Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 17, 2014, 06:20:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Should I get my son circumcized?  (Read 27257 times)
GHGut
Getbig III
***
Posts: 436

Getbig!


View Profile
« on: June 25, 2006, 07:52:51 AM »

He's arribing Sept. 1st.
I'm circumsized and never noticed any lack of feeling, but I read that being uncircumsized can result in more pleasure? Anyone got any opinion or experience on this? Thanks!
Report to moderator   Logged
Patricku9
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 117



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2006, 08:14:07 AM »

leave him natural,he choose for himself when he grows up
Report to moderator   Logged
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16789



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2006, 08:15:35 AM »

Do not cut him.  Angry  An uncircumcised penis is much more sensitive and provides much more pleasure during penetration, masturbation, oral sex, etc.

If your son wants to be circumcised, he can make that decision for himself when he is old enough.  Personally, I prefer to play with a cut cock because that is what I am used to, but I would not trade my foreskin for anything.

I have literally ordered all the young mothers-to-be in my family to leave their sons intact.  Forced circumcision on babies should be a crime!
Report to moderator   Logged
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2006, 08:59:40 AM »

He's arribing Sept. 1st.
I'm circumsized and never noticed any lack of feeling, but I read that being uncircumsized can result in more pleasure? Anyone got any opinion or experience on this? Thanks!

  Circumcision: terrorist attack against boy children.
  Penalty: to be boiled alive.

  Seriously, bro, do NOT do this to your little boy! Please! Sad Undecided And don't believe what medical doctors say about it: it's all lies. The vast majority of "facts" about the potential benefits of circumcision are speculative, unconclusive or just downright stupid. Cancer of the penis? First of all, it's extremly rare: your boy's chance of dying of that are less than one in a million. And furthermore, cleaning the penis is very simple, besides that it's self-cleansing, like your eyelids! Urinary tract infection? Please...there are TONS of far less traumatic ways of preventing that.

  There is no evidence, that circumcision, does anything besides change the way your boy's penis look. That's the only thing it certainly does! And it's extremely painful and traumatic for the boy child. And it's discriminatory! A medical doctor can lose his license to practice medicine, or even go to jail, if he even touches a girl's genitals, yet he'll suffer no legl charges, at all, from ripping the entire epitelial system of a boy's penis with  scalpel - and, usually, without anesthesia! Shocked Undecided

  Scandinavians are seldom mutilated, yet their level of genital diseases is much lower than Americans! Most men, in all of history, were never circumcised, yet the vast majority of them lived well into old age, without any problems in their penises, except, perhaps, impotence. And when they died young, you can be damned sure that, in 99.999+% of cases, it had nothing to do with their intact penises.

  The only medical reason why circumcision is done, is for two conditions, phimosis and paraphiosis, both of which occur in less than 2% of intact boys. And even then, most doctors will solve the problem with a corticosteroid called betamethasone, which loses the skin, allowing the penis to be exposed. Only in the most extreme cases they will give the boy a mutilation. And in the few cases that they do, tey only remove the phimotic ring - the tip of slin that constricts te penis glands -, leaving most skin, unlike the pre-natal mutilation doctors give to boy children inthe U.S, where they remove all the outer and inner skin, as well as all the underlining nerve endings, leading to a severe loss of sexual tact. The penis can still ejaculate, but the sensory nuances are gone. All en who got done, in adult age, for severe phimoses or aesthetic reasons are unanimous: sex DOES feel different, and usually for the worse!

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
Faust
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3157


It's a league game, Smokey


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2006, 09:10:21 AM »

I was wondering the same thing, if i have kids would i do it?
Well, i dont think i would. The only reason would be that it looks better...

But you could have that weird thing that Bast has, when the skin grows togheter.
Or the loss of feeling. Anyway, you can always give him the option for adult circumcision.
Report to moderator   Logged

$
Bluto
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 33238


Well?


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2006, 11:51:07 AM »

Why would anyone come up with this weird idea to fuck with mother nature and circumcize?
Report to moderator   Logged

Z
Faust
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3157


It's a league game, Smokey


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2006, 11:58:38 AM »

Why would anyone come up with this weird idea to f**k with mother nature and circumcize?
Religion is a weird thing. I think it was a jewish tradition at first.
Do the muslims have it as well? Dunno about that.

Female "circumsision" is a million times worse.
Report to moderator   Logged

$
Doc Savage
Getbig II
**
Gender: Male
Posts: 88


Master debater. Cunning linguist


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 25, 2006, 12:40:52 PM »

I would definitely do it.

