[ItsASecret]

Isn't urine antiseptic? Wouldn't that mean technically a build of urine under the foreskin makes it cleaner?

To prevent bacteria buildup? No. Bacteria work much quicker than the potential mild antiseptic properties of a drop or two of urine under the skin.

[Hugo-B]

To prevent bacteria buildup? No. Bacteria work much quicker than the potential mild antiseptic properties of a drop or two of urine under the skin.

I shower twice a day religiously anyway and wash (and rinse) that area thoroughly each time, so don't worry I wasn't relying on urine to clean it for me.

I know one problem is that father's who were circumcised at birth don't know to teach their sons to pull their foreskins back to wash under them so they often don't realize they pull back until they reach puberty and start exploring their own bodies.

[Little]

I do not connect with that logic, BB - why would a parent take an active choice to say "no" to the doctor when circumcision is offered not also be smart enough to think, "Hey, this is a bodily fold, we better wash inside it!" Certainly, widowed dads don't have the same anatomy as their daughters, but are still bright enough to inform them that they need to wash there.
A more likely situation is, since the foreskin separates from the glans over a period of time (Google is not helping me figure out how long this period of time is - the best I'm getting is "a few years,") by the time a child's foreskin is retractable he is washing himself and understandably doesn't realize he has missed a new opportunity to wash correctly.

[Hugo-B]

I do not connect with that logic, BB - why would a parent take an active choice to say "no" to the doctor when circumcision is offered not also be smart enough to think, "Hey, this is a bodily fold, we better wash inside it!" Certainly, widowed dads don't have the same anatomy as their daughters, but are still bright enough to inform them that they need to wash there.
A more likely situation is, since the foreskin separates from the glans over a period of time (Google is not helping me figure out how long this period of time is - the best I'm getting is "a few years,") by the time a child's foreskin is retractable he is washing himself and understandably doesn't realize he has missed a new opportunity to wash correctly.

Sorry, I'm not saying parents opt not to have their children circumcised then don't tell them to clean behind it! I also should have clarified that the problem isn't (as far as I know) widespread, but I know personally (two of my friends) who's father's were circumcised at birth so simply didn't know to teach them to pull their foreskins back. Neither realized until they lost their virginity, one at seventeen and the other at nineteen.

I'm not suggesting malice on the parents part either, I think both moms hadn't been with any other guy so just honestly didn't know to inform them. Like SP346 says sex education is limited to the basics of reproduction, and I agree (I didn't know of the clitoral mound until I read a book aged 29), neither parent was taught so simply couldn't teach what they didn't know. My mom was the same, my dad is circumcised (from birth, and my mom is pretty old school) and I had to work it out for myself; typing this I can remember the first time I tentatively pulled foreskin back aged about 13 in shower not knowing WHAT was going to happen. I only realized because I watched a porn film at a friends and thought 'huh?' when I saw an erect penis with the foreskin pulled back. I have quite a lot of foreskin so I need to pull it back to expose the end when its erect (not that you needed to know that, but at least it's full disclosure).

[DSemcho]

I've had experience with both. The uncircumsized guy was a friend with benefits for a few months, but he never EVER got off.... He'd stay hard for a while but he'd never get off - and honestly I didn't like the feeling to much, but at the same time it made me feel inadequate because he never came. I definitely prefer circumsized cause I love the initial feeling of the head going into me... Plus I've never had a circumsized guy not get off with me. **shrugs**

[Darling]

I have been with two men. My first was circumsized, and my husband is not. I couldn't tell a difference. He didn't tell me till awhile after we were together. After many sexy times, hand jobs and sex. I guess it was bc when ever I was able too see it it was always so big and hard.

He was so embarrased the first time we had sex... And i haf no clue why! Poor guy....he hates it... And made sure to get our son circumsized.

[Hugo-B]

The actual concept of being circumcised doesn't really bother me at all. The idea of having skin cut off of the tip of my penis is as you can probably guess, not very appealing to me.

My poor friend who had to get circumcised at 17 said it was an awful experience and the healing was terrible, he even said the first few days he wrapped cling film around the head to stop it rubbing because it was so sensitive (the head, where it was used to being protected by the skin which had been removed) and sore (the wound from the cut) simultaneously.

He looks back and laughs about it now, he said there were about 6 trainee doctors present when he had it done to boot! How's that for embarrassment! Someone like this is the best person to ask for about being circumcised v uncircumcised because - unlike men who were circumcised from birth - he had experience of being both as an adult, and was old and coherent enough when he had it done to experience the aftermath of the procedure. There is nothing sinister about circumcision, although in it's simplest form it is genital mutilation. The fact is though most men who've been circumcised do not know any different because it was done at birth, so weren't fully coherent and don't remember the pain, nor most importantly could they consent. Give a grown up consenting adult the option and see what he says when presented with the choice...

[Stillness]

Little, it's done because of Abrahamic/Biblical tradition. God commands the Hebrews to circumcize as part of their covenant with him.

buddhaboy, I think "mutilation" is an overstatement. I wish my parents wouldn't have done it to me, but I don't feel they harmed me. I wouldn't do it to my son, but it doesn't deform or cause an inability to enjoy sex, reproduce, or urinate. There are even some studies that indicate health benefits, which is probably why the tradition was instituted in the first place.

[Little]

Stillness, I am aware of why some religious groups do it, and that those groups are more prevalent than any other in the US, but I know plenty of folks who are not religious in the least who are nothing less than zealous about circumcision. That's the part I don't understand, the cultural obsession above and beyond religion.

I think it's a little funny that even a ritual prick of a female infant's genitals is considered FGM legally, but forcibly separating the glans from the foreskin and then removing the foreskin of a male infant is a tradition to protect. Obviously, this isn't funny "ha-ha," but instead quite out of balance. If RIM is going to continue to be an option for male children because of religious reasons, then the same needs to be available for other religions and other genders. If it's ok to do to a boy, it's ok to do to a girl, right?

[Stillness]

I don't get it myself. When my buddy's firstborn was born I suggested he consider not circumcising him. He wasn't religious. He said, "I'm circumcised. He'll be just like me." Maybe that's the thinking. I don't really get it.

Genital mutilation doesn't compare. It would be more akin to removing the glans or the entire penis. And aside from the backwards mentality it messes people up. Circumcision conveys benefits. I have had at least one cousin that had to be circumcised later in life because his foreskin caused problems. For another cousin his mother was saying it might be necessary, but I don't know if she had to. This is apparently not an uncommon situation. Circumcised men just don't get those kinds of infections. That means they're safer for themselves and their wives.

I can't speak on pricking as this is the first I've heard of it. I guess that if it doesn't deprive the child of health then people should be left alone to raise their children how they see fit.