si-maro wrote:Seconded

What's this myth about circumcised men not being able to wank?

I shall stop short of offering visual instructions or a stroke by stroke account, but trust me, it ain't rocket science.

The idea is that the head of the penis for circumcized men will be less sensitive because it's exposed.

I think that's where this "not being able to wank" thing comes from.

steve wrote:Statistically it can be shown that, all else being equal, men with uncircumcised penises have a greater risk of contracting AIDS than people like me, who have been trimmed, and are display-caliber. The mechanism is probably that the foreskin traps booty-juice, which then has more time to transmit the virus to the diz-hole.

What he said.

Cranius wrote:
I'm happily uncircumcised. Perfect. The way God intended.

Oddly enough many circumcised people make the same claim.

Isn't male circumcision* just as pointless as female circumcision?


* For non medical reasons, of course.

There is simply no reasonable argument for carrying out circumcision for non-medical reasons on children.

If circumcision was routinely restricted until the age of 16 or 18 and then given offered as a free surgical option, I'm willing to bet good money that the percentage of snipped Americans (and Koreans and Filipinos) would immediately fall to European levels.

Not sure I agree with this leave it till later thing.

I know of two or three people who were circumsiced as well as myself and all were for medical reasons (in fact I've known circumsised types but don't know why they are so).

I suspect that problems with foreskin are fairly common and having foreskin can lead to other problems due to it not being as clean.

Because of this I see no problem with cutting it when very young.

Also when 16 plus the patient could get a bone and this could be problematic.

Also the ladies seem to prefer it.

Earwicker wrote:Not sure I agree with this leave it till later thing.

I know of two or three people who were circumcised as well as myself and all were for medical reasons (in fact I've known circumcised types but don't know why they are so).

If it's medically necessary, then obviously it should be done ASAP.

I suspect that problems with foreskin are fairly common and having foreskin can lead to other problems due to it not being as clean.

This isn't supported by research.

BMA wrote:Doctors should ensure that any parents seeking circumcision for their son in the belief that it confers health benefits are fully informed of the lack of consensus amongst the profession over such benefits, and how great any potential benefits and harms are. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

Because of this I see no problem with cutting it when very young.

Why?

Clearly since they can never re-grow their foreskin, they can never make an educated choice in the matter. I can have mine removed even now if I like.

Also when 16 plus the patient could get a bone and this could be problematic.

The mere thought of having your foreskin repeatedly slammed in a car door (for this is how the operation is most commonly carried-out under the NHS) will preclude erections for months either side of the event.

Also the ladies seem to prefer it.

That's a myth perpetuated by males who are seemingly unaware that the erect male member is pretty much identical whether snipped or not.

[quote="Earwicker"]

Because of this I see no problem with cutting it when very young.

quote]


What's the justification? Hereditary barbarism?

What are the statistics like in the UK? I thought it was fairly uncommon here, but a lot of the Brits on EA seem to have been snipped.

circumcision in the uk is about 10% these days, but it was more fashionable in the late 70s/early 80s, which would explain why plenty of uk ea users have had the snip (myself included).