I was circumcized when I was 6 or 7 and I remember in school how different I was and it made me insecure. But when my son came back after we had him done.....1 day old and wimpering....I thought " how could I do this to my son" It really must have hurt him a lot. So I have mixed feelings about it....I wish I was stronger mentally when I was younger.

when i was born in an army hospital in honolulu in the mid-60's, the doctors only circumcized if they felt there was an excessive amount of foreskin. it varies, and mine was deemed fine to leave alone (there, i've said it..lol). i've never had a 'complaint' and usually if i don't mention it, a girl isn't even aware. i got lucky i guess. just enough to retain full sensitivity..no cut nerves. and just to be clear - not having loads of foreskin does not mean you got 'shorted' elsewhere.. ;) just to be, umm..clear.. so, even though i voted 'leave it', i would say it really depends.
ryan

Only 2 reasons for removal

1> medical grounds, infection, etc
2> Religious

however, its been prooved that the foreskin protects the head of a mans penis,

if you dont wash your D I C K then your a adirty bug ger anyway !

keep it clean (dont go over board on the soap !!)

play with it occasionally

and the Odd BJ will give you miles of smiles

in my opionon LEAVE IT........

by the way, Muslims tend to be snipped, my girlfriend who is a Muslim and divorced swore she could never go down on a hoody !

aand probably would not like to make love (this was when we were just going out)

but believe me she gives damn good head and sex is no problem... only thing is at first as she was not used to the ways of a foreskin, would handle me VERY roughly, just yanking it back well and hard then suck the bajesas outta it..

like anything, sex with your partner is a learning experiance and she learnt quickly....

so dont let jewish/Muslim girls tell you taht they only date guys who are cut.... it aint so

Re: Circumcision?
 

We actually discussed this when I was in nursing school, including the medical literature on circ'd vs. non-circ'd males.

The rates of cancer are higher for men that are uncirc'd, and the rates of cervical cancer in females with an uncirc'd partners are higher as well, but it appears it's all related to hygiene issues, and not a natural phenom at all, at least not that anyone has discovered. Most of the time, a circumsized father will want his son circumsized, it's an appearance issue.

We did circ's on adult males from time to time, and it was mostly due to lack of hygiene, or scarring from venereal disease that wasn't treated, or delayed treatment, or scarring from other "unknown" etiology.

I voted to "leave it".

jewish girls date circumsized guys , because their 20% off. lol

roflmao! :D

Did you hear what happened to the blind mohel?

He got the sack.

yeah but if you rub it for a while it grows to legal paper size.

Snipped, FTW!

I had my boy snipped at 1 month old and it was hard to see (I held him while the Dr. cut it). My brothers had theirs at 21 and 25 cause they kept getting infections and they say sex was probably better before but they both agree that its better being "shirtless".

Another reason for circumcision: ease of catheterization. Ever try to stick a urinary catheter into an uncircumsized penis? Particularly when the patient is elderly and everything is saggy? Even when the patient is younger, and the penis is flaccid, it is a major PITA to catheterize some uncircumcised penises. Nurses and (resident) physicians will thank you down the road. It's also quite a bit less stinky (at least in the hospitalized and nursing home patient population I'm used to seeing) to be a "crew cut" as opposed to a "turtleneck." Whether or not you believe the penile cancer link is up to you.

I'd have to echo the sentiments recommending neonatal snipping, too. I've done it in newborns, kids, teenagers, adults, and elderly. It's a lot less traumatic to do it in the babies.

You au natural types might want to look into this:

Circumcision may stop millions of HIV deaths
Significantly lower infection rate among circumcised men, WHO report finds

Updated: 7:17 a.m. CT July 11, 2006
WASHINGTON - Circumcising men routinely across Africa could prevent millions of deaths from AIDS, World Health Organization researchers and colleagues reported Monday.

They analyzed data from trials that showed men who had been circumcised had a significantly lower risk of infection with the AIDS virus, and calculated that if all men were circumcised over the next 10 years, some two million new infections and around 300,000 deaths could be avoided.

Researchers believe circumcision helps cut infection risk because the foreskin is covered in cells the virus seems able to easily infect. The virus may also survive better in a warm, wet environment like that found beneath a foreskin.

So if men were circumcised, fewer would become infected and thus could not infect their female partners.

The human immunodeficiency virus or HIV, which causes AIDS, now infects close to 40 million people and has killed another 25 million. It mostly affects sub-Saharan Africa and the main mode of transmission is sex between a man and a woman.

Several studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection. This has been especially noticeable in some parts of Africa, where some groups are routinely circumcised while neighboring groups are not.

Last year, Dr. Bertran Auvert of the French National Research Agency INSERM and colleagues at WHO found that circumcised men in South Africa were 65 percent less likely to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus.

His team then did an analysis to see what would happen if all African men were circumcised.

“In West Africa, male circumcision is common and the prevalence of HIV is low, while in southern Africa the reverse is true,” they wrote in the current report, published in the Public Library of Science Medicine.

“This analysis shows that male circumcision could avert nearly six million new infections and save three million lives in sub-Saharan Africa over the next twenty years,” they wrote.

Overall, they project that universal male circumcision would reduce the rate of infections by about 37 percent.

“Male circumcision alone cannot bring the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa under control. Even circumcised men can become infected, though their risk of doing so is much lower,” the journal cautioned in a commentary.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13812938/?GT1=8307

Rick, that study is said to be seriously flawed, because the circumcized men in the study are primarily Muslims and practicing Muslims are far less likely to have multiple sex partners than non-religious men or men of other religions in Africa.

First, I have not seen any information on this study being declared seriously flawed. I just did a quick Google search and also found nothing. Would be interested to read any link you might provide.

Second, if that is the case, then it makes the study more robust, wouldn't it?

If you take a man who is less likely to have multiple sex partners and show a benefit in virus transmission, that benefit would be expected to be at least the same if not greater in someone who was at higher risk.

I think the point is that if A is cut and has sex with 1 woman, but B is uncut and has sex with 20 women, then saying the B's tendency is due to being uncut is not necessarily accurate. Seems to me the bigger factor would be that B has sex with more partners.

Google provides 31,000 hits on Africa circumcision AIDS study flawed

Haven't seen the study, but sorting groups by numbers of sexual contacts would be the first task.

From the MSNBC article;

It appears to have been a controlled study.

The study was conducted on more than 3,000 HIV-negative South African men, ages 18 to 24. Half of the men were randomly selected to be circumcised while the other half remained uncircumcised.

My bad. That's a better-controlled study than the dozen or so that preceeded it (look them up: in some, the test subjects were already HIV-infected and weren't informed by the "doctors" doing the experiments(!))

Re: Circumcision?
 

I"m going to be blunt.

My perspective is as a heterosexual female.

As a parent, I know you don't want to think about these things, but from my perspective, circumcision is all I want.....if you know what I mean....