Yet MORE discussion on being circumcised

Im glad I have my foreskin. Its so fine to play with and it feels so sexy seeing and feeling it being retracted.

And the little scent you feel when it is retracted is exciting rather than disgusting.

Mod note: This topic was split off from the topic asking women whether they prefer cut or uncut since these all pertain to whether or not males should be circumcised.

Play nice or this thread will be locked.

My mother was European, my father American - one of those post Liberation WWII marriages. Anyway, born in Europe I was not circumcised since that procedure was not done at the time unless for a serious medical reason.

Later, when I was in my teens I picked up it was/had been an issue of contention between my parents with my father, as an early 20th century born American, being an ardent believer in the practice, believing that otherwise utter ruin and perdition would be the result, accompanied by horrid diseases and other apocalyptic prophecies ... whenever he started on the subject - preferably when we were alone in the car driving somewhere (so I couldn't just walk away) - I would be utterly mortified and red faced to the point of bursting.

As with most of his other predictions about life, none of this ever came true or even close to being true.

And I am ever glad he did not get his way in this matter.

[quote author=Peaches link=topic=39022.msg447218#msg447218 date=1338617136]

I've had sex with both, in the end it really doesn't seem to matter, it all feels about the same to the woman. There was also no difference in the taste between the two.

[/quote]

But it's a huge difference for the men ... and for men it does matter very much so.

From queries to this question, in forums you will usually get answers in which most men will say that are pleased with how they are, cut or not. This for those who were so young not to remember the operation.

But ask virtually any uncut male what they think about whacking off a part of their sensitive anatomy and they will invariably answer with an emphatic 'no thank you - with an unspoken 'are you out of your mind?' in the background.

Uncut males can, should they wish, more or less experience being cut by retracting the foreskin and keeping it retracted by some method or other for a period of time, say a week or two. That way they can truly experience the difference. I've done so many times for a number of reasons, but I can definitively report that by retracting (and by extension circumcising) a most considerable amount of sensitivity is lost.

And that is the big difference.

I was circumcised as an adult when I was 30, thus I can compare between being cut and uncut. My surgery was based on medical indications (very long foreskin proned to inflammation and progressive phimosis) and also my personal preferences. Therefore I decided to get cut "high and tight". I think that men who have not experienced both uncut and cut states find it difficult to understand the matter of sensitivity. Having been cut as an adult, I may assure that the sensitivity is very different now. Before, masturbation was very simple quick, primitive, with a short mechanical orgasm. Now it takes much longer time if I just rub the head. However I've discovered the pleasure of prostate massage which is absolutely mind-blowing, far stronger than I ever experienced uncut. Penetrative sex and oral are similarly much improved for me. I'm not talking of any potential medical benefits or esthetic reasons - they are just a matter of personal preferences. On balance, I think, the advantages of circumcision outweigh the few disadvantages.

If a circumcision is done for true medical reasons, then naturally I would think that this outweighs all other considerations. Especially if it cures the condition that warranted the procedure in the first place. Then I suppose I too would be relieved.

I suppose for medical considerations, to cure an unhealthy or even dangerous condition, that people will be willing to put up with quite a lot and consider the disadvantages slight if it guarantees a healthy life afterwards.

[quote author=drgw link=topic=39022.msg447308#msg447308 date=1338654172]

...whether or not a woman can feel the difference or has a preference, but everyone seems to want to chime in about the practice of having it done.

[/quote]

It's easy to have an opinion when it's being done on the other gender.

Just as an intellectual exercise, imagine the outcry there would be if there were men who preferred to have smooth or removed labia minora on their partners/wives and were not shy in saying so or imposing the practice ... this would rightly be considered genital mutilation - and is prohibited in many countries - yet still practiced in many others ...

I don't think that the ladies would be so cavalier about men holding that opinion ... and rightly so.

It still sounds like the good old double standard is lurking around. Now with males on the fuzzy end of the lollipop ...

Contrary to the US, men here in europe are only circumcised for medical reasons (tight foreskin etc). and tbh if personal hygene is observed there isnt a single complication. The surgery on the other hand has a list of things that can go wrong, up to loss of the penis as a whole.

Therefore i would say easy decission..

note: If personal hygene isnt observed one can get serious problems under the foreskin, but in general the people who care badly for themselves have a number of problems)

I am not circumcised, and have never had any issues with not being circumcised, until recently that is. I discovered a small lump on one of my glans and went to the doctor. The doctor then informs me that because my foreskin does not retract all the way back I will have to get circumcised before they can proceed any further other than a course of antibiotics.

