Welcome to the Worldwide Roar Forum. Please note that customer support enquiries, for example regarding individual orders, should be submitted here

bejjinks Show full post »
PVogt
Just saw Johannes Swagers post. Being in medicine I've not been aware of  devastating  subsequent lumps or bad outcomes from this procedure, though the healing process can be rough.  I agree with him though, that you and your physician have an exact agreement on what length is being cut and how you prefer it to appear after the healing is complete. Also if you know anyone employees in the urology or surgery dept where you are, ask around.... see what doctor they would use if they were going to have this done. 
Quote 0 0
bejjinks
@NottsWill (too much to quote)

It is a very cultural thing. In the United States, uncut is often seen as inferior. This attitude is decreasing but for a long time now, the United States taught men that uncut is diseased and sick, that real men get rid of their foreskin. I wish we could talk about circumcision rationally but their is extreme bias on both sides making it a debate between the "mutilators" and the "unhygienic"

Sometimes, I wish I hadn't been cut but mostly that's because the doctor botched the job. If he had cared enough to do it properly, I might not have struggled with my circumcision but whether the medical community promotes circumcision or discourages circumcision, it is all about radicalism without any concern for patient care. It's like the medical community is treating us like cars and making the decisions for us. Where is the bedside manner?

If uncircumcised people are taught proper hygiene, than there is nothing wrong with being uncircumcised.

If doctors circumcise correctly, than there is nothing wrong with being circumcised.

But no one is teaching proper hygiene and everyone has a "hush" attitude shaming qualified urologists. You want headache medicine, just walk into any store and buy it but if you need medical attention for the genitals, you have to go find some back alley because it's too shameful to see an actual doctor.
Quote 0 0
NottsWill
Thank you all for your responses. They are very much appreciated.
A Happy New Year to you all 🙂
Quote 1 0
melblad
Hi there - i grew up in australia at a time where the vast majority of boys were circumcised as was i - i had not seen an intact penis until i was in the high school change rooms - my personal view is that i wish i had been left intact - i am very interested in Seb & Alex - the twins - what is their circumcision story?? as it appears one is & one isnt! in conversations with people over the years particulary in countries where circumcision wasnt practiced - it was the norm & they new nothing different
Quote 0 0
W1_guy
https://circumcisionmovie.com/ On Netflix now on the most popular releases of last week. Putting a fork in the dying disgusting practice of cutting the genitals of helpless male babies. The group Intaction.org helped fund the movie. It's all over social media with tons of people changing their minds about supporting such a mindless practice
Quote 0 0
catsva
The questions posed in the OP are largely only applicable to the American/Muslim/Jewish experience because it is a social/cultural ritual. Being circumcised is the minority elsewhere.

So the inverted question is what might apply elsewhere i.e. what was it like to grow up circumcised. And because it is mostly medically deemed rather that a ritual, it does not face the same social/cultural bias like what Americans/Muslim/Jewish cultures do.

If I saw a cut guy and they were not American or religious, I would just assume they medically needed it. Just like seeing an appendectomy scar. I feel very luck I was not - for religious or cultural reasons.

It might be useful for commenters to identify if they are American or not, this is important - many perceptions on this matter like uncut is not good, or cut is better, are uniquely American, and the odd fetishist exception elsewhere. 


Quote:
The use of the word "mutilation" to describe male circumcision is deliberately emotive


I'm not sure that is true, this is not said of female genital mutilation. The definition is "cutting off or permanently removing or damaging a body part". Cutting off nose and arms/hands for eg. So the emotive adjective isn't from the dictionary definition.

At the end of the day this is the removal of a human being's organ and body part, without medical necessity. (It is dominated by cultural and social bias, most of the accepting commenters so far seem to be American.)

Usually this is followed by the medical advantages of circumcision. Only US funded studies find these benefits (even the African study on HIV has no confirmation studies). Data collected from wider populations in Europe and Asia do not for eg find lower rates of HIV among Muslim populations nor higher rates among non-Muslim/Jewish ones (for the same standard of health care and education).

The USA is literally the only country in the world whose national medical board says medical advantages might be there, (even they do not make the assertive statement.) I think an important contributor for this is that it is a big earner for hospitals in the US that the AAP were forced to issue an accommodative statement. (Doctors treating HMO patients in the US do not state it is medically needed when the patient is not covered).

But removing *any* vestigial or duplicate organs can be claimed to statistically reduce medical issues.

If you were to substitute the word foreskin with say testicle, and say that the removal of one testicle would reduce incidence of testicular cancer and testicular trauma by 50%, this would be factually true. This is also a procedure that would "easier" as an infant wrt to recovery times and perceived pain because the nerves and blood supply are less developed. But everyone here would agree this is a no go, and is cruel to the child.

What about the appendix, ear lobes, nipples, breasts.. all these will reduce statistical and empirical observations of medical issues and will be easier as an infant.

No one I think would agree to routinely remove this at birth.

So why is it ok with foreskin?

The medical *need* for circumcision (as would an orchidectomy) by its nature, can only be known as an adult as the foreskin is an organ that develops as part of puberty (the same would be true of issues with the testes).

