Advice Needed: Circumcised vs Uncircumcised

I was circumcized and did not understand what that was until later. What I discovered is that it effects the amount of sex I can have. I can't say it was botched, but I do know that the scar area (even these many decades later) can turn red and swell up uncomfortably due to friction, unlike the rest.That said, having seen plenty of both at this point (from a sexual standpoint) those that are circumcized are generally more attractive and cleaner smelling. They are also statistically less likely to trap and so contract or carry stds (of course this only makes a difference if your kid is going to be promiscuous). My gf is also pretty certain that she finds cut cocks to be more attractive aesthetically.With all this in mind, here's my position:I don't think I would have my sons circumcized. It is an unnecessary procedure that if it weren't for past religious mandates for it, would not even be a question in the first place. Only if I felt it was some sort of specific cultural bond would I consider it.And here's the upside... the kid can always get circumcized later. You can't really undo a circumcision, but you can always have one. And all that we are talking about is circumcision at birth. What is the rush to get it chopped as a baby? How many people does his penis have to be culturally attractive to at that age?If the kid feels that he would want one later, even in grade school, you could have it done then and know it was a supportive decision rather than a command one.My two cents. Just remember you aren't married to me, and so your wife's opinion is inherently worth more.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that chicks dig it should not be a deciding factor. My gf does not reject guys that are uncut, and neither do I. The point is that there can be an aesthetic component, which is what most cosmetic surgery is. And I should repeat that it does provide some additional protection against stds, which makes some sense given that it removes an area that can trap and carry bacteria and virus material.But like I said, my thought is all this suggests that one should wait and let the kid decide.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't know if you were angry or not, but it came off that way. If so you need to cool down. I did not say she or I preferred infant genital mutilation. Indeed I believe I stated that we would NOT have our children cut.What I said was that she and I find cut cocks to have a preferable aesthetic quality. That is true (for us), and has no implication for when it should be done. Believe it or not people do choose to get cut when they are older. And sometimes it is done as a surgical procedure for real clinical reasons regarding pain and infection.I agree that for whatever reason it is done, it is genital mutilation. When not done for the relatively rare clinical purpose, it is cosmetic just like piercings, brandings, tattoing, or any other body altering procedure.For those who argue that sexual contact with minors is inherently harmful, a large question is raised on how circumcision could not be. But neither have to be considered inherently harmful... beyond the base physical alteration, which if one is not made aware of later is unlikely to have been noticed or known.But it, like any surgical procedure, does produce a risk of problems. And it does impose a permanent decision on a child. This can cause issues later between a child and parent, or just internally to the kid (especially if something went wrong).I am against doing it personally to my own child, and would recommend (as I did here) that others not do so. Leave it like piercing or tattoing or other body modifications people get into later in life. Then again I am not going to slam cultures that practice it as inherently engaging in child abuse... though it is most certainly genital mutilation. There are some minimal medical benefits, but are relatively insignificant, unless one is promiscuous. The cleanliness argument is not exactly correct, yeah people can wash, but smegma buildup is quicker for uncut vs cut. I assume the question was rhetorical to me since I did not advance the "cleanliness" reason for infant circumcision.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, sometimes that is not as easy as you make out. Some foreskins are very stuck in position and can cause pain to retract it far or fully. That makes it difficult to completely clean the area.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This is like the third time this has been said, and it is false. For many it will be just as easy to clean, but not all penises are built the same. Some guys really have a problem with being able to uncover the head and the area behind it. That makes proper cleaning almost impossible.It is also true that material builds up within the area under the foreskin, which means it requires more cleaning than one that is uncut.I am not saying that this means people should circumcize, I'm just pointing out that one can't simply say there is no difference in cleanliness between the two. There is.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Again, I want to point out that this is not an argument for circumcision, just a correction on overstatements made about uncircumcized cleanliness issues.Yes, for most people it should just be a routine matter of cleaning. I was only talking about a small proportion that have issues of not being able to pull back the foreskin. However the point was that it does happen and so some can develop issues, even if it is just aesthetic and discomfort not majorly health effecting.I have no idea why they occur, but its hard for me to believe it is simply from lack of pulling it back while growing up, and certainly not because cut parents didn't know what to teach their kid. Me and my gf have run into these types here in the netherlands where uncut is normal and not in the US.In any case it is such instances where surgery is sometimes mandated, or just desired for personal satisfaction. That's why one cannot make patent statements that there is no REAL issues that uncircumcized guys face and that foreskins can simply be pulled back.The routine cleanliness issue is different than sweat under arms and breasts, the skin area is different and has different bacteria buildup.Is there a reason we can't admit that there is actually a difference?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No, a successful circumcision creates a real difference. I was only discussing the difference between a successful circumcision and an uncut cock.You are correct that medical procedures have a chance of going wrong, hence my recommendation that one leave it up to the kid and not have it done at birth.See what I'm not getting is why a person who is against something cannot factually discuss what things might be different and even positive. It seems like we all have to gang up and scream tirades how there is no possible difference and it is all some horrible nightmare. Its simply not true. To me it certainly isn't recommendable, its needless ritual which entails risk, but that's it. Yeah, actually I was addressing RAZDs statement at that point. And I agree, and thought I was making clear, that it is not the majority that has this problem, though it is less rare then people are making out here. Certainly it is rarer to have that condition be so bad as to create real health problems, but not so rare that there is some greater cleanliness issue and discomfort.An acquaintance of my gfs recently decided to have this procedure himself (late 20s-30s) because of these issues.And this really means one can't simply say its an equal playing field and if one has a foreskin it should be real easy. For the majority that is absolutely true, my point on this is that it has to be done more frequently than for cut cocks. The buildup is faster. The heads of uncut cocks are generally more moist/slimy and can smell more, due to the difference in environment.That's sort of the same reason why women tend to smell more than men, they have a closed environment which breeds bacteria faster.Not an overt reason to cut, just a difference which should be able to be admitted, while making the recommendation not to.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