Not sure about the "data" RE: difference in sensation, since the foreskin retracts anyway during erection.  And how would one scientifically test this anyway?

It is not done with a scalpel, but rather a little instrument that is really easy to use.  I watched a bunch during med school and it takes a minute and doesn't seem too traumatic.  Of course, I'd be apprehensive having it done outside of a hospital (e.g., by a moyle (sp?) - the traditional Jewish way)

I think we all agree that female 'circumcision' is criminal and I am against any medical practice solely performed for religious reasons.  However, it is unfair to equate the male and female procedure.  It is true that there is an increased risk of cancer, yet it's true that it is rare. 

I'm glad I had it done because a lot of people think it's just gross to have a foreskin - even now when I see porn videos I think it's a bit gross when I see it.. I'd hate to set my boy up for potential failure with a woman or ridicule in the locker room based on this.  Think of it like a tail.  Some kids are born with tails... some might argue, this is a beautiful natural thing, that makes the child unique, and he should grow up being proud of his tail.  Yet the predominantly tail-less population will inevitably make his life a little harder.. so most parents elect to have it removed.

But it partly depends on where you live.  If I lived in an area where most people were not circumsized I might have a different opinion.

Leaving the choice to him later is basically waiting until he goes through a traumatic episode as a teenager and then going through the psychological trauma of having surgery to his weiner (albeit minor, but to a teen, is there any minor procedure where your johnson is concerned?)

just my 4 cents

oh, and congratulations.

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Oliver Klaushof
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3526



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 25, 2006, 01:15:02 PM »

A foreskin is nothing like a tail. What a retarded argument. I've never had anyone comment on my foreskin while getting head. When you have and erection is doesn't even look different because the foreskin retracts.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Shut the F up and train"
BayGBM
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 16789



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2006, 01:18:59 PM »

A foreskin is nothing like a tail. What a retarded argument. I've never had anyone comment on my foreskin while getting head. When you have and erection is doesn't even look different because the foreskin retracts.

Ditto:

GHGut before you take DocSavage too seriously, think very carefully about his articulated rationale.  Do you really want to make a decision about your sonís future with the adolescent mentality of worrying about locker room teasing?  Your child deserves better. Your sonís foreskin should be determined by nature... not parental baggage.  Cry

Incidentally, we all live in an area where the vast majority of men are not circumcised; itís called earth.
Report to moderator   Logged
SulkingGreekGod
Getbig II
**
Posts: 144

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2006, 01:29:55 PM »

The Conspiracy to Circumcise
By Pat Hartman

They're still getting away with it. Medically indefensible surgery that can lead to a stunning array of complications, including death, is being done on baby boys in America, at the rate of one new victim every 26 seconds. Despite the fact that we have a whole arsenal of laws against child abuse, our advanced, civilized, humane society allows a baby boy to be strapped down and have part of his dick cut off. By any definition of child abuse, this institutionalized, normalized, business-as-usual mutilation is abuse of the most outrageous kind.

The damage done is a subject many men are not willing to talk about or seek help for, so nobody will ever know exact figures. But experts say it's likely that 10% of circumcised men wind up with lifelong physical problems as a result. And that's only the physical problems.
We're talking about permanent disfigurement, psychological damage, risk of death, violation of human rights, and the infliction of unnecessary pain (i.e., torture). Circumcision is literally mayhem, in the original meaning of the word before it got corrupted. Mayhem has a stark and unequivocal meaning: it is intentional dismemberment.

Most people think of circumcision as removal of the foreskin, which is incorrect because, in fact, there's no such thing as a foreskin. Instead there is a skin system. What we casually accept as routine circumcision is the partial amputation of a healthy organ. The inaccurately named foreskin is actually the forefold of the skin system, an ingeniously engineered mechanism with at least a dozen known purposes. The so-called foreskin is not a separate anatomical feature, but an integral part of this marvelous structure. If evolution put it there, its specialized design is one of evolution's finest inventions. If God put it there, no God worthy of the name could have done so with the sole intention of demanding that it be lopped off.
There's a point past which no custom can be justified. The antiquity of a tradition doesn't make it right. Churches are obliged to adapt to whatever degree of human rights are recognized in their vicinities. Any faith whose adherents think they can only achieve spiritual perfection by creating hell on earth for their kids, needs to be curbed. Religious persecution is bad, but sexual mutilation of babies and children is worse.
We are urged to condemn "cults" because they are evil: they take your money and make you give up eating meat, or whatever. Maybe so, but then by the same logic, a cult which takes a body part, and incidentally exacts the price of some or all of a person's sexual capacity, must be even more evil. That cult is in serious need of renovation, no matter how old, venerable or widespread it is. The removal of part of a kid's sex organ is a custom that belongs in a Satanist ritual.
Proponents claim the pain of the procedure is negligible or nonexistent. An infant may be too wounded even to cry, passing into a state of traumatic shock that can be mistaken for, or willfully misinterpreted as, a sign that he doesn't really mind. (There used to be a theory that children's teeth can be drilled without anesthetic, because their pain nerves aren't developed yet. This isn't true either, take it from one who knows.)

