The reason why you are "cut"

[gb2000ie]

Very interesting Gorgik9!

Living in Ireland today, circision 'just `cuase' is very rare. It's obviously done for medical reasons, and religious reasons, but not as a matter of course.

Ireland is definitely anglophone, and was part of the British dominions until 1956. Did Ireland also have lots of circisions like the UK, and then it fell away? Or did the Irish tell the English where to go shove their knives? It's not like the catholic church is pro-masturbation or anything, so you'd imagine they'd be all for circision!

Anyway - very interesting - thanks for sharing!

B.

 

[W!nston]

A brilliantly illuminating post my good friend gorgik!

Many thanks again,

Sniffit

:cheers:

 

[anarren]

Wow gorgik9! Here and I'm just Jewish ;-)

 

[gorgik9]

Very interesting Gorgik9!

Living in Ireland today, circision 'just `cuase' is very rare. It's obviously done for medical reasons, and religious reasons, but not as a matter of course.

Ireland is definitely anglophone, and was part of the British dominions until 1956. Did Ireland also have lots of circisions like the UK, and then it fell away? Or did the Irish tell the English where to go shove their knives? It's not like the catholic church is pro-masturbation or anything, so you'd imagine they'd be all for circision!

Anyway - very interesting - thanks for sharing!

B.

I just didn't think about Ireland, which makes me feel a bit stupid...

What I'll do is to look into the History of Circision-blog and Darby's doctoral dissertation, and I think it's pretty plausible I could find some interesting material on Ireland.

 

[luvmuslmen]

My foreskin was chopped off when I was a baby - not for any religious reasons - I would LOVE to have it back. In the US, apparently it was just the thing to do to male babies, mutilation for no reason - go figure!!??

That's not really true. It was done back then because it was believed, and there is still some evidence for it today, that female spouses of circised men had a lower incidence of cervical cancer. There is also evidence that men who are cut are not as vulnerable to HIV, from that root of exposure.

As for me, mine was done for religious purposes, when I was 2 weeks old. (I couldn't have it don at 8 days, as is normally done because I was too small at birth) I wish that it hadn't been done, but there isn't much that I can do about it now. Well, actually there is, but I'm not about to go through that kind of surgery for nothing. :no:

P.S. There is also a cleanliness issue. If foreskin isn't kept really clean, it can lead to infections down there.

Oh, and that conspiracy theory about making it difficult to identify Jews is without any merit. As a Jew and as a physician, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I've ever heard of this preposterous theory. No medical or ethics board would ever condone such a practice, for that kind of reason, nor would Jewish groups.

 

[Wohltorf]

When I was in highschool, swimming instruction was compulsory--males segregated from females because we swam naked (same at our local YMCA). I honestly cannot remember that any males of my generation were uncircised. At that age you notice those things. We were all far more interested in length & girth.

 

[Shelter]

We were all far more interested in length & girth.

Aren't we that until today?

 

[trencherman]

Where I came of age (the Philippines) boys undergo circision before the onset of puberty. The majority of these boys go to a known expert in gangs and go through the process which was heathenish, not the most hygienic and painful but surprisingly enough, had very rare complications. I came from a marginally privileged background so I and two contemporary cousins went to a pharmacist first to get our vial of novocaine for anesthesia which were given to us free of charge and then to the doctor who did the procedure which was also pro bono. It did not involve cutting off any tissue, just a simple cut to open the foreskin and then suturing together of the two sides of the cut skin in three or four spots. Mine healed after three days.

It was not exactly a decision on my part and look at it now as a necessary rite of passage. A lot of my friends avoid uncut men because of vestigial suspicion of lack of hygiene. To me cut or uncut, cela m'est égal.

 

[Lucas88]

Why isn't there a law against infant circision? It's a highly invasive procedure and you should be able to decide for yourself at an appropriate age. If I had been circised I would've felt extremely violated.

 

[gb2000ie]

Why isn't there a law against infant circision? It's a highly invasive procedure and you should be able to decide for yourself at an appropriate age. If I had been circised I would've felt extremely violated.

