Oh, I completely agree with you. It is a bad practice. Just saying that I'm lucky. Sure, if people are upset, they have a right to be. I'm a huge Hitchens fan as you may know. I've seen this video before. I agree with him. But life is still good. So just wanted people to take heart and not be too depressed if this has been done to you.
Ian, & Brad,
I just watched the video, and indeed, genital mutilation is no joke. I think that any person that advocates the same, should be called to answer for it.
We should understand, however, that the wholesale removal of the frenulum and ridged band that is performed in hospitals and back-alleys around the world today, bares little resemblance to the circumcision described in Genesis. The removal of half the skin of a normal penis was not done until 140 years after Christ was born. It was done in retaliation for those Jews that wanted to restore the tip of the foreskin that had been cut off.
I'm glad that you are still able to climax even after half of the skin on your penis was removed, but the fact that you can have an orgasm isn't the same as the full range of sensitivity that you could have.
A study published in the British Journal of Urology International found that there are significant differences between what a circumcised, and an uncircumcised man feels.
Researchers measured fine-touch sensitivity of the penis at 17 specific sites on the intact (non-circumcised) penis and the remaining 9 sites plus two scar sites on the circumcised penis. The results surprised the research team, according to Morris Sorrells, MD, lead researcher, who said, "The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar itself."
Brad, you can do that test yourself. Your girlfriend wisely knew that what would be pleasing to an uncut man, would not do much for you, because those parts are missing. Further, if you think about it, the most sensitive place left, the little bump on the front of the shaft, if you were lucky enough to have a surgeon that didn't gouge it out, is only the scarred remainder of what was your frenulum.
Here is a summary of the full study. http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php
And the full study. http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
Reading this thread makes my feelings that I'll never get to raise a son go bye-bye.
Gives me the willies! And no clear answer; I see it as a barbaric ritual foisted on babies, but I also see what a pain in the ass going the other route can be.
And then there's the whole getting naked with daddy thing...yikes.
Girls have been so much easier.
Having had both boys and girls, I can say that raising each is wonderful, and yes -- different.
I wouldn't give away the joy of having sons for anything, and really up until the time they entered puberty, I had nothing to worry about, or task that needed doing. The foreskin is a natural structure. Your dog, your horse, and any other mammal you have ever met, has a foreskin, and manages to survive, and thrive with no outside care.
If you ever were to have a someday teenage son, and he wanted to clean under his foreskin. Great.
Trust me, the average teenage boy will figure out how his penis works, foreskin and all, whether you tell him or not.
Sharing some bonding time with your son is purely optional, but think about it, if you aren't comfortable talking about hygiene, how can you really expect that he will turn to you when it becomes a matter of who to have sex with?
But I don't have a son.
My wife let me get a male dog, so I would not be the only guy in a house full of females.
And we neutered him right away as per the adoption agreement, lol.
Carl, how can you say there's no clear answer and that the other route (i.e. leaving the kid intact) is a pain in the ass after reading my post about iatrogenic damage?
I never got to raise a son, but if I had, in my mind there's no question of what the right and proper thing to do about his penis would be. In my view, loving parents do not mutilate their kids' genitals - end of story. To me, it doesn't matter what excuses people make in support of genital mutilation - it's wrong. Even if circumcision did stop infections (which it clearly doesn't), reasonable people do not amputate body parts to prevent infection. I mean, surely you've heard of antibiotics.
No argument there, maybe you skipped where I wrote I see it as a barbaric ritual foisted on babies.
Interesting evidence here that it is not so cut and dried (no pun intended).
No matter, I won't have to make that decision.
All I can say is - I am so grateful that my parents had me circumcised. The uncircumcised look and all that goes along with that is not for me.
I am glad that you are satisfied with the look and function of your penis. Every man should have that right.
Now read the question that the thread addresses.
"Other than for religious reasons, what are your arguments for or against circumcising baby boys?"
According to your logic, we should perform painful, irreversible, elective surgery on all male infants, because YOU like the look of yours.
Do you really want to stand by that?
Might as well not have kids then. After all, you're putting them through so much trauma, forcing them out of their warm haven and pushing them through a little canal, only to have a tough life ahead of them, where they encounter people who think circumcision is a cruel act of sadism.