Circumcision

[Guest Zenda]

Kia Ora boyz,

Just taking a ‘walk on the wild side’…

My question is regarding, having a neo penis constructed…I don’t know much about the different styles of neo penises that surgeons are able to construct, however my question is, if there is a choice, what would you boyz prefer, ‘circumcised’ or uncircumcised?

Metta Jendar

[Guest Little Sara]

Ever thought of asking the girls if they wanted their clitoris circumcized then? Got to be equal.

If the above is offensive, the circumcision thing should also be.

[Guest leo]

i can honestly say iv not thought of it

doubt it would bother me either way

y so curious?

[Guest Benzrathe]

Re: Circumcision in general - as long as its consensual and not simply culturally enforced - I've no prob with the issue being addressed.

My personal choice? That's difficult, because both of my boys are not - and the whole familial similarity (weird as it may be) is intriguing to me, in a paternally validating kinda way. But on the flipside, there's the whole Covenant with God thing, though not mandated for "Gentiles", I'd be inclined to embrace it as a sign of my commitment to Him. Hmmm...

Ok ok. Circumsized, ftw! I don't plan on whippin' it out for offspring inspection anyways... We prefer bonding over football. =]

Benz

[Guest Little Sara]

True, circumcision with consent, say in adulthood, is fine.

I'm against neonatal permanent unnecessary procedures though. On boys, on girls, and on intersex children.

[Guest Irielle]

Infant circumcision is barbaric for either boys or girls or intersex or anyone - my personal opinion is that it is borderline abuse at best unless it is done for a legitimate medical reason, not a social, cultural or religious one.

The glans is an internal organ and should be kept as such - for biological/physiological reasons if for no others. If an adult, after weighing the pros and cons, chooses circumcision, well that is their choice.

Infants should be left alone and allowed to make their own decision when they grow up.

[Guest StrandedOutThere]

Circumcision is a weird thing. It started out because it was in the Bible (I guess). It's probably in the Bible because someone somewhere thought to do it elsewhere. Anyway, then it got to be considered common practice. I actually think it is pretty barbaric myself.

All the phalloplasties I've seen were circumcised. There isn't a lot of skin to work with, I don't guess we've got the option to have extra. It'd probably just increase complications.

If I had a choice, in a perfect world that didn't include surgical complications or the extra skin needing to be cut from somewhere else on my body, I'd go with the uncut look. I'm a fan of the natural.

[Guest Seth]

I'd get circumsised.

Foreskins weird me out.

[Guest B.heard]

Id pick circumcised for the following reasons

Im catholic so culture

Being clean specially being a new addition to my body extra folds of skin that could harbor urine or swear or even blood during healing for me would be a risk Im happy to be without

Future partners again a nice clean look would give me confidence and help me be a better partner

For the record though I dont agree with babies having it done to them unless its medical, for culture reasons it should be an adults choice

[Guest April63]

I was circumcised when I was a baby. I think uncircumcised penises look gross.

April

[Guest Little Sara]

I was circumcised when I was a baby. I think uncircumcised penises look gross.

April

This must be why 80% of the world doesn't do it, to gross circumcized people out. It's a worldwide conspiracy.

3 billion men, and 2.4 billion are out to gross the 600 million others with their evil intact penis

[Guest April63]

Well, is there really any reason to not have it done? People have been doing it forever, and really, it's easier to keep things clean down there once you've been circumcised.

April

[Guest Eva Jean]

well really its no harder keeping clean down there if you're uncut. remember, the foreskin is retractable so cleaning is easy.

other than the religious aspects, circumcision in the last 100 years (according to my mother) became a popular thing because of the unhygienis conditions during the last two world wars. aparently in some places like the trenches and stuff they had a lot of gential infection i guess.

i personally think , other than for religious reasons, circumcision is not necessary and infant circumcision is wrong.

[Guest April63]

But what's wrong with infant circumcision? Is it a big deal when you grow up and find out that you could have had foreskin? I don't want it. It's easier to do it to infants than adults, and it is easier to clean, since you don't really have to do much of anything to clean it after you're circumcised.

April

[Guest Eva Jean]

The reason infant circumcision is bad is because its un-consentual (not sure if thats a word) mutilation.

