In answer to Josef Ks question, I've not got kids but if the option was there (it may be for all I know) at the birth of my son to quickly snip off said fore flesh I would say to the doctor 'sure thing'.

I wouldn't see any need to be all ritualistic about it (though there's nothing wrong with a bit of ritual) but I just think it's pointless to have it, can only be beneficial, am not aware of any risks, so why not?
Best if you could do it at the same time as snipping the umbilical but i don't know if that's possible (?).

If it was as easy to achieve I'd get rid of the appendix too but that'd be a bit risky.

And regarding the ear-lobe comment by Galanter, I agree but might add that the ear lobe doesn't (as far as I am aware) potentially cause medical problems later in life.

I don't know, being unhooded, but do you behooded types get attached (emotionally speaking) to your bell covering?

Is this why all the protest?

Do you know of vast swathes of Jewish and Muslim men protesting that they were snipped before any of them could remember anything?

I saw a woman complain about it on 'heart of the matter' one Sunday night but she was sat next to two Jewish men who seemed better adjusted than she did.

Adam CR wrote:Perhaps, but would you find the idea of operating on a female infant's genitalia so as to render it more aesthetically pleasing to her future lovers an acceptable notion?

Hang on a second. This person is just saying they think the de hooded bell is nicer than the sheathed head. I don't think they are saying that that's why the operation is or should be done.

Female genital mutilation is a different kettle of fish because a/ it reduces the woman's ability to enjoy sex (the man's 'mutilation' may increase their pleasure- though the jury's probably out on that one) and b/ there is no benefit to it being done (that I am aware of). Male circumcision stops the possibility of there being foreskin problems later in life and (arguably) helps prevent infection cause it's cleaner.

i think the nicer aesthetic of a defrocked cock is simply a fortunate additional bonus.

I'm sure there are some girls who don't like sans fore skin but I've yet to meet them - or even hear about them.

Adam CR wrote:2 Unless molested, a male will typically first engage in intercourse in their teens when they can make a decision themselves. Why is it then desirable to snip in infancy?

The medical reason of those few I know who had the snip was some problem I don't know the name of that involves the foreskin not growing at the same rate as the rest of the cock and so the young un finds the hood covers the top of the head and finds it very painful to pull said hood back to allow pissing.
In all cases this was pre sexual activity (as far as I am aware anyhow).

One snip that they'll never remember and they'll never have that bother.

What's the problem??

As I am uncircumcised:

When urinating I have found that failure to fully retract the foreskin can cause me to pee sideways and even backwards.

This is a neat trick – but as neat tricks go it’s fairly messy.

In younger years for the first pee of the day I would blithely walk into the bathroom in full underwear, including a nice clean pair of socks.

The lesson never stuck that there was roughly a 79% chance of a pool of piss awaiting me.

I would often let out a growl of rage as I stepped into my younger brothers’ stray urine.

Though there are definite drawbacks to having a foreskin – the above, “cheese of one’s own manufacture”, running with pubic hair caught in the hood – I quite like having one.

A guy I knew used to play a game called “piranha” which involved small foodstuffs and his uncut member but I won’t go into that.

As far as I know, I don't know anyone who is circumsised.

I'm guessing it's not very common here.

I should read everything before I comment.

Johnny 13 wrote:

Or you could have surgery that splits open and enlarges your uretheral orifice to enable a whole 'nutha kind of docking.
There's a name for this crazy practice, does anyone know what it is?

I believe that is called a meatotomy. Unless you mean something different.
http://www.odd-sex.com/info/gloss477.htm

I believe it's also called cock stuffing:

http://www.lolnigga.com/wp-content/sept ... 0penis.jpg

Google images for cock stuffing and turn safe search off. You'll regret it.

AlBStern wrote:

the$inmusicisallmine wrote: I see no reason why superstiion should be a basis for a irreversable medically unneccesary procedure.

I'm arguing that, based on the above linked article (from which I've posted a quote below), it would seem that those that have been circumsized have a lower chance of contracting HIV.

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.

In addition to teaching my boys to clean out the cottage cheese from their foreskins, I will teach them not to fuck anyone who might be carrying HIV at least not without protection. And if they want to capitalize on slightly better odds of not getting HIV by having the skin on their dicks cut off, they can do that if they want to when they are old enough to decide on their own.

And to answer someone else's question - the doctors will do it for you within hours of the birth (assuming no complications) if you want them to. They asked me like it was on the menu: "Will we be circumcising him today sir?" I looked at that little wrinkly old man with the tubular head who had just been dragged through a knot-hole and thought "Nah, let's just leave his genitalia the fuck alone, shall we?"

Earwicker wrote:
Female genital mutilation is a different kettle of fish

I wasn't suggesting a specific surgical act, just the concept of surgery on an infant female for reasons of aesthetics.

Earwicker wrote:
Female genital mutilation is a different kettle of fish

the Euphemism is not lost on me.