After years of debate, a 10 year study has conclusively shown that the health benefits or circumcision are real and measurable, and outweigh the risks.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/08/27/3576889.htm

This now leaves the decision to the parents, and debunks the arguments of the anti circumcision protesters that it is bad for the child's health.

The research was done on African men. God must have made a rare mistake.

Top thread SM.

A surgeon retires from his long career as a specialistin circumcision. Throughtout his career he has saved hundreds of foreskins as mementos and now wishes to turn them into a souvenir. He takes his specimens to a leathersmith and asks him to make something out of them. A week later the surgeon returns and the leathersmith presents him with a wallet. "All those years of saving foreskins and you only made me a wallet?" exclaims the surgeon. The leathersmith replies, "Yes, but if you stroke it, it becomes a briefcase."

I know a young guy who, at the choice of his mother, was not done.

He now feels abnormal to some extent.

How can any-thing to do with genital mutilation be anything but abnormal.

It's much easier to have a tug with a foreskin than without. If you're jealous coz you lost yours, then blame your folks and stop trying to make everyone else lose theirs!

None of my family for generations have lost theirs, neither have any of them lost their dicks because of it!

Yeah I know another disgusting post. But no more disgusting than a grown human trying to instil his stupid, spiritual beliefs on others.

The "science" is never in.

The results of a recent study have been published in the media. So what?

Next week there may be another publication with a different conclusion.

It's not a mandatory legal requirement and some things are best left for individuals to decide, albeit on behalf of others.

The term "the science is in" is one I copied from the proponents of climate change, which means that based on collected evidence and the collective review of the most respected body of scientists, the majority opinion is that ...

This is true of circumcision. While for about a decade those opposing giving the parents the choice to circumcise their children have been spruiking the risks and harm as a reason to ban the practice.

Now the weighted opinion of one of the most august pediatric bodies in the world has after reviewing decades of data and thousands of studies has concluded that the health benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

I as an atheist made the decision to have my son circumcised 15 years ago after consulting various doctors and a urologist, and neither he nor I have ever regretted it.

The hysterical rantings of those such as 579 carry little weight against those doctors I trust.

You do seem quite invested in it all Shadow Minister. Protest too much....

'because the foreskin is thicker in a teen than in an adolescent'

Huh?

H,

I am invested in any subject where idiots think that they should force their personal beliefs on others, especially when their arguments are specious.

Similarly for women's rights to abortion is concerned, in this case when my wife and I had an unplanned pregnancy that was financially extremely inconvenient, we never considered abortion, however, I get angry when anti abortion activists try and tell me what we can and can't do.

*If you're jealous coz you lost yours, then blame your folks and stop trying to make everyone else lose theirs!*

Hehe Rawmustard, you hit the nail on the head! When I was at school,
many a Jewish boy mentioned that they would love to have their
foreskins back.

How many of the statistics question if parents ever taught their
kids how to wash it properly each day. The prudish ways of the past
have a lot to answer for. Luckily the world is changing.

I remember in my twenties, taking a mirror and shoving it between a
girls legs, so that for the first time in her life, she actually
could see her own clitoris. Her mother had taught her that it was
all "dirty down there". Many a prudish parent was the same with
boys, rather than teach them good hygiene

I would have no problems with Doctors hacking skin off healthy newborn boys penis's, as long as the parents are the ones that hold their child's legs apart while it is done.

Us nurses are not keen at all, no matter what the "scientists" say.

We don't need our appendix or tonsils either, so why not rip these out of all babies too, just in case?

Suseonline, if it was shown that the routine removal of tonsils and apendices prevented future problems and the benefits significantly outweighed the risks, then I believe that parents should have the right to choose that option for their child. However, I have not seen any research that says that this is the case.

This is really an argument about parental rights to consent to medical procedures for their children. Do parents have that right in this society or not? The anti-circumcision crowd apparently believe that they do not and that the government can legislate against their choices for any procedure that they deem unnecessary.

