RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference?

RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 3:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ernurse48 My opinion is not from a scientific viewpoint but from a clinical perspective from my own observations regarding circumcised male infants versus uncircumcised male infants. While most of my career has been in the Midwest, I did spend two years in AZ. While in AZ I noticed a much higher population of uncut male infants. I think this was due to two things; 1) a higher percentage of a different culture that doesn’t cut, and 2) the public aid insurance did not pay for it. What I did learn while working with the higher numbers of uncut male infants is that there is a large number of males that come into the ER with Urinary Tract Infections (UTI). Prior to working in AZ, I had never catheterized an infant male. The first time I was give an MD order to cath a little boy I was shocked and even more shocked when it came back positive for a UTI. From then on it was common practice to cath infant males who were brought to the ER with a fever and we found no other source of an infection. This has always been common practice with little girls but not boys. I must also say that I have never seen an infant male that has been circumcised come back positive for a UTI. The British Medical Association refute this and say circumcision is one of the main reasons for penile malfunction and urinary problems. (probably due to the butchers that do the procedure). Circumcision is an earner for private American healthcare where in Europe the least medical intenvention the better to keep costs down because of national health services. If not circumcising young males created more problems than it solved, the logic would be to circumcize all male children and save costs. However, the BMA campaign and the reasons most European health services refuse to do circumcision is on ethical grounds that circumcision is mutilation of the male genitals because the foreskin is functional.

Nikolette -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:00:34 AM)
Without having read responses I'm replying to the OP... I was with a guy for a couple years who was uncircumcised.... it was honestly the best sex I'd ever had. But its wasn't just penis vaginal. It was everything. ... Positions varied a lot more, and he seemed the most passionate and most interested in all aspects of sex. This could be due to the fact that he penis was definitely more sensitive than other circumcised guys and thus the was more into it since it could be "better". Or it could be just because that is who he was regardless. But I hated the uncircumcised issues. It was not the freshest flower in the garden. I required him to clean it before any contact happened. So that was an issue. Not having a penis myself I donno if that was his inadequacies... or if it was just the name of the game. But even after I monitored his cleanliness- it still was just kind of bleh and I wanted it to be cleaned before contact even though he habitually washed it after urinating at home during the day. Aside from that he hated condoms because it so drastically limited feeling. We actually ended up having a lot of stupid sex because of that. Circumcised men- while not loving condoms of course... never seemed to have such a lack of sensitivity and never seemed to dislike them as much. Additionally my best friend recently had a son and despite her best efforts of keeping his uncircumcised penis clean he managed to get a fungus down there. It was easily treatable but her Dr seemed to indicate it was pretty common with uncircumcised babies. On the OTHER hand... she is a single mom... and maybe she just didn't really know what to do with a penis to clean it. I've never had any issues with uncircumcised penises during sex, I feel better having much more spontaneous sex because I know its not all moist and messy under their foreskin. I definitely enjoy oral sex a LOT more with the circumcised ones. BUT... a close friend of mine who is originally from Canada had a HORRIBLE experience with his circumcision. They fucked it up, and he had to have surguries until he was like... 15 or so. He didn't even learn how to masturbate until he'd already lost his virginity. Maybe because it was always out of order? or maybe because he was an only child in a conservative Japanense house hold. Who can say. He has a very high sex drive though apparently. And a small penis. Not having had sex with him... I can't say how good he is, or if his penis still has issues. On a side note he had this happen in Borneo where he was born and lived until 17, so I don't know how that experience compares with US circumcisions. All in all.. I enjoyed them both. The uncircumcised penis was a little bit more of a hassle, but I enjoyed it never the less. I wouldn't go out of my wait to avoid a guy with or without one. So this sums up my own personal knowledge of this topic. Hope it helps.

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:08:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikolette I've never had any issues with uncircumcised penises during sex, I feel better having much more spontaneous sex because I know its not all moist and messy under their foreskin. I definitely enjoy oral sex a LOT more with the circumcised ones. The over whelming majority of men in Europe are uncircumcised and I've never heard of any of these problems Americans keep bringing up about cleanliness. It is really a none issue. You wash you hands, you wash your cock, what is the issue? How come all these women don't see they have the same issue with their labia? Why don't they have their labia cut off?

psychodoughb0y -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:09:10 AM)
It's a little known fact that men can regrow a foreskin. It isn't exactly the same as the original but it's very similar. To quote a website on the topic: The kind of restoration favoured by most restoring men is stimulated growth by tension. It differs from stretching, because new skin, muscle and mucosa are caused to grow. The process is like the growth of earlobes under the tension of heavy earrings, or the so-called "stretching" of the lips of tribespeople with introduced discs and other objects.

