What do men think about circumcision?

New topic to prevent men from using that reserved for women.

Part of the issue in the "women's" thread was men postulating on what they thought women thought about circumcision. Is this thread limited to just what men think about circumcision or does it include what men think women think or react about it? Probably not worth a separate thread. Perhaps move men's contributions in the women's thread into this one.

New topic to prevent men from using that reserved for women.

It shows you have initiative, but many of the men's answers had nothing to do with 'thinking about' anything, but were often clarifications and factual statements, refining notions and answering posts.

As in real life, conversations meander.

To answer the question though, I think it is mostly unnecessary and should be left to the discretion of the actual owner until reaching adulthood. Then he can do whatever he wants, circumcise, cut a slit, pierce, place subdermal beads, tattoo the thing or whatever strikes his fancy.

Speaking of tattoos: I wonder what people would think if newborns were tattooed at the discretion of their parents? That is sorta my unadulterated and quick take on circumcision. You wouldn't force an underage and young kid to get tattooed. Then you surely shouldn't cut off part of his prick.

Otherwise it is just a religious practice or a social conformity practice of no medical value, except in exceptional conditions.

And the last people who should be deciding on a social circumcision or not, is a female. They don't have a penis so how would or could they know what it feels like to be cut?

To circumcise or not, should be an informed decision by the owner. Just as with FGM, no one should be the decision maker in such a procedure/practice except the person themself.

For years all the penises I had seen (buddies, cousins, etc.) were circumcised. It was what penises look like. Then at age 9 I went skinny dipping with two brothers who were not circumcised. I thought their penises had some birth defect so I did the polite thing and pretended I didn't notice. Later during the visit it was the older brother asked me why I kept my penis 'skinned-back' all the time. It was my mother who turned this into a 'teachable moment' and learned that I was modified at birth (my take on it). I was shocked that my parents would have mutilated my body as a baby. I felt very cheated.

What I think:

1) Circumcision is largely an issue of cultural (including religious) norm. People then rationalize this norm by saying that a circumcised penis is cleaner and healthier.

2) Circumcision for medical reasons (phimosis, mainly) has been overdone. Boys who had no issues with their penis (no discomfort, no infections) were (and still are) subjected to painful procedures and/or circumcision because physicians had decreed that their foreskin should be retracted before a certain age.

3) The reluctance to let nature take its course for foreskin stretching may be related to the fact that the foreskin is eased by erections and movements resembling masturbation, which was taboo, thus physicians were likely more inclined to suggest circumcision to worried mothers than "just let him play with himself, ma'am, and it will ease out".

4) Circumcision (especially "high and tight", I think) may make masturbation without lubricant uncomfortable, especially if done by partners, or even cause difficulties in intercourse.

5) Circumcision in the United States was initially motivated by the fight against masturbation (see point 4), and was then rationalized again for hygiene and for reduction of venereal diseases.

6) While circumcision reduces some venereal diseases due to unprotected sex, it does not reduce them considerably; using condoms is a must in any case, which defeats the purpose. It only makes sense for that purpose in cultures where wearing a condom is difficult (e.g. some African countries).

7) While circumcision helps in keeping the penis clean, it is insufficient. Sure, there won't be smegma, but it can still taste of pee and sweat. One has to wash in any case. Again, this defeats the purpose, except perhaps in areas without adequate hygiene.

8 ) The insistence of surgery for phimosis before, say, age 6, may be motivated by a desire of not having to deal with objections from the boy. I don't quite like this attitude from physicians.

9) Many women have a curiously casual approach to the topic, as though circumcision had no adverse effects (but see point 4). Some even find the topic humorous. It shows that this is not their genitals that are cut.

10) If phimosis was so much of a problem that so many boys have to be cut, then certainly it would have been a problem before circumcision became massively applied to "cure" it in the 19th century. Yet, we don't read of masses of men in European countries in the 18th century - early 19th century having notable health problems due to phimosis. There are some limited exceptions (it is said for instance that Louis XVI of France had to have surgery before being able to have complete intercourse with his wife Marie-Antoinette due to a tight phimosis), but certainly, given the masses of boys circumcised due to "phimosis" in the late 20th century, we should have heard more about such issues.

