No, I wouldn't. There's an awful lot of evidence now suggesting that the procedure is utterly useless and should only be used if a real problem develops with the foreskin.
If I am going to mutilate a poor, innocent, defenseless, little, sexy, sweet, cute, lovely and extremely cuddly baby boy, I might as well go all out. After all, everybody loves a eunuch.
If I am going to mutilate a poor, innocent, defenseless, little, sexy, sweet, cute, lovely and extremely cuddly baby boy, I might as well go all out. After all, everybody loves a eunuch.
No. It has no medical benefits except when it's necessary due to some problem with the foreskin, and I want to give him the chance to decide if he wants it.
There is no legitimate medical reason beyond severe constriction for a non-soldier to have it done. It is a barbaric religious practice that was medically legitimized through the hysteria surrounding masturbation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
If he had a malformed foreskin that couldn't be fixed then and the doctors (whom are mostly anti routine circumcision over here) recommended it I'd go for it, otherwise no. The perceived benefits can be easily overcome with basic hygiene and sexual practices.
Not personally, but I'd have a doctor do it. Not for religious or medical reasons but why have all that extra skin around it? Might as well get it done when he's a baby than have him be a grown ass man wanting a circumcized cock and I don't think I've ever heard of someone complaining about having one.
The benefits outweigh the risks. It is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection. Of course, this is also coming from someone who is circumcised. But I would defenitely not have it done by a priest. I don't think many people decide to get a circumcision done when they are older and is probably even riskier.
I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm circumsized and I'm not some sort of freak :P
applesxc47
And for people getting all up in arms about the pain and suffering I have no recollection of the event So granted it caused me pain at the time But as to my current knowledge, it was virtually non-existant
The benefits outweigh the risks. It is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection. Of course, this is also coming from someone who is circumcised. But I would defenitely not have it done by a priest. I don't think many people decide to get a circumcision done when they are older and is probably even riskier.
JDWolfie
Still doesn't justify forcing a child against it's will to get circumcised.
Unless you're third world kid in Africa. these so called "benefits" are negligible.
Not personally, but I'd have a doctor do it. Not for religious or medical reasons but why have all that extra skin around it? Might as well get it done when he's a baby than have him be a grown ass man wanting a circumcized cock and I don't think I've ever heard of someone complaining about having one.
I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm circumsized and I'm not some sort of freak :P
chaoscougar1
And for people getting all up in arms about the pain and suffering I have no recollection of the event So granted it caused me pain at the time But as to my current knowledge, it was virtually non-existant dude i've always wanted to ask you who is the girl from your pic.
I was almost circumsized when I was a baby because I had phimosis (tight foreskin) but the doc said it wasn't too bad and that I could correct it on my own as I grew up.
I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm circumsized and I'm not some sort of freak :P
lightleggy
And for people getting all up in arms about the pain and suffering I have no recollection of the event So granted it caused me pain at the time But as to my current knowledge, it was virtually non-existant dude i've always wanted to ask you who is the girl from your pic. Remy LaCroix
Not personally, but I'd have a doctor do it. Not for religious or medical reasons but why have all that extra skin around it? Might as well get it done when he's a baby than have him be a grown ass man wanting a circumcized cock and I don't think I've ever heard of someone complaining about having one.
Not personally, but I'd have a doctor do it. Not for religious or medical reasons but why have all that extra skin around it? Might as well get it done when he's a baby than have him be a grown ass man wanting a circumcized cock and I don't think I've ever heard of someone complaining about having one.
Not personally, but I'd have a doctor do it. Not for religious or medical reasons but why have all that extra skin around it? Might as well get it done when he's a baby than have him be a grown ass man wanting a circumcized cock and I don't think I've ever heard of someone complaining about having one.
Jolt_counter119
it reduces sexual pleasure.
So you finish faster?
Sounds to me that you are reducing sexual pleasure if you finish quicker. Yeah for circumcision.
I was circumcised as a kid, and the only thing I remember is that I got some transformers and days off from school out of it. Oh optimus. Also my penis looks and feels fabulous.
The benefits outweigh the risks. It is known to reduce the risk of HIV infection. Of course, this is also coming from someone who is circumcised. But I would defenitely not have it done by a priest. I don't think many people decide to get a circumcision done when they are older and is probably even riskier.