It's time to just say no to circumcision, regardless of the excuses made. The cleanliness issue is bogus. A boy can learn to clean his pecker just like any other body part. To rationalize that excising a portion of it prevents future problems, is ridiculous. The arbitrary removal of a body part because something MIGHT go wrong with it is insane.
You want to hear crazy? Some parents okay the operation because they want Junior to look like Dad. Suppose the old man lost an arm in battle or an industrial accident. Would they amputate the kid's arm so he'd match Dad? Some parents are afraid the boy will be embarrassed if he's not like his friends. Great logic: mess up your kid so he'll fit in with the other messed-up kids.
Subtracted from a baby, the so-called foreskin may not seem like much. Everything on a baby is small, including its toes. But by the time that baby grows up, he will be missing an area of sexually sensitive tissue about the size of a 3 x 5 file card. We're talking about the absence of as many as 15 square inches of miraculously functional flesh that ought to be left where it grew. The true enormity of this obscene operation is that the excised portion of the penile skin system contains enough highly specialized nerve endings to account for about half of the sensation available to an intact organ.
The issue of diminished sexual pleasure is not a frivolous or trivial matter. Circumcisers try to tell us this problem is unworthy of concern, because when he grows up the kid will still be able to beget children. Hell, he can even have a good time screwing (or making love). He'll just never know how good a time he might have had, were it not for the partial amputation of his sexual organ. We're supposed to believe this is no big deal. So it's okay to just partially blind a person (one eye only) or partially deafen him (one punctured eardrum to a customer, please.) Or burn his fingertips so they lose the finer nuances of the sense of touch. No, obviously it is not okay. Why do they think it's all right to steal another of the senses - which happens to reside between the legs?
This isn't Circ 101, since there are plenty of sources for the basic whys and wherefores. A vast amount of information is out there, especially about the effects of the operation on the sex lives of men and the women they share their sex lives with.
Briefly: circumcision causes sexual dysfunction in men. Victims speak of scarring, deformity, tightness, numbness, and numerous other conditions that impair function. The nervous system's exquisitely designed circuitry gets all tangled up. The brain knows it ought to be receiving messages from a body part that doesn't even exist any more.
Why should women care? Because this is a feminist issue to the very core. Intact men aren't the only ones who enjoy sex more - their partners do too. One study questioned women who had experienced both kinds of penises, and found that the intact kind is preferred by nearly 90% of those women. One reason is, the circumcised man is more likely to experience what is called premature ejaculation. Paradoxically, the man with the intact penis, whose natural sensitivity has been preserved, is able to "last" longer. This is counter-intuitive, yet those in the know swear it's true.
It's a feminist issue because circumcised men are more likely to balk at safe sex habits spurning condoms. And because there's good evidence that if they hadn't undergone this allegedly benign procedure as infants, some men wouldn't be the way some of them are. Sure, a thousand things can mess up a person's mind, from potty training to environmental toxins. But this much is certain: no matter what else is going on with a kid's heredity, environment, or previous lives, having a piece of his dick cut off doesn't help.