Of course there are plenty of questions I have and never entirely sure on what to believe? Some say feeling is more intense some say it's not. Some say it's going to be better for her and some say not.... You get the general idea.

There is also the issue of what type to get???

Anyhoo, I would love to hear from anyone who can offer real insight and answers to some of the questions that I have, or from someone who has had it done.

Thanx

The first thing that comes to mind is 2ND OPINION!

From a competent urologist, not just well meaning advise from family, friends, the guys at the pub or the medically untrained voices on the Internet.

Circumsicion is child abuse, be it of girls or boys. And those institutions, doctors, priests, rabbis, mullas or whoever do or advocate cicumsission are child abuseres,

Other routine procedures often done to children, like orthodontics or tonsillectomies are in most cases child abuse, done for the good of other things than the child itself.

Aquila, NOT getting your child orthodontics IS somewhat lacking in your parental responsibility.

Mashie

It would be good to have a discussion about pediatric orthodontics, the biggest money-spinner the dental profession has devised, but not in this thread.

Woodpecker said:

It would be good to have a discussion about pediatric orthodontics, the biggest money-spinner the dental profession has devised, but not in this thread.

I'll come back to this later.

If you knew what you were talking about, I'd listen, but you don't.

More to come from me on this later today when I have time.

The only reason you think pediatric orthodontics is a money spinner is because you have no understanding of orthodontics or growth and development of the head and face.

Yes, I know the old, and I do mean O L D school of orthodontics was to wait until all the permanent teeth have come in, however, that is obsolete and practiced mostly by people who have not kept up with advances in treatment. Yes, I know it is still practiced by many because it is a convenient mode of treatment and requires less explanation on the part of the orthodontist and less understanding on the part of the parents.

The purpose of pediatric orthodontics is NOT necessarily to move teeth. It is to direct and utilize the child's growth to create space for the teeth. What that means is the child rarely needs teeth extracted to have a beautiful smile or a well functioning occlusion. This has the additional effect of having a broader smile and wider facial profile which on all esthetic scales and measures of beauty is preferable. I can tell by looking at a person's face if they had ortho as a teenager and if they had teeth extracted as part of their treatment because their face is truly different from people who were not treated that way. A further benefit of the directed growth of the head and face is a widening of the internal nasal passages and sinus which makes for better breathing and improved sleep patterns. You can do a Google Scholar search for refereed scientific articles on all of this.

When I was a child, I had pediatric orthodontics. Yes, it takes longer than other types of orthodontic treatment and it generally costs more, but the result is eminently better. My older daughter also had similar orthodontic treatment using what is called "functional appliances." They have been in use in Europe since the 1950's but didn't become popular in the US until the 1990's. I had it done in the late 1970's through early 1980's thanks to my parents who did their homework before subjecting me to treatment that could have left me with a facial profile different from the rest of my family members. Instead, I look like my parents and brother. Finally, treatment with functional appliances at a young age is much more stable than when done as an older child or adult. Most of the time, retainers are not even necessary.

Orthodontics is not only a problem of the teeth, it is a problem of orthopedics, and THAT is what pediatric orthodontics addresses, and for the betterment of the child. The earlier you start treatment, the better.

Mashie, I completely agree with you. NOT getting your child orthodontics when it is needed is shirking your responsibility as a parent.

Besides, who says a child knows what's best for him/herself?

Usually, children are at least as ignorant as their parents.

Well, what is comcidered a nice smile or not, can be discussed. I was to have circumcission for phimosis when I was 10 years old, but opposed it violently, so it was not done, and the problem was solved in another way.

When I was 11 I had orthodontics. I did not oppose it, and I regret that I let it happen. And it is exactly the orthopaedic results and the results on my facial structure that make me have my opinion. It created all the problems you said orthodonics will prevent or cure.

The basic problem with orthodontics, is that the growth guidance have long reaching and often unpredictable consequences for the whole facial structur, and also neurological consequences not only the the results the propaganda is bragging about.

Another problem is that the good parts of the results tend not to be stable.

The kind of orthodonics I had nvolved extracting 4 teeth and basically made everything more narrow and I did not have any problem before that damned treatment, and my smile was not ugly.