WTF is everyone's problem here? My recommendation was that he NOT DO IT. People keep acting as if my statement of FACTS which might not paint it as UNDENIABLE EVIL are somehow an argument for it.People really do have it done for medical reasons. That is a FACT. This can be seen toward the bottom here, and here. Even when not advised for health reasons, discomfort alone has driven some people to it. I have stated that that would be rare, but it does happen.I would point out as well that the article states (though it is wiki so it could be double checked) that smegma production is reduced... which is what I said before. Though that is an aesthetic reason.You do know that vaginas can have issues and do get operated on? That is not an argument for female circumcision, but one can admit that it happens. Huh, I thought that's what I said. Well yeah I did point out that there is evidence that cut has lower rates of std transferal and that remains true. There are questions about some studies, but that is different than refutation of evidence. But otherwise you said what I said, it is unnecessary... merely cosmetics... unless there is a medical condition.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-17-2006 05:50 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well for a large part I was asleep, was kind of sick yesterday so I turned in early. But you are right that it is getting boring having my position mistated, as well as facts mistated, all in order to prop up a specific conclusion I was arguing anyway without the distortion.I was glad to read your posts. I believe I understand where you are coming from and agree. Real tolerance and diversity seem to be dead among liberals now... maybe the true colors are finally showing?Yes, cultures are different and will have a vastly different perspective on what counts as caring and abuse of a child. Although I can agree that some things are mutilation, that does not make it abuse and not caring. Cultures have invented justifications for them where they fit just fine.Does that mean I have to agree with them? Heck no! But it also means that I can't point a finger without a finger pointing right back... and it being just as right. The criteria are different. Yeah, moral relativity, or subjectivity. That's called diversity of thought and I think it is a good thing, even if it means people do what I would rather they didn't.As far as your rec to Jazzns goes I differ slightly. I would not necessarily say he should weigh the views of the local community when making his decision. I would say that to the degree he holds certain local traditions as important to himself and for his family, that he should weigh such views.Cultures themselves change, and that is from individuals within them asking questions of if it is still worthy to themselves. Even in cultures that bound feet, many did not and many chose not to because they did not see the value.So its a layered decision, but basically similar. My argument to him (since we are in similar cultures) is that I don't find it a useful tradition, and one the child can choose to partake in later with no real loss. But if he finds it important (or his wife apparently) as a social ritual then it becomes a real factor.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

For a person who maintains that evopsych is a realistic science, then your answer must be yes. Their habits are a genetically determined culture just as all human behavior is. This is an interesting, but off topic question which several people seem interested in bringing into this discussion. I have opened up a new thread to handle it.You might want to repost this question there, or modify it in some way if you want to improve its "bite".

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually that's not a strawman. Like ID, EP chooses not to reveal exactly what its claims is genetically determined, yet at the same time discounts (by necessity) culture and individual development as primary forces, and has adherents claiming everything from underlying behavioral tendencies to all behaviors are evolutionarily driven.And more to the point, you asked if praying mantis' have culture, without question the ep answer would have to be YES. Although it may be limited in scale, what they do as a group is their culture and is a product of their behaviors (or behavioral tendencies) just as human cultures are.Remember, if culture can really drive development, then the ability to claim a discovered "evolutionary" based behavior based on stats is severely undercut. That is why EP adherents actively describe cultures as products of behaviors developed from evolution's invisible guiding hand, and not the other way around.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Stop it. Stop and read what I am writing.I was talking about a successful circumcision. There IS a difference between a cut cock and an uncut one. Those are the differences I was discussing.You keep trying to act like I am discussing a kid who has not had one yet, and I am not and was not. What's more I have stated that when we are looking at the choice of cutting, those differences DO come with a chance of negatives. I said that in my very first post and am suggesting to the OP author the chances are not worth him making that decision for his son.What you cannot do is keep pushing it back to chances, when I am discussing the differences that do exist between a properly cut and uncut cock. I am questioning why everyone has to pretend there is no difference. I have openly accepted there is risk in the procedure and they outweigh the benefits, why can others not accept there are some positive differences in a successful operation? Yeah, given that I have been arguing this myself, why is it necessary to say this to me? Uh yeah, that's also what I was suggesting, although I wouldn't go so far as to say "supposed" as if any alteration is some perversion of nature with inherent dire consequences. The point I made is that that environment... as natural as it is... creates an aesthetic difference which is less appealing and requires greater care.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