In short, if one could predict at birth that a boy will face severe phimosis later on, that's not amenable to natural stretching, then I'd support circumcision as a newborn, but since this cannot be predicted at this stage, then I think this is just abuse.

Nobody in the Western world would think it appropriate to remove the prepuce of the clitoris for better cleanliness in infant girls, or to remove the hymen (when not imperforate) of infant girls because it might help them someday with intercourse, or, as AGracier says, to allow parents to have their baby tattooed. But we allow acts more permanent than a tattoo.

It shows you have initiative, but many of the men's answers had nothing to do with 'thinking about' anything, but were often clarifications and factual statements, refining notions and answering posts.

No @agracier it was men hijacking a LADIES topic and it stopped LADIES answering because men's answers pushed them out. Ladies answered at the start of it but a lot of ladies do not want to answer a topic any more after men have hijacked it.

I'll answer since I opened this topic.

I prefer circumcised penises for aesthetic reasons, but I don't know if I would have gotten circumcised as an adult if it hadn't been done when I was a baby. I have often wanted to have a small piercing in my frenulum but I have never dared. Never dared to get a tattoo either, but there would also be the question of choosing the design.

I have often wanted to have a small piercing in my frenulum but I have never dared. Never dared to get a tattoo either, but there would also be the question of choosing the design.

@Woyzeck never say never. I got my first tattoo 3 years ago. If finances allowed I'd get more. The pain wasn't much at all. But the area of the body does affect that.

I don’t think about it at all. What other guys do with their dicks is their business.

Didn't take long for the complainers to get us back.

Just saying.

Didn't take long for the complainers to get us back.

Complainers? What's that supposed to mean?

For aesthetic considerations and hygiene, I prefer a circumcised penis. I do not advocate circumcision for any other man and believe the health benefits of circumcision are significantly overstated. I do believe that had I not been circumcised as an infant, that I would have it done as an adult. I have communicated with a number of guys who had it done in adulthood to a high level of satisfaction.

I have communicated with a number of guys who had it done in adulthood to a high level of satisfaction.

Me too, I was circumcised when I was about 44 years old. Let's say for cultural reasons as wel as the prepuce was ruining the feeling of intercourse because it was always sliding back over the head. Now about 12 years later I still didn't regret a bit. Intercourse feels so much better now for both of us. Loosing a bit of feeling from the frenulum and prepuce was replaced by gaining feeling in the corona of the head. Overall much better because I love this feeling way more and can much easier control orgasms. It was a very well considered decision after reading lots of related literature. F.y.i. I used to be totally against it.

Complainers? What's that supposed to mean?

There are a lot of men posting on this topic that is for LADIES. The men should stop hijacking it and post on their own topics instead.

New topic to prevent men from using that reserved for women.

a number of guys who had it done in adulthood to a high level of satisfaction.

That is more likely to happen when you yourself control the decision. Quite understandable.

If I weren't such a wimp or had been freer when still married to indulge in more fetishist interests, I often wonder what kind of modifications I might not have had done. Not a full circumcision in any case, because you then loose the ability to experience the sensations emanating from a foreskin.

But some kind of piercing or other mild penile modification perhaps?

I was circumcised at birth and I like my Helmut. Perhaps if I hadn’t been circumcised I would have liked having my foreskin just as much. Not sure if I would have it done as a teenager or adult…maybe peer pressure or just looking out of place with others would have motivated me. Who knows.