I mean if some country was routinely removing 1 testicle of baby boys and breast tissue of baby girls and appendices to reduce disease, I think it would not even be a topic of debate as to whether it should be done. A child growing up with 1 ball would never miss it, but I am damn sure no guy here is going to remove 1 ball in the name of preventive medicine, just in case. But if the medical need is there, only then you would do it.

Whatever your perceptions are, substitute "foreskin" with another natural organ and see if it holds. If you were circumcised at birth, you don't know, so state any other organ you would accept being removed now as an adult (and for women, what you will accept your partner ask you to remove.)

Any uncircumcised guy looking at how circumcised guys touch their glans will definitely swear that sensitivity is lost. It is like someone touching their eyes raw with their finger without flinching because their eye lids were removed as a baby. 

I believe nature knows best and to leave well enough alone. If not having foreskins was biologically right, we would not be born with it.

Quote 3 0
bonewiler
Interesting discussion. I am Canadian and I was circumcised at birth and as far as I know it was done as a non-medical routine procedure. Unfortunately I had no say in the matter and to this day wish I wasn't circumcised. I didn't have a botched circumcision, and would say that the Doctor knew what he was doing. I don't believe at the time when it was done (within days of my birth) that there were any medical reasons to perform the operation, it wasn't done as a religious ceremony, and it wasn't done so that I would look like my father (if that was the case I would still have my foreskin). It is something that when I was older if it needed to be done then, or wish to have done, I would have been part of that discussion and decision.

In North America, non-medical routine circumcisions seems to be a fairly hot topic in the States more so than Canada. I think the increase in circumcision in Canada came about the time the public health system came into full force and circumcision was a paid procedure. In Canada, each of the provinces operate/fund the health services within their province while the Federal Government dictates the level of care. In the Eighties, the Federal Government delisted routine circumcision as a paid procedure meaning that if parents wanted their child circumcised, they would have to pay for it themselves or through private insurance. Routine circumcision in this country is definitely on the decline.

There seems to be lots of hype about what a circumcision can prevent especially when referenced to STIs but I don't hear about any western European country having any more problems with penile related diseases than what the US has. It seems that a lot of what's brought up can be solved by proper hygiene and proper protection. Knowledge is a powerful tool and providing people with the proper information can go a long way than just telling someone this procedure needs to be done because that's the way it has always been. The bigger problem is peoples ignorance to factual information (and all the information) and getting over the stigma/shame of talking about it.
Quote 2 0
catsva
Quote:
There seems to be lots of hype about what a circumcision can prevent especially when referenced to STIs


It is actually much lower in Europe than the US.
https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/std-us-eu/
There is no factual data to support the claim in wider populations. 

Playing devil's advocate, even if this were true, removing functional body parts must be the last resort, not the first and definitely not routine. 

We don't do this for say penile cancer. 
You'd have zero stds if you chop off the penis. It's just silly to do that. Especially to a child. 

I was thinking about the op question. I replaced it with nose. What was it like to grow with a nose?
It made be realise in a country where no one had noses having one is the strange thing. But to someone outside, removing the nose is the strange thing. Even if they said they do it to have no blocked noses 🙂
Quote 0 0
egfbtn
Just my 2 cents here ... in my case, I had a procedure done when I was 5 because the foreskin wouldn't retract fully, but I am everyday grateful that the doctor back then didn't perform a full on circumcision, he just cut vertically a bit (rather than horizontally removing it all) just to widen the aperture. Never in my life (I am 41) I had any issues, hygienically or sexual, it retracts fully, it's not painful and as someone said before, once erect it has no difference from cut guys. 
The way they did it to me wasn't invasive, scarring or change the way it naturally looked.  I guess not all cases can be treated the same way, but I am sure many are.
Give a choice to your kids unless there is a strong medical reason behind a full circumcision.
Quote 1 0
Cal
Thanks for this discussion. i too am interested in the Twin's take on this... esp since i believe I just read reacently that they had not seen each other naked until they did the Warwick photo shoots (that is another story that baffled me until I realize that I too never saw my brother naked ever!). I assume that there is a story behond why one is circumsized and one is not. And, it is a personal story so understand if they don't want to share--but it seems like they would have a unique perspective on this topic.

Being one of those strange kids in the US who was uncircumcised, I do have to say that it was a bit strange in pe, but no-one made an issue of it.

Now, being 67, the last few years it has become a serious retraction problem and difficult to keep hygenic. And, looking at going through that procedure at my age makes me put it off, and put it off. I am sure I will not have it done until there is no option to leave it as it is. I enjoyed my foreskin in earlier life, but facting the possibility of circumcision at 67 makes me easily wish my parents had followed the cultural norm of the time!
Quote 0 0
Lefkippus
I understand that US culture is changing and that these days fewer men are routinely circumcised? As for yourself, you sound like you are describing phimosis to me. This can often be corrected with stretching. Have you tried this? Google it, and you will find techniques and plenty of people who have succeeded. Surgery should be a last resort.
Quote 0 0
SDHD
As someone who is a circumcised Brit it was interesting to see Ivan last year and Sebastian this year increasing the diversity of penis types on show. Am used to being in the minority but we are not unusual in my experience of changing after swimming and sports and other occasions though. 
Quote 1 0

By posting on this forum you agree to our Forum Rules, Terms & Conditions as agreed at sign up.