To me, cutting off one's foreskin is is like cutting off one's hand because its easier to do than continuusly clipping your nails.

I can understand in on religious grounds, but I dont like that the infant doesnt have a choice in the matter.

[Guest Frank67]

I agree Irielle and some others, circumcision should be done only if there are medical reasons, but if an adult wants it it is their descission.

It could be difficult for little boys to pull the foreskin back and as the most of us know, little boys can have an erection and then it hurts. But this alone is not a reason to remove it. It can be trained/stretched so that the circumcision is not necassary.

Lisa had this problem and the pediatrician told her mom to have a bath every day for a week and she should pull the foreskin back carefully to solve this. But Lisa felt very uncomfortable, so her mom asked her if I should do it and she said yes. Until now we don't know why I should make it, but after 5 days everything was fine. You see a cercumcision is not always necessary.

But I have to agree April, too

Sometimes if the foreskin is too long it look gross - like the trunk of an elephant, brrrrr. And yes if my penis looks like that I would do it (this would be the only reason and I am roman catholic or rather I was), but thanfully I don't have that problem, my foreskin is to short to cover the glans more than one third. Hm, too much information I think, sorry.

[Guest My_Genesis]

I'm gonna agree with Stranded and go with un- , and add that ive read up on this and the general concensus is it affects sensation if you get circumsized..now why on earth would you want to do that?? LOL

[Guest B.heard]

Wasnt Jendar's topic about the neo penis? or new penis you will be having made for you... If you going to have bottom surgery that is.

So its really its just about the look of your new organ the gands if you have them made wont be senate like a bio penis so the issue about IF a foreskin effects that is null, and I dont think ive seen a neo penis made with a retractable foreskin as of yet so the options are limited to sausage looking organ (uncut) sausage with fake type glands (cut) or growing your mini guy and doing the best you can he will come with bio functioning mini glands and a little foreskin but he wont be very impressive or much good for sex.

I believe those are the main choices we have to date.

[Guest My_Genesis]

I was mainly talking hypothetically....

is circumcision even applicable to SRS? lol

[Guest Martin]

As far as I know, most bottom surgeries leave one with a circumcised look. I know that some surgeons can lave a meta looking uncircumcised on some patients, but that they lose length that way. I don't know if it's possible to do an uncircumcised look on a phallo, but I've never seen a picture of that. Then again, I haven't researched it as much.

[Guest StrandedOutThere]

As far as I know, most bottom surgeries leave one with a circumcised look. I know that some surgeons can lave a meta looking uncircumcised on some patients, but that they lose length that way. I don't know if it's possible to do an uncircumcised look on a phallo, but I've never seen a picture of that. Then again, I haven't researched it as much.

Yeah, most of the metas I've seen pics of do look uncircumcised, but the phallos all look circumcised.

[Guest StrandedOutThere]

But what's wrong with infant circumcision? Is it a big deal when you grow up and find out that you could have had foreskin? I don't want it. It's easier to do it to infants than adults, and it is easier to clean, since you don't really have to do much of anything to clean it after you're circumcised.

April

April, you really are all about being traditional and all. Circumcision is probably the most benign nonconsensual surgery that is done. If you want to read about some serious outrage, read about cultures that still do female circumcision. OUCH! Not cool.

With male circumcision, it doesn't interfere as much with function as much as female circumcision does. However, there IS an impact. Now that people are starting to question traditional practices there is some emerging evidence that it DOES have a performance impact. I'm not going into too much detail because it isn't appropriate here, but the thing was "designed" to work a certain way. When you cut on it, that "perfect" machine doesn't work the way nature or God or whatever deity you work with intended. If you are curious about what I'm talking about, google around. There are lots of anti-circumcision websites that make some reasonable points.

Now the cleaning issue, some of that is true. However, if a guy isn't lazy, the cleaning issue isn't that big of a deal. As far as I'm concerned, there is ONE reasonable support for circumcision, and I think the mechanism for it is poorly understood. For some reason, AIDS transmission is lower among men who have been circumcised (these studies are looking at African populations, not US). Even when other factors, like education and income, are statistically controlled for, I think AIDS transmission rates are still lower for circumcised men. It really isn't clear why this is, but it seems to be a robust finding.