I think circumcision is a horrible practice which goes on in American hospitals. It's has become a procedure that can only be explained as status quo. Time and time again, medical science has proven that there is NO definite correlation between uncircumcised man and cancer or other std's. I know in some cases, the foreskin may start having issues with retraction which can be painful for teenage males. I take the approach that males are born with a foreskin for a reason and if it isn't broke, don't fix it. My niece adopted a baby from Russia who was already a year old when she brought him to the US. One of the first things they did was to have him circumcised - their reason being that they wanted him to look like most other men in the locker room should he decide to pursue sports. Now, as a gay man, I admit that I DO prefer circumcised penises, however, I still think that circumcision should be a man's decision to make once he reaches an age old enough to make that responsible choice. I can say that uncircumcised males don't go around having to "adjust" themselves as much as circumcised males as the highly sensitive head is protected and doesn't rub up against the underwear or clothing as much. Also, if a circumcision is performed later on in a boy or man's life, anesthesia is used unlike at birth so there isn't as much pain induced. Please don't tell me that it doesn't hurt newborn babies to have the end of their dick's cut off without anesthesia just because they are newborns!

I think circumcision is a horrible practice which goes on in American hospitals. It's has become a procedure that can only be explained as status quo.

I am NOT but my wife had both our sons cut at birth. It took me about 40 years to get her to talk about why. Her answer was similar to what you mentioned. She thought it was the thing to do.

Previously I said -

Complainers? What's that supposed to mean?

@roscoe replied only with quoted posts -

There are a lot of men posting on this topic that is for LADIES. The men should stop hijacking it and post on their own topics instead.

New topic to prevent men from using that reserved for women.

@roscoe - My colleagues, the moderators you quoted and have apparently labelled publicly as 'complainers', observed a problem on a thread specifically aimed at female members - that male members were holding their own discussion there instead of the female members being allowed that space to discuss a subject among themselves without interference.

I hope you aren't openly suggesting that males displacing female members from such threads is justified. And I hope you aren't publicly complaining about the way the moderators resolved this problem.

When you moderate a forum like this, you see patterns of behaviour and the consequences. And one such pattern is that male occupation of female threads deters female participation. The effects are very clear. They don't like to post when they have a sense such a thread is no longer for them. So is it any wonder that male members then start thinking that female members are few and far between? The truth is that the female members prefer to keep quiet.

I'm not saying that no male member can ever post on a thread aimed at female members, but it should really be a discussion with the female members, without smartass remarks, without making fun of the comments female members have posted, and without turning a discussion off-topic in ways that turn off the female members from going anywhere near it. And female members certainly don't appreciate male members telling them what their preferences should be, which one male did some time ago on the female thread.

None of that is a good look, so come on, guys, don't do this...

Not a full circumcision in any case, because you then loose the ability to experience the sensations emanating from a foreskin.

That was my worry as well after my frenulum was removed because it was too short many years before the actual circumcision.

But I experimented by applying Xylocaïne numbing gel onto the prepuce while avoiding it to numb the head itself.

The outcome was that there was hardly any loss of sensations during intercourse.

So, speaking for myself, purely based on experiments, also with condoms with the tip cut off and an analytical view of all the facts, circumcision would be beneficial, which proved to be correct even many years later.

Circumcision is simply Male Genital Mutilation, usually on an unconsenting child, hidden behind geographical social norms and religion. The last category is clearly bombproof, not a word may be uttered towards them. Unlike the rest of us who can be ridiculed to hell. Thinking about it, I should probably join a religion like some people join a union, for the protective angle in emergencies.

Anyway, circumcision should like any other surgery which carries risks and has effects ever after, be considered only when:

a) there is a real problem, likely meaning puberty age when foreskin retraction matters

b) with the informed consent of the patient i.e. not a child (unless a true paediatric emergency)

and

c) when all other treatments have failed. Such was waiting a while, use of steroid stretching creams, and copious wanking. Especially the latter, perhaps as some prescription ‘repeat X times a day’.

I’m glad to say that in the UK surgeons are getting twitchy about circumcision, unless you play the God trump card. The NHS website makes these comments:

In most cases, circumcision will only be recommended when other, less invasive and less risky treatments have been tried and haven't worked.