Blue-Sky
Still doesn't justify forcing a child against it's will to get circumcised.
Unless you're third world kid in Africa. these so called "benefits" are negligible.
Still doesn't justify it not getting done. At least I provided some reason over getting it done over not getting it done.
I don't think I would, healthcare is good enough these days there isn't a big medical reason for it and by the time I have kids chances are it will be even better. Hell we'll probably be able to regrow it in another 20 years given the amount of people who were circumsized and now are all self conscious about it. Honestly though the difference seems blown out of proportion by both sides. I know a lot of people throw around that it causes less sensitivity but pretty much all studies on that subject have come back with no, or extremely minor, differences. The bigger issue is ethics and the risk of complications (which for babies is something like 2%). Look is entirely subjective of course and honestly I don't think a lot of women give a crap, looks and works basically the same either way unless the doctor f*cked up. As for medical benefits they ARE there and they are more significant than the risks but again the ethics here is the primary issue. Generally speaking it's actually pretty helpful if you're in a high risk area for STDs but I really, really doubt a little less skin is going to be enough to prevent anything if you're considered high risk. Per act it's a decent help but...overall not so much.
[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I don't think I would, healthcare is good enough these days there isn't a big medical reason for it and by the time I have kids chances are it will be even better. Hell we'll probably be able to regrow it in another 20 years given the amount of people who were circumsized and now are all self conscious about it. Honestly though the difference seems blown out of proportion by both sides. I know a lot of people throw around that it causes less sensitivity but pretty much all studies on that subject have come back with no, or extremely minor, differences. The bigger issue is ethics and the risk of complications (which for babies is something like 2%). Look is entirely subjective of course and honestly I don't think a lot of women give a crap, looks and works basically the same either way unless the doctor f*cked up. As for medical benefits they ARE there and they are more significant than the risks but again the ethics here is the primary issue. Generally speaking it's actually pretty helpful if you're in a high risk area for STDs but I really, really doubt a little less skin is going to be enough to prevent anything if you're considered high risk. Per act it's a decent help but...overall not so much. If you live in a high risk area of STDs/STIs shouldn't you be wearing a condom? And doesn't a condom more or less render the benefits of a circumcision redundant?
[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]I don't think I would, healthcare is good enough these days there isn't a big medical reason for it and by the time I have kids chances are it will be even better. Hell we'll probably be able to regrow it in another 20 years given the amount of people who were circumsized and now are all self conscious about it. Honestly though the difference seems blown out of proportion by both sides. I know a lot of people throw around that it causes less sensitivity but pretty much all studies on that subject have come back with no, or extremely minor, differences. The bigger issue is ethics and the risk of complications (which for babies is something like 2%). Look is entirely subjective of course and honestly I don't think a lot of women give a crap, looks and works basically the same either way unless the doctor f*cked up. As for medical benefits they ARE there and they are more significant than the risks but again the ethics here is the primary issue. Generally speaking it's actually pretty helpful if you're in a high risk area for STDs but I really, really doubt a little less skin is going to be enough to prevent anything if you're considered high risk. Per act it's a decent help but...overall not so much. If you live in a high risk area of STDs/STIs shouldn't you be wearing a condom? And doesn't a condom more or less render the benefits of a circumcision redundant? Generally if you're living in a high risk area it is such because condoms are not readily available.
I was circumcised as a kid, and the only thing I remember is that I got some transformers and days off from school out of it. Oh optimus. Also my penis looks and feels fabulous.
mAArdman
This, but I can't remember if I got transformers. but its more then likely that I didn't.
I don't see what the huge issue is, I'm circumsized and I'm not some sort of freak :P
chaoscougar1
And for people getting all up in arms about the pain and suffering I have no recollection of the event So granted it caused me pain at the time But as to my current knowledge, it was virtually non-existant
Have a doctor do it? Probably not, just so he can be normal, though my friend's dad said that the son should have whatever done to his penis as the dad's (if the dad was circumcised, then the son should. Vice versa), to avoid any thought in the child's mind that he's a freak, if he accidentally catches a glimpse. Since I was circumcised, it'd make sense for my son to as well, but I'd want him to be natural.
Log in to comment