It is claimed that a baby can be genitally mutilated in the first days or weeks of life, with no lasting traumatic effect. This defies reason. Very convincing evidence shows that the younger a child is when molestation occurs, the greater the likelihood of severe emotional damage. We know what profound psychological harm is done when, for instance, a baby spends its first week in an incubator, unheld and uncuddled. How much more so must it affect a baby boy, to be surgically altered in such an intimate way? How can there not be a psychological impact, when the very first thing he learns about his dick is, it's the source of enormous pain? When the very first thing he learns about other people touching his dick is, they're gonna take a scalpel to it? What a horrifying introduction to life on earth.
Novelists struggle to invent awful incidents in their characters' pasts, violations sufficiently appalling to turn kids into sexual predators and serial killers. Well, what could be more damaging than to have part of your penis sliced away when you're only a few days, weeks, or years old? Forcible restraint and brutal violation result in fearfulness, distrust, anger, and later on a sense of loss, shame at being disfigured, and envy for the intact. I don't care how many thousands of circumcised infants have grown up to be "normal" citizens. (And "normal" ain't that great. Look around.) Is it only a coincidence that the most tireless warmongering originates with cultures that circumcise? Moslems and Jews have been at it for centuries, and American belligerence increases every year.
The conspiracy to circumcise is truly sinister. Historically, there were societies where the army was required to bring back foreskins as proof to the king of how many enemy troops they had slaughtered. On some level, the subconscious knows: it is the enemy who collects foreskins. By this pre-emptive act of hostility and grievous assault, whoever was responsible - the parents, the doctor, the hospital, the State - have declared themselves as enemies. If theories of the subconscious have any validity at all, this has to be true.
It must be dreadful to grow up knowing on some level that, no matter what cover stories they tell you about hygiene, etc, the bottom line (so to speak) is that somebody cut off part of your dick. It's no wonder some men take it so seriously they have to spend the rest of their lives proving how extremely macho they are. Of COURSE they're gonna have castration anxiety. They already got part of their dick cut off once. It's easy to believe that somebody out there wants to cut off the rest of it.
The '70s were a boom decade for circumcision in America, with 4 out of 5 baby boys chopped. The madness reached its height in the early '80s. Let's look at 1980, when about a million and a half infants were operated on. They're 26 years old now. If only 1% of those boys developed some kind of psychosexual pathology as a result, the number of 26-year-old sexual psychopaths is 15,000. Not a comforting thought.
And if you're male, you're not supposed to mind. You are in fact expected to be grateful for the excellent medical care, thankful that you live in a country where the government will pay to have part of your dick cut off when you're too young to consent or fight back. Adding insult to injury, this goes on at the expense of the taxpayer. Several groups are working to end Medicaid funding at the state level, but that's only a partial solution. Even parents who can afford it shouldn't be allowed to buy it. Circumcision is an unconscionable practice that needs to end, period.

I don't suggest that circumcised men should use this as an excuse for either armed retaliation or a pity party. There are enough officially sanctioned victim classes as it is, claiming a free pass for bad behavior. But for humanity's sake, let's stop circumcision, starting today.

www.nocirc.org and www.circumstitions.com are two great starting places for more information.
Report to moderator   Logged
SulkingGreekGod
Getbig II
**
Posts: 144

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 25, 2006, 01:41:19 PM »

Also, I think anybody who goes to www.circumstitions.com and views their gallery of botched circumcisions (http://circumstitions.com/Botched1.html) will be put off circumcision for life. If you want to see the worst that could happen, click the "Galloping Gangrene" link at the bottom of the page.

Warning: Not for the squeamish!
Report to moderator   Logged
LAMA-PAI
Time Out
Getbig III
*
Posts: 506


Censored! BY RON AND THE GETBIG CABAL !


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2006, 03:35:51 PM »

nature is perfect and therefore we are born perfect !
if we where ment to be ''cut'' we would have been born that way !
Report to moderator   Logged

CENSORED BY RON !
shiftedShapes
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3627


http://pull-ups.blogspot.com/


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2006, 04:47:04 PM »

well recent studies Africa have shown that uncircumcized men are almost twice as likely to contract aids if they have sex with an infected woman.  You might want to take that into consideration
Report to moderator   Logged
Hedgehog
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19485


It Rubs The Lotion On Its Skin.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2006, 05:35:48 PM »

Being Swedish... Cool

Don't do it mang.

Just remember to teach the kid to pull back the skin when he pisses. Cool

But you won't have to worry about that shit for another 2-3 years.

And regarding STD's...

Sweden has around 0.03 % ( 3 hundreds of 1 per cent) HIV positive. In comparison to the US percentage which is estimated to 0.6 %.

20 times more common with HIV in the USA than in Sweden DESPITE the un-cut dicks...

Besides, more than half of the people getting discovered in Sweden with HIV are refugees or foreigners.

YIP
Zack
Report to moderator   Logged

As empty as paradise
GHGut
Getbig III
***
Posts: 436

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: June 25, 2006, 08:07:37 PM »

Thanks everybody... I'm leaning towards not getting him circumsized, juts gotta convince the wifey now. Thanks!
Report to moderator   Logged
Oliver Klaushof
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3526



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: June 25, 2006, 09:10:31 PM »

Thanks everybody... I'm leaning towards not getting him circumsized, juts gotta convince the wifey now. Thanks!

Don't be a pussy and let your wife decide for you.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Shut the F up and train"
SulkingGreekGod
Getbig II
**
Posts: 144

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: June 25, 2006, 09:52:09 PM »

Don't be a pussy and let your wife decide for you.