So i totally disagree with you Mashie. And I mean from the bottom of my hart that orthodontics in most cases do more harm that good.

Every prudent parent is scheptical about the validity of the claims of this business and make up their own opinion.

All I will say, so as not to further feed the trolls, and or strike up a war is that here in the United States, if we don't provide proper medical care, dental care, good food, and a clean healthy living environment for our children, Chid Protective Services can are and called. You can by law have your children taken from you and placed up for adoption.

Mashie

I'm just going to jump in real quick with my feeling regarding orthodontics, and then perhaps this topic should be split. My daughter inherited two things; my small jaw (the dentist has to use pediatric plates to take an impression), and her paternal grandmother's huge teeth. Obviously this is a recipe for a real logjam in the mouth. She had orthodonture from 11-14 years of age, had four teeth extracted prior to the application of her bands, and had her wisdom teeth pulled shortly after her braces were removed. At age 27, she has a smile that many models would envy and she takes superior care of her teeth.

It was a true hardship for me to afford her dental work but I would happily do it all over again to make sure that she can eat, chew, swallow, and hear properly. Do I think orthodonture is a shell game made to fleece money form conscientious parents? Heck no. It worked for me, and it worked for her. Thank goodness that modern methods are less physically painful and psychologically disruptive.

Oh, BTW, both my grandsons were circumcised, even though the insurance plan stopped covering the procedure in between the births, my daughter and her husbands wanted a pair of matching bookends and they wanted the boys to look just like Daddy, so they paid for the procedure out of their pockets. To my knowledge, none of them have suffered any ill effects from the procedure.

Well, I did not say that orthodonitcs is bad in all cases, but in most though. Child protective agencies tend to support those thet profit from procedures pushed on children, and not the real benefit of the children. And those predators use the protective agencies as a service to get their will

I know it i like this in the USA, and it is like this in Norway too, but someone has to speak up.

Aquila, 11 is not too late to start orthodontics, but by that age, you have already LOST the potential for the best most stable result by waiting that long. Starting at six or seven years old is much better.

I am obviously not an orthodontist, but having experienced it as a child and having parents who did all their research and homework, and a great orthodontist, I can tell you that it works VERY well, MUCH better than old style traditional braces. My daughter had an equally good experience.

People who have posted that they have a small mouth, need tiny impression trays and have a narrow smile, while thinking they are bashing orthodontics, are completely supporting what I had to say. THANK YOU! YOU made my point.

Well, people are naturally made different and should be allowed to grow and develop according to their own nature.

There are fortunate cases of orthodonic treatment, but those are few and what seemed fortunate may turn not to be so in the long run.

Both narrowing and retracking according to a standard scheme or the opposite, which is widening of the jaws and facial structures acording to som standard, is mostly wrong, and will in most instances result in something not fitting together.

One big problem with orthodontics is that the orthopedic changes spread to all places in the ceanium and to the neck and can cause serious neurological problems, and these problems can occur whatever direction you so-called are guiding the growth.

Only in those rare cases where things get in cleary conflict geometrically int the first place are valid reason for orthodontics. Also I can see just by looking at a face wheather a person have had orthodonyics, and i never like the result is see, whaterver the method.

To put it bluntly: "Orthodontics makes a face that is less sexy".

And this is perhaps also one of the hidden agendas of societies that are agressively pushing that treatment on young people.

My own face has very gradually grown back to ts natural shape so I concider myself both handsome and sexy now, but I did not look that well as a teenager because of that treatment. And i have had those bad neurological problems that resamble whip-lash problems, but they have also gone away gradually while the results of the treatment have dimmished.

Orthodonits have for long known that their results do not fullfill what they are bragging about, and are steadily more making herous efforts to present stable results, of which that pediatric orthodontis seems to be the new fashion.

And their steadily more heroic effors imply longer and more expensive treatment, more pain and discomfort for the children, and ironically makes this business profit even more, I really doubt the results will be so good with those new methods either. Perhaps the results will be more stable, but that is not the same as good.

A very limited treatment to make place for the teeth may be good, but all efforts to achieve great orthopedic changes in the cranium are malignant according to my opinion.

^^^^^ Aquila: You are clearly speaking out of ignorance on this topic.

Do a google scholar search of refereed scientific literature.

I was delineating the facts in the scientific literature. You want to discuss anecdotes.

I'm done.