Nikolette -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:32:29 AM)
meatcleaver: shrugs Maybe the reason its not an issue over there is because more people have theirs uncircumcised and so cleanliness is more directly addressed. All I know is upon my direction he washed his penis EVERY time he went pee and it was never as fresh as a penis without the skin. I'm not saying EVERY man has this occur. I'm saying these are my direct experiences with as I believe I mentioned... one person over a couple years. As a side note, it might benefit you to calm down. You seem to really be personalizing this topic. And if you want to know why women don't have this issue with their labia... in my experience (I'm bisexual) ... some women DO have a nasty one. Some don't. I've had sex with a wider range of women than this one single uncircumcised male and its a mixed bag with them. Guys I've dated have also reported a mixed bag. Personally I'm a little paranoid and have fallen in love with Cottonelle Fresh Wipes and thus make the effort to stay fresh and clean. I think the main reasons we don't cut labia off is 1: Circumcision began because of (based on my knowledge) religious reasons, not cleanliness ones. For whatever reason no one aspired to do it for religious reasons at the time on women. and 2: it wouldn't help with the cleanliness too much since its would still be a crevice.

ernurse48 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:37:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: ernurse48 My opinion is not from a scientific viewpoint but from a clinical perspective from my own observations regarding circumcised male infants versus uncircumcised male infants. While most of my career has been in the Midwest, I did spend two years in AZ. While in AZ I noticed a much higher population of uncut male infants. I think this was due to two things; 1) a higher percentage of a different culture that doesn’t cut, and 2) the public aid insurance did not pay for it. What I did learn while working with the higher numbers of uncut male infants is that there is a large number of males that come into the ER with Urinary Tract Infections (UTI). Prior to working in AZ, I had never catheterized an infant male. The first time I was give an MD order to cath a little boy I was shocked and even more shocked when it came back positive for a UTI. From then on it was common practice to cath infant males who were brought to the ER with a fever and we found no other source of an infection. This has always been common practice with little girls but not boys. I must also say that I have never seen an infant male that has been circumcised come back positive for a UTI. The British Medical Association refute this and say circumcision is one of the main reasons for penile malfunction and urinary problems. (probably due to the butchers that do the procedure). Circumcision is an earner for private American healthcare where in Europe the least medical intenvention the better to keep costs down because of national health services. If not circumcising young males created more problems than it solved, the logic would be to circumcize all male children and save costs. However, the BMA campaign and the reasons most European health services refuse to do circumcision is on ethical grounds that circumcision is mutilation of the male genitals because the foreskin is functional. As I stated in my post, my viewpoint is a clinical observation, not a scientific study. I see at least one uncircumcised infant male UTI per week. I have NEVER seen one in a circumcised infant male. Trust me; no one gets rich circumcising infants. I have copied and pasted the portion of my own insurance plan that states the cost of circumcision is included in MY insurance plan if done prior to the baby being discharged from the hospital. The cost of a visit to the ER for a child with a final diagnosis of a UTI is approx $1500.00 to $2000.00. It is quite costly since we will usually do a full work up on a child with a fever and no obvious cause, i.e., an ear infection, strep throat etc. If anything the healthcare system is making money by NOT circumcising little boys. Circumcision, Newborn – Circumcision is covered as part of the inpatient services for a newborn. If a circumcision is performed after the child has been discharged from the hospital and is provided in an office visit setting, it is cost-shared with Office Visit Costs. If it is performed in an outpatient hospital or ambulatory surgery facility it is cost shared with Ambulatory Surgery Costs. That being said, I think it’s all a matter of personal preference and/or whether someone has the funds or the insurance that will cover the expense. The public aid in Arizona opted out of paying for circumcision though in the long run it's costing them. Maybe AZ public aid is much more educated and feel as you do that circumcision is mutilation. I personally don't... I think it's every parents choice to make regarding how they feel about this procedure. I don't know any man that has ever felt they are emotionally injured from being circumcised as an infant. I do know of some that felt the need as an adult to have it done. Now that was painful!!! Stay safe :)

StellaByStarlite -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:39:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Nikolette I've never had any issues with uncircumcised penises during sex, I feel better having much more spontaneous sex because I know its not all moist and messy under their foreskin. I definitely enjoy oral sex a LOT more with the circumcised ones. The over whelming majority of men in Europe are uncircumcised and I've never heard of any of these problems Americans keep bringing up about cleanliness. It is really a none issue. You wash you hands, you wash your cock, what is the issue? How come all these women don't see they have the same issue with their labia? Why don't they have their labia cut off? Hello, Meatcleaver. =) This is one American who has an uncut owner and decided not to have her son cut, too. I really believe it's an outdated and unneeded procedure. There's no difference between teaching a boy and a girl to keep clean. I have found that uncuts are generally more sensitive. =) And as far as muskiness is concerned.. I love my owner's natural scent. And he loves mine. Cheers, Stella

justheather -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 4:50:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ernurse48 I won’t even go into the increased use of antibiotics used for treating UTI’s and the increase of antibiotic resistant infections from overuse of antibiotics. Are you suggesting this is directly related or even peripherally related in some statistically significant way to people opting not to participate in RIC? If you arent going to go into something, it's best not to bring it up and then leave the associations you are implying hanging in the air... at least that way we get to hear your actual argument as opposed to just the implication that there is a correlation, and one that is apparently so obvious and/or detailed that you are choosing not to go into it.