Because it's part of many people's "culture". That's a really shitty excuse IMO, but it seems that society likes to do things 'because we always did this', even though that's never true. Every tradition started, and every tradition needs to be re-evaluated to make sure it's not harmful!

Also - the people you would be suing would be your parents. I would HATE if my parents have cut me, but, I also would not want to take them to court for one decision they made a long time ago.

B.

 

[lovetosuckcock]

I was circised at about age 5 because back then it was thought to have hygienic benefits. All my friends except one were circised and the age varied from just after birth until a few years of age. I have no problems with being circised and I have no regrets (even though it was not my decision to have it done).

 

[HustleMe15]

Why Am I Cut?

I'm cut, but have no idea why. I know my parents weren't Jewish. Maybe it was medical. Maybe it was because my penis would be easier to clean. Who knows. I read a lot though about how people say they are mad that their parents circised them and they wish they had their foreskin back. I'm not one of them. I certainly don't think that I've lost any sexual feeling because I don't have a foreskin. Jacking off my dick and having sex with Nick gets me just as hard and horny as the uncut guys. But I will say that it is a piece of cake to clean. Just run my dick under the shower, soap it up, and I'm done.

I've had sex with guys who were uncut, and when I slide back the foreskin they are not so clean, and that is just the most wicked turn off in history. I have stopped sex right then and then, got up and left, and didn't even worry about the deal. I don't go for the nasty shit. But as long as a guy keeps it clean, then there is no problem.

Nick is cut too, but for him I think it was mainly done when he was a baby too and more for the medical than the religious. Even though his parents are a bit freaky in the religious department.

And how can you not say that this guy just has an absolutely fabulous looking cut dick?

​

 

[jamesjack]

More for hygienic reasons

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

I'm circised and quite happy with that state of affairs. I am not sure what the "reason" was, but I think it was probably just that it was more or less the custom at that time.

It does make it easier to keep things completely clean (obviously this is not something I know from experience, only from what doctors and hygienists say). It would be nice to say this is not a big consideration in Western societies where we have high standards of cleanliness blah blah blah, but the fact is that from what I see standards seem to be slipping. I see so many guys not taking the few seconds required to wash their hands after using the toilet that I wonder whether elementary hygiene principles are even taught in schools and homes these days like they were when I was at school. Washing hands after a piss is something I do almost without realising I am doing it. If they aren't even bothering to do this simple bit of hygiene, I doubt they are taking the time required to thoroughly wash their cocks,

The anti-circision brigade, which bizarrely seems to be largely made up of women, seem to have been highly effective in making parents feel guilty about circision these days, and apparently it's hard to even find a doctor who will do the operation. Sometimes I wonder what those people's agenda is. Of course it's not them who have to put up with possible painful complications like phimosis that can be avoided by circision. Not that I would advocate compulsory universal circision, but I'd like to see a bit less strident opposition to the practice from people trying to tell me I am some kind of victim.

 

[mrcrownroyal]

Uncut dicks are so tasty and fun to play with, but both me and my partner are cut so those days are over for me...unless we decide to bring someone else into our thing :dreaming:

 

[Stonecold]

LUCAS88

Why isn't there a law against infant circision? It's a highly invasive procedure and you should be able to decide for yourself at an appropriate age. If I had been circised I would've felt extremely violated.

Ripping the flesh back and then taking a knife and cutting off the skin on the genitals of males or females (typically without any pain medicine) is sexual abuse! Children need to be protected from abuse. Why this one type of abuse isn't illegal already is mind-boggling.
I had no choice in my circision and I have always felt violated.

 

[taurus2904]

I was circised just after birth. In 1960s US, 83% of newborn males were circised, compared to 77% in 2010. I know it wasn't religious or "you want the boy to look like daddy" -- we were Methodists; dad is, and both grandfathers were, uncircised. Mostly, it was the thing to do then and thought to be cleaner.

Interestingly, dad always taught me to pull the skin back when peeing and how to wash thoroughly. I guess that's what he knew and what he was taught. I'm not tightly cut -- when soft, the skin does just cover the ridge. I do recall dad's foreskin not being tight, having seen him changing clothes and explaining about when taking or giving me a bath as a kid.