As for the brutality of infant circumcision...that's an interesting question. I have heard that they don't give the babies painkillers or anything. They just chop. People say that the infants won't remember the experience anyway and that their brains aren't developed enough to feel pain. I'm not so sure about this. I've watched some videos of circumcisions online and had to quit watching because the baby screamed so much. It sounded horrible. I've heard babies cry, but not like that. If people want to argue that babies are in horrible pain when they are being aborted, how can you argue that a baby that has been born doesn't feel it when he's circumcised? Curious....

Because I am a nasty cynic, I feel like circumcision came about as a way to control activities that could result in procreation. It was a way to identify "in group" members (pardon the double entendre...not trying to be risqué). That's basically how the Bible describes it. Jewish people were circumcised because that was a way to tell who was a Jewish person and who wasn't. In the Old Testament the Jews wandered and mixed with other populations, but managed to remain as a cohesive group. Circumcising your fellas makes sure that you 1) can always tell who your peeps are, and 2) makes it unlikely that adult men will try to "join" unless they are very, very serious. I could probably generate other practical reasons for the practice if I thought really hard about it.

Bonus lesson: Saying "statistically controlled for income and education" means that you can basically say that "among men with the same level of education and income, a difference in AIDS transmission rates still exists". The reason why this is important is because sometimes something other than the "variable of interest", in this case our variable of interest would be circumcision, causes the difference. Among African men it is possible that those with more money and education had access to better medical care, so they were able to be circumcised and also probably found it easier to get condoms. However, "statistical controlling" for those factors suggests that it isn't likely that those things were responsible for the group differences.

Returning to a loose interpretation of Jendar's original post, after some thought, I guess I would be fine with an uncut surgery job. It seems fitting. As a transman, if I got bottom surgery, there would be little on me that is uncut. Let's go ahead and wear the uncut look and wear it proud. That's how I'm feeling today anyway.

[Guest Martin]

There are much more effective ways to avoid AIDS, at least for the majority of the population in the U.S. Condoms, for example.

I think it's cruel to inflict that kind of pain on an infant. I also think it's wrong to modify someone's body without their consent - or at least assent - unless it was for a solid medical reason. People can always get circumcised later; they can never undo it. It is true that recovery time is longer for adults, but at least they know what they're getting into.

[Guest StrandedOutThere]

There are much more effective ways to avoid AIDS, at least for the majority of the population in the U.S. Condoms, for example.

I think it's cruel to inflict that kind of pain on an infant. I also think it's wrong to modify someone's body without their consent - or at least assent - unless it was for a solid medical reason. People can always get circumcised later; they can never undo it. It is true that recovery time is longer for adults, but at least they know what they're getting into.

Obviously condoms or abstinence work better to prevent the spread of AIDS. The puzzling thing about this is that, even when people aren't using condoms, it seems to make a difference. That's all I was saying. For heaven's sake people, use a condom!

Indeed, Martin, modifying the body of infants is NOT cool. The only time it is okay would be to correct something that is a problem. For example, I had an eye muscle problem that my parents fixed when I was a baby. Theoretically, there is some chance I wouldn't have wanted the surgery...but that wasn't the case. Having corrective surgery as an infant gave me a better prognosis. With circumcision, it's basically just cosmetic. It annoys me when people get little kids ears pierced too.

[Guest Evan_J]

True, circumcision with consent, say in adulthood, is fine.

Jesus Christ, I don't even have my weenie yet and that made me cross my legs.

No cutting male weenie in adulthood unless necessary! Sorry Ains, but if circumsizing needs to go on I'd prefer it done as an infant. Recovery is easier and impact on male sexual health less risky. Give em something to cut the pain for godssake but still, I go with infant.

And ok fellas, as transguys we do surgeries as adults.

I don't care about "gentiles" and all this stuff, I figure my relationship with God is good because my relationship with God is good, I would choose "cut" just because it looks nicer, the bioversions are hygenically cleaner/easier to keep clean, and chicks like it better

And to your credit Jendar (cuz you asked the question ) there's at least one doc who does offer those options on the phallo. And if theres one of something you can bet there are others. And theres also at least one doc who offers those options on the meta.