meatcleaver -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 5:43:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StellaByStarlite This is one American who has an uncut owner and decided not to have her son cut, too. I really believe it's an outdated and unneeded procedure. There's no difference between teaching a boy and a girl to keep clean. I have found that uncuts are generally more sensitive. =) And as far as muskiness is concerned.. I love my owner's natural scent. And he loves mine. Cheers, Stella Good for you.[:)] I don't see a problem with circumcision if it is the decision of the adult male who's going to be circumcised because he can then make an informed decision. I just don't think parents have the right to do it to their male children.

RiotGirl -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 7:58:16 AM)
You all are driving me nuts. i'm about to have a little man pop out in 3 months and i have yet to figure out what to do on this issue. Personal feelings aside, i want to do the RIGHT thing for him. i want whats best. BUT i cant figure it out. What is the best thing? What is the right thing? With tons of information backing up BOTH sides of the coin and tons of mis information out there........ whats a mother to do? I do not want to make a decision for some one elses life based on my personal feelings. It has to be a logical, correct answer. like i said, i have my own personal feelings. Yet i am trying to steer clear of them. It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue.

justheather -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 8:08:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue. Why dont you take a look at the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision? http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686 If you havent already read it, that is. It is probably a good place to start.

Sinergy -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 9:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl You all are driving me nuts. i'm about to have a little man pop out in 3 months and i have yet to figure out what to do on this issue. Personal feelings aside, i want to do the RIGHT thing for him. i want whats best. BUT i cant figure it out. What is the best thing? What is the right thing? With tons of information backing up BOTH sides of the coin and tons of mis information out there........ whats a mother to do? I do not want to make a decision for some one elses life based on my personal feelings. It has to be a logical, correct answer. like i said, i have my own personal feelings. Yet i am trying to steer clear of them. It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue. I would suggest you research the subject for yourself, starting with justheather's link, and then ask these questions of your doctor. Takes me a while to warm up to a new doctor because they have to learn that I will ask questions, double check their answers, ask questions relating to their answers, to the point of argument. I had one doctor who had me on a medicine almost 15 years ago which made me depressed, suicidal, etc. I would discuss the issues with my doctor, who said it was all in my head. So I called my buddy who was head oncologist at a certain hospital. I called another buddy who was in medical school and faxed him my medical records as a class / discussion project. I researched it on the internet. I read the Physician's Desk Reference for Perscription Drugs. I went into a room with this clown and asked him about my symptoms. He said it was not possible. I told him what the PDR stated, he said that book was for public non-professional people. He stated again that it was not possible that I could be experiencing these symptoms. I told him to get out his perscription pad, write what he had just told me, and sign it, and then I would believe him. He looked at me for a minute and slowly said "I think we will go ahead and try changing your medication." I see stupid people, they're everywhere. Sinergy

domahpet -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 9:31:48 AM)
just a thought Riotgirl: its Not your penis to be chopping on, so why not leave it alone?

darchChylde -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 9:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: psychodoughb0y It's a little known fact that men can regrow a foreskin. It isn't exactly the same as the original but it's very similar. To quote a website on the topic: The kind of restoration favoured by most restoring men is stimulated growth by tension. It differs from stretching, because new skin, muscle and mucosa are caused to grow. The process is like the growth of earlobes under the tension of heavy earrings, or the so-called "stretching" of the lips of tribespeople with introduced discs and other objects. please, if you are going to "quote a website", cite the website... i am wondering if the website you are quoting had any medical legitimacy i'm not saying that it's not possible to "regrow" foreskin, because i have found many sources stating it is possible, through expansion due to celular mitosis... but i have found NO accredited sources, look for yourself the most comprehensive source, and yes this source is very biased and written by a man who supposedly successfully regrew his foreskin is a faq http://www.iomfats.org/resources/restoring/media/restoring_faq.pdf now, assuming that this is all legitmate, if you want to "regrow" your foreskin, consider this... Being that there is no standard method, or opinion on the subject i have to run the who spectrum of possible figures one must somehow create artificial tension through tape or a device, the amount of tension is between 8 oz and one pound one must do this for anywhere between 10 hours a day 5 days a week to a full 24 hours a day 7 days a week and finally, this takes anywhere up to 2-4 years to accomplish once again, i will say that that i was completely unable to find a 100 percent medically legitimate source

