19:43:47]"... my parents decided not to cut me...so everytime i got a hard between 14 and 15, the skin attached to the glans would tear a little. *i had a sore dick for like 2 years and was too shy to ask or tell anyone about it...

so is this a common problem among uncut? *what should he have done...gone to see a doctor? *

jay[/quote]


jay: Some thoughts here (and, since I am cut, maybe I don't know everything I should on the matter, but--)

From what I have read, know, and observed in my life; the degree of foreskin cover over the glans for an uncircumcised man will vary. Some completely cover the entire glans and "overhang" in a muzzled fashion; some cover pretty much all the glans but exposes the slit opening pretty readily, while still other guys have only a portion of the glans covered.

From birth onward into the toddler stage, many young uncut boys will have the foreskin fairly tight around the glans and in fact, the foreskin can even be attached to the glans by way of very thin, almost "sticky" type adhesion. Many will argue that, for hygiene purposes, this is why circumcision is recommended to aid in exposing the full glans of the penis for cleansing. I have read however, that many todlers may not need that foreskin "bothered" or "detached" from the glans as such (it can be painful to loosen and pull it back).
Generally speaking, by a certain age (maybe by age 4) the prepuce (foreskin) will begin to "loosen" its adhesive hold to the glans on its own typically over time and allow the lad to retract the foreskin backwards, exposing the glans. Other boys don't achieve this feat (of pulling the foreskin all the way back) until well into puberty. The guy you mentioned who had trouble obviously had a very tight foreskin and perhaps should have been seen by an MD to help him out a bit. He could have had a procedure called a "dorsal slit" whereby the foreskin is merely cut just enough to allow slippage backward from over the glans. (He in essence would still be uncircumcised; just have the comfort of a retractable foreskin.) I don't believe the instances of complications having a foreskin are that common overall.
It seems many, many men live quite well with them.