I do wish I hadn't been cut, though. My first boyfriend was uncut -- well, for the first couple of years we were together. I think he felt some peer pressure and asked his parents to have it done. (We were junior high/high school aged.) I've been with other guys since who mostly were cut, and some who were not. I do prefer an uncut one, as long as he keeps it clean. My last boyfriend was not one of those -- and in general, not a clean or hygienic guy.

Also, foreskin is there for a reason. We don't cut off boys earlobes or eyelids or lips when they're born. As with the case of eyelids and lips, it's meant to cover the area, keep it moist -- or at least, not completely dry out like exposed skin. It does increase sensation of the glans (head). In the late 1880s, Kellogg -- yep, the Corn Flakes guy -- was a proponent of circision and, like his namesake product, both were intended to cure/curb male masturbation. The Puritanical American-Victorians thought masturbation led to sex addiction and/or insanity, among other social evils like alcoholism and homosexuality. I think many Americans are stuck in a puritanical view and are generally not very sex positive -- but that's another rant for another time. (Yes, I am American for many many many generations and do disdain this country's backwards thinking of lots of things.)

I do think, unless circision is done for a religious reason (I'm specious of that, at best) or for medical reasons (more supportive), then it should be the boy's decision when he is old enough to make an informed, conscious decision.

I'm also less likely now than I was in my past to compare it to female circision -- yes, it is a thing where the hood of the clitoris is removed in the same way (that is comparable to foreskin and glans) -- or to female genital mutilation which is an act of subjugation making just about everything down there painful or dangerous for women.

 

[Shelter]

I was circised just after birth. In 1960s US, 83% of newborn males were circised, compared to 77% in 2010. I know it wasn't religious or "you want the boy to look like daddy" -- we were Methodists; dad is, and both grandfathers were, uncircised. Mostly, it was the thing to do then and thought to be cleaner.

Interestingly, dad always taught me to pull the skin back when peeing and how to wash thoroughly. I guess that's what he knew and what he was taught. I'm not tightly cut -- when soft, the skin does just cover the ridge. I do recall dad's foreskin not being tight, having seen him changing clothes and explaining about when taking or giving me a bath as a kid.

I do wish I hadn't been cut, though. My first boyfriend was uncut -- well, for the first couple of years we were together. I think he felt some peer pressure and asked his parents to have it done. (We were junior high/high school aged.) I've been with other guys since who mostly were cut, and some who were not. I do prefer an uncut one, as long as he keeps it clean. My last boyfriend was not one of those -- and in general, not a clean or hygienic guy.

Also, foreskin is there for a reason. We don't cut off boys earlobes or eyelids or lips when they're born. As with the case of eyelids and lips, it's meant to cover the area, keep it moist -- or at least, not completely dry out like exposed skin. It does increase sensation of the glans (head). In the late 1880s, Kellogg -- yep, the Corn Flakes guy -- was a proponent of circision and, like his namesake product, both were intended to cure/curb male masturbation. The Puritanical American-Victorians thought masturbation led to sex addiction and/or insanity, among other social evils like alcoholism and homosexuality. I think many Americans are stuck in a puritanical view and are generally not very sex positive -- but that's another rant for another time. (Yes, I am American for many many many generations and do disdain this country's backwards thinking of lots of things.)

I do think, unless circision is done for a religious reason (I'm specious of that, at best) or for medical reasons (more supportive), then it should be the boy's decision when he is old enough to make an informed, conscious decision.

I'm also less likely now than I was in my past to compare it to female circision -- yes, it is a thing where the hood of the clitoris is removed in the same way (that is comparable to foreskin and glans) -- or to female genital mutilation which is an act of subjugation making just about everything down there painful or dangerous for women.

Very good written and explained. Thank you for this post. :agree::agree::agree:

 

[gregsanison]

It's an horrendous barbaric practice on babies and young boys. It is was based on religious ignorance and idiotically adopted as normal practice.

 

[Stonecold]

It's an horrendous barbaric practice on babies and young boys. It is was based on religious ignorance and idiotically adopted as normal practice.

I agree 100 percent