daddysprop247 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 10:29:21 AM)
FR: i've been with a fair number of circumcised and uncircumcised men. as far as vaginal intercourse goes, i haven't noticed any significant difference between a cut and uncut cock, except perhaps that i have yet to encounter an uncut cock which i would describe as "thick" and gave me that really full feeling inside, but that could just be the partner i've had. with anal, in my experiences it's been physically impossible to have anal without a condom when a man is uncut. orally, i MUCH prefer a cut cock, just because the skin is not constantly sliding around and it's just more pleasant. unfortunately i've found that a lot of uncut men aren't exactly meticulously clean, and i had one partner in particular who had a very heavy amount of foreskin, so much so that the skin never pulled back from the head even when he was fully erect, and if you did happen to pull the skin back (which he found very painful), you would find lots of cottage cheese looking gunk completely filling the area. didn't really give me the urge to lick. [:'(] but if a man is hygenic, and the amount of foreskin isn't too extreme, then being uncut isn't a real problem to me. i also happen to think uncut cocks are a bit more erotic/enticing visually.

ernurse48 -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:05:29 AM)
"The cottage cheese looking gunk"... it's called smegma... google it... and I personally think it's nasty whether it be found on a man or a woman... yuk!!! If I come across smegma... I am outta there!!! Keep those things clean!!!

Zensee -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:27:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RiotGirl You all are driving me nuts. i'm about to have a little man pop out in 3 months and i have yet to figure out what to do on this issue. Personal feelings aside, i want to do the RIGHT thing for him. i want whats best. BUT i cant figure it out. What is the best thing? What is the right thing? With tons of information backing up BOTH sides of the coin and tons of mis information out there........ whats a mother to do? I do not want to make a decision for some one elses life based on my personal feelings. It has to be a logical, correct answer. like i said, i have my own personal feelings. Yet i am trying to steer clear of them. It would be nice if there could be solid medical facts on the issue. The medical facts are far from clear but the moral and ethical ones are. Children are not property and parents do not own their childrens' bodies. In the absence of a specific condition requiring treatment by circumcision (and "it makes some girls squicky" is not sufficient reason) then leave the little guy alone. Performed on female children it is called genital mutilation, at least in civilised countries. Why should it be called anything different for males? Circumcision is a medical procedure – to have unnecessary surgery performed on an unconsenting person is abuse. Z.

bearincuffs -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:33:27 AM)
Yes I have been told an uncut penis is more sensitive to stimulation then a penis that is circumcised. Either way, cleanliness is a routine which needs to be done irregardless. My parents had me circumcised as n infant and I honestly believe that they had their reasons for doing so. At the age of 46, I think it's a watse of my energy to regret being circumsicised. Since I have never known what it's like having a foreskin, I honsetly can not argue which is better and won't. I know that many men do wish they weren't circumcised but that is their own opinion and that is good. My thought is if these men really do want to have a foreskin back, then there are techniques to slowly stretch what 's left into a reasonable foreskin. I am quite happy to be circumcised and since I've always been this way, I can be content.

ownedgirlie -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:33:42 AM)
~ fast reply ~ I have been with both circumsized and uncircumsized men. It never made a difference to me. What attracts me to a man is his mind and strength, not whether or not there is "extra" skin on his penis. However, one man I was with had very little foreskin which would pull and caused him pain during sex. In his 20s, he elected to have himself circumsized. Quite a painful experience for him at the time, yet proved to be beneficial for him later. The other men did not have any issues with being uncircumsized, and cleanliness was not a problem.

RiotGirl -> RE: circumcised or intact is there a difference? (2/27/2007 11:44:44 AM)
Granted, i said i want to do the "right" thing. My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. I didnt cut anything off of my daughter when she was born, i feel i shouldnt be cutting anything off of my son. Yet it is about right and wrong. Has nothing to do with property. Has to do with, i am the parent, i am responsible for another human being - and i better damn well do the right thing for them. When it comes to anything else in life pertaining to my unborn son - i will have to sit and decide what the right thing is for him. That is one of my jobs. All personal feelings aside, its about what is right. Not what you want to be right, not what you want, now how you feel, not what you think, but point blank - the right thing to do. Sinergy, i've looked into the matter myself already. I'm still unsure how to proceed. So much contradicts itself, so many thoughts and ideas are biased. Alot of the opionons here are biased. Like Zensee. She says to have unneeded surgery on one that cant consent is abuse. Her statement is mere emotionalism on her part and not logic. As logically there are any number of things a parent can have surgically done to their child. My daughter had her annoids removed, tonsils removed, and ear tubes put in. Did she consent? Not one bit. Was it in her best interest? You can be damned sure. There are good arguements for both sides (even despite all the opionons inputted into the debates) - its just figuring out which is the correct, logical, right thing to do. thank you for the link Just heather.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125