??? Like I said, read what I am writing. I can't be advocating anything if my statement is that it should not be done. That's sort of the definition of not being an advocate. That's because instead of reading what I am writing, they view any honest discussion of facts as something that must be wholly annihilated to make the practice and its results worse than it actually is. It must be viewed as wholly evil.I guess I'm waiting waiting for you guys to suggest Saddam Hussein and Al Queda are behind circumcision and anyone having one supports them. Weapons of Male Destruction and all.I get that you don't like them, and you don't like the practice. I am not in favor of the practice too, especially for the new born. But I can still point out that there are some aesthetic "advantages", as well as some minor medical ones, which is why some (yes a small minority) actually have to have it done or want to have it done.I apologize to everyone for not being able to see this issue in wholly black and white terms. I guess having been circumcized and having lived and played with many guys with both cut and uncut cocks I'm less inclined to view either choice as definitive regarding quality of life.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But I don't dismiss the field "out of hand". That would definitely be a strawman of my position. Indeed in one of the threads I bumped for crash on the topic I was in complete agreement with an early EP proponent, who has moved on to criticize what has been happening in that field.The concept that some of our behaviors (or underlying motives for behavior) could be hardwired into our brains due to evolutionary pressures is not impossible. I find that an interesting question and would love to see that explored. The problem starts emerging on what techniques are being used to identify hardwired behavior, place when such hardwiring occured, and giving what reason for it to have occured.The field of EP has been overrun by people who are not practicing science. They are using deductive logic to make claims as stretched as those in ID. Ironically that's the same thing that people in the ID camp say. Not sure if you've seen their site or read their testimony in court but that is it. Uhhh... I am a scientist. I've told you this already, while my original undergrad was philosophy I went on to full undergrad and some grad work in both Chemistry and Geology/Earth Science.I am not a psychologist, but did minor in sociology, which included social psych and anthro whose evidence undercuts many of EPs current claims, and why they appear to feel the need to downplay those fields in the exact manner ID attacks Evo (read the cites in the other thread supplied by an EP supporter).My gf is in psych and she agrees that the field is currently a bunch of crap science. From what I understand her profs aren't all that eager about it either. The idea that you "have asked several prof Psychs" means anything is a little odd.Are you claiming that there aren't psychologists and other scientists firmly against it? Like I said you can just pop over to the other thread where all I am discussing is actual material, and you will find some solid criticism of EP techniques. I might add that Gould... an evolutionary biologist... was violently opposed to it. If you think I am dismissive, you should read his statements about it.By the way, from what I understand you are not a scientist, so why should anyone take your word for anything? Frankly I think that's a very lame point to try and throw at someone (especially when you are wrong), but it makes less sense when you fulfill the same criteria.By by the way, how does this settle the issue on what EP would say about mantis "culture"?This message has been edited by holmes, 01-18-2006 05:21 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Nice try, but it won't work. I'm not accusing anyone of a conspiracy. I'm arguing that people around here are not willing to discuss it outside a black/white perspective, and attacking me for discussing it outside that perspective.That's about the same as pointing out how Bush fanatics keep wanting to discuss civil rights and foreign diplomacy issues in a black/white perspective. See this is it exactly. In the end analysis I agreed with that position and stated that position, but because in my analysis I mentioned that a successful cut does provide some benefits (even if purely cosmetic except for rarer cases) I am getting treated like I'm trying to convince someone to do it.You are arguing a moot position at me because I already agree. If you weren't stuck in some black/white emotional need, then you would let it go. Yes that's absolutely subjective, but I feel pretty confident in stating that the vast majority of people find smegma repulsive and so less buildup an aesthetic "advantage".And yes you should take it that I agree there is no reason to perform it on newborns as I said that in my very first post. And I've repeated that point to you. Yes, instead of focusing on the entirety of what I write, which has been consistent from my first post... that there is no real reason for infant circumcision, and that it is essentially cosmetic body modification... people are focusing on the fact that I also say it does provide some medical relief for rare cases, as an excuse to preach to me how bad it is.I did not nitpick, I am returning debate to a rational level. We can agree it is not the best choice, particularly for infants, while admitting it does help some people and successful cuts provide some cosmetic advantages... right?If not... why not? Bingo. Black and white. Maybe I should also apologize for not believing in the concepts of good and bad... but that does tend to help one not discuss things in black and white.What do you feel about Jews and Muslims who do it for religious/cultural purposes?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)