And:

If you're considering circumcision for a medical reason, it's worth discussing alternative treatment options with your GP or specialist.

I think this is pretty good advice. Female preferences towards the ‘look’ of a circumcised penis should be filed alongside Male ones favouring FGM.

I personally am. And I think it just looks better. An erect or flaccid cock that is circumcised is just hot looking.

The subject of circumcision interested me as a child, especially after I saw boys who are circumcised for the first time while changing in swimming lessons. At that time I was fascinated that we boys could look different. At the same time, I had the unfounded fear of having to be circumcised myself until an examination at the age of 13.

Nowadays, I am convinced that children up to 14 years of age should only be circumcised if there is a serious medical necessity. In my opinion, the same applies to religious circumcision. At 14 years of age, religious maturity applies in Germany and in my opinion, until then, any invasive religious practices should be avoided until the child can decide for himself.

However, I personally don't care whether a man has a foreskin or not.

I'm agree whit the circumcision for médical issue or if the men want it.

We can't circumcised a Child for religion or becsuse his parents want it.

Millions of américains newborn got circumcision each year for any medical reason.

I think it not fair !

Here's my two cents on how women think about circumcision.

I think that in the vast majority of cases, women's attitude towards circumcision can be predicted from their cultural background.

If they are from a culture (including but not limited to religion, so this includes the US) where circumcision is the norm, they will have a positive view of that surgery, particularly if done at a young age. They will explain that a circumcised penis is cleaner, more pleasant to the view, healthier etc. They assume that there are no adverse effects for the male. They will tend to have a poorer view of uncircumcised penises (hygiene issues etc.) even if they have never seen one.

Part of that reasoning may be rationalization: they had their sons circumcised, their male relatives were circumcised, so they have to assume it was for good reason.

I recall one vocal exception to that rule. The woman was from a Northern African country and recalled how her brother was circumcised without proper anesthesia.There are also some progressive Jewish women that consider that they could do without circumcision.

Now let's talk about the women from a culture where circumcision is done only for medical reasons (e.g. Europe except for Jews and Muslims).

They will tend to be indifferent to that surgery, and consider it minor and without adverse effects. They won't see any objection to having it done if a physician advises it for phimosis, except for the trauma of surgery itself (child going to hospital, anesthesia etc.). They may even find the topic amusing and suitable for jokes.

They may not know how to deal with a circumcised penis and may use inappropriate masturbation methods.

Women from a somewhat antisemitic/anti-Muslim background may be opposed to having their son circumcised because of the religious associations, but this can be alleviated by presenting the surgery in a different light; for instance in France there are two different words ("posthectomie" and "circoncision") for the same surgery whether or not it is done for religious reasons.

I think that in the vast majority of cases, women's attitude towards circumcision can be predicted from their cultural background.

For both men and women it’s more likely what they are exposed to, what experience they have and the local/regional customs in which they they are raised.

Women from a somewhat antisemitic/anti-Muslim background may be opposed to having their son circumcised because of the religious associations,

Just to be inclusive, I would add Jewish associations as well.

After the war and probably before it too, some, probably many Europeans felt that being circumcised was a undeniable manifestation of being Jewish, with all the negative social and legal effects and issues that accompanied that sad period in history. Some people were literally afraid of their male children being mistaken for their religious background. Especially in the way that rumors and gossip starts and spreads.

I think it is is horrible and abusive. Even circumsission for claimed medical reasons is abusive in most cases. By the way I think the same about most of the standard or nearstandard outtaking of bodyparts from children, or alternation of children, like: tonsillectomy, wisdom teeth removal, orthodontics with or without removal or teeth, cutting of tongue band, etc.

There may be cases where some of this is best to do,but I probably not more than 20 persent or the like. The rest is abuse and done under false claims from the doctor or whoever does it.

...many of the men's answers had nothing to do with 'thinking about' anything, but were often clarifications and factual statements, refining notions and answering posts.

@agracier the facts didn't need to be clear. As it asked for an opinion and opinions are not always based on facts.