Word.
Report to moderator   Logged
SulkingGreekGod
Getbig II
**
Posts: 144

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: June 25, 2006, 09:53:47 PM »

Remember that babies' immune systems aren't exactly highly developed. Anyway, I think you should make the decision, but you might want to show her this just to convince her:

http://circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

I know this doesn't happen very often, but it's horrible enough to make even a one in a million chance too risky.
Report to moderator   Logged
SulkingGreekGod
Getbig II
**
Posts: 144

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: June 25, 2006, 09:59:23 PM »

Some more interesting reading:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/277069p-237314c.html

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/29/210813.php
Report to moderator   Logged
Cavalier22
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3310

Citizens! The Fatherland is in Danger


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: June 25, 2006, 10:05:29 PM »

dont get circumsized, its just another jewish conspiracy hoisted upon the masses
Report to moderator   Logged

Valhalla awaits.
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #21 on: June 25, 2006, 10:49:48 PM »

Don't be a pussy and let your wife decide for you.

  Well said, Oliver! Women are to alloed to decide to mutilate boys, in a way men would never be allowed to do to girls. Can you imagine the looks the fater of a baby girl would get, if he requested something to be done to her genitalia? Let alone cut part of it? He would be seen as a monster, and the M.D would probably call te cops! It is this chivalrous male bastard mentality, which puts the well-being of girls above that of boys - because boys are, well, supposed to just suck it up and take it -, which is responsible for the abuse of boy children. Moters can beat up their sons if they misbehave, but they would call child services and the cops, if a man lays a single finger on his daugter, even if he only gives her a wrist-slap! Double-standards 101! Think about it: would you be allowed to decide to do anything to your daughter's genitals, even if only to remove a one inch square piece of skin from her? No, you would be arrested for child abuse! So why should your wife be allowed to decide to do this to your son Huh Undecided Angry

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
Dina
Pros
Getbig IV
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 2688



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: June 25, 2006, 10:56:55 PM »

i think the trend is to keep it whole

I personally prefer mine cut, but thats prolly cuz thats what i am used to..   only ever seen 3 uncut ones ever.. and they were not pretty  Lips sealed
Report to moderator   Logged
Oliver Klaushof
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3526



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: June 25, 2006, 11:02:15 PM »

  Well said, Oliver! Women are to alloed to decide to mutilate boys, in a way men would never be allowed to do to girls. Can you imagine the looks the fater of a baby girl would get, if he requested something to be done to her genitalia? Let alone cut part of it? He would be seen as a monster, and the M.D would probably call te cops! It is this chivalrous male bastard mentality, which puts the well-being of girls above that of boys - because boys are, well, supposed to just suck it up and take it -, which is responsible for the abuse of boy children. Moters can beat up their sons if they misbehave, but they would call child services and the cops, if a man lays a single finger on his daugter, even if he only gives her a wrist-slap! Double-standards 101! Think about it: would you be allowed to decide to do anything to your daughter's genitals, even if only to remove a one inch square piece of skin from her? No, you would be arrested for child abuse! So why should your wife be allowed to decide to do this to your son Huh Undecided Angry

SUCKMYMUSCLE

You. Are. Correct. Only in the US is this acceptable. Oh and the Jews duh.
Report to moderator   Logged

"Shut the F up and train"
suckmymuscle
Guest
« Reply #24 on: June 25, 2006, 11:03:31 PM »

Religion is a weird thing. I think it was a jewish tradition at first.
Do the muslims have it as well? Dunno about that.

Female "circumsision" is a million times worse.

  No, it isn't! Only infibulation is worse! You are a chivalrous male bastard, who thinks that women will put out to you if you put theirs and girl's well-being above that of your own gender. Does it make you feel manly, to say:"Oooooh, you poor little girls, I'm horrified by what they do to you!" and protect them? Yes, it does. Too bad women are laughing at your chivalrous bastard attitude of putting them on a pedestal and protecting and pampering them, because they would NEVER return the favor. Why is it so much easier for guys to feel protective toward women at their on cost, rather than admitting any weaknesses or to ask for help? Is it male pride? Yes, it is: "I'm a man, and men never complain or show any weaknesses of any kind!. And a real man opens doors to women, and give them their seat on the bus and ive up their very lives so that women can live" Shocked Well, you can continue to display this chivalrous bastard attitude, and mutilate your boy children for as long as you want, but not me. I will never allow a woman to use my male pride to manipulate me into putting her well-being above my own, nor will I allow the chivalrous bastard society to tell me that "mother's instinct" knows what best for children.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!