And apparently 579 believes that African men are not the same as other men, so any research involving them is not relevant. Bizarre.

Hahaha, shadowminister, that's funny. Billions of men do not have their foreskins removed across the globe. It's actually there for a reason, to protect that very, very sensitive part of the penis. We shoud do a scientific study on that. Does circumcision reduce pleasure for the man due to de-sensitisation of the unprotected glans.

I opted not to have my son genitally mutilated. It's cruel. Wonder when the first boy/man is going to sue his parent for genital mutilation, especially when it come to light that sexual pleasure is compromised!

Yvonne,

The studies have been done and were included in the overall assessment by the American pediatric body. I would suggest you read the link I provided.

yvonne: "We shoud do a scientific study on that. Does circumcision reduce pleasure for the man due to de-sensitisation of the unprotected glans."

There have been studies on that. No desensitisation was demonstrated or observed.

I am happy that you did not opt for something that in your opinion is cruel, that would be very odd. However your opinion is exactly that, others have differing opinions. I personally consider sending your children to Sunday School and teaching them about hell and eternal damnation to be cruel and completely unnecessary, but many people apparently don't. However, I don't think that it will be legislated against on the basis of my opinion.

Parental choice and their rights to consent for their children is key here. Noone is going to get sued by their children for this, that is just a fantasy.

Who will be the first to post the next study on circumcision proving beyond a doubt that it is an unnecessary procedure.

Studies schmuddies. My faith in studies is diminishing with every year but they are a necessary evil. Occasionally there may be actual new information or effects demonstrated especially in the area of science innovation. As always it is necessary to make full use of your own powers of judgement and commonsense.

*This is really an argument about parental rights to consent to medical procedures for their children. Do parents have that right in this society or not?*

So Bugsy, if SM rolled out the statistics to show that removing girls
clits by medical procedure commonly stops them screwing around and
picking up diseases, so is good for their health, would you support
that parental choice too?

Yabby, depicting an argument by representing only one side of the equation in a certain light is disingenuous.

You already know the answer, because the reason for the 'positive' effects described are not acceptable, i.e. the reduction of risky sexual behaviour by the significant desensitisation of the sexual organ, which has many detrimental effects as well.

This is not an equivalent argument for male circumcision, where there is a physiological reason for disease prevention (not behavioural) and no demonstrable desensitisation. The only risks that have been demonstrated are those related to the procedure itself, which are rapidly diminishing with advances in medical technology.

To many in the medical profession, the benefits outweigh the risks, and so this can be used as support for a parental choice for their child. There is no reason to ban it, nor indeed have it instituted as routine procedure, and I think that many parents should be allowed to choose. Don't like the practice? Simple, don't choose it for your children. But it's not a good enough argument to remove parental rights on the issue.

Poirot,

That is a cheap shot, and beside the point. The photo I got from google images and just happened to be the first one I clicked on. It in no way indicates that I am referring to any of their opinions or wack a doodle ideas. I assume that you have the IQ to understand the difference and are just being deliberately obtuse.

As for these "disturbing" items raised by Mr Brown, they are at worst inappropriate if undeclared. Compared to the blatant rorting by Williamson and Thomson, it is akin to trying to discredit a witness on a Jay walking offense in a murder trial.

Yabby,

Why not lean a little further to the ridiculous and suggest involuntary euthanasia for the elderly and disabled if the statistics support it?

It would be nice occasionally to see rational debate rather than emotive BS.

You missed the point, SM. Just because something might perhaps
have claimed health benefits, is not enough to make it such a good
idea. Good penile hygiene has health benefits too.

Circumcision rates have dropped dramatically in Australia, but when
I've asked parents as to why they had it done, its not health, but
usually that dad wants the young fella to look just like him.

The question of circumcision was something way out on the periphery of my life until I had a son at 41. Whereas this procedure had been performed widely in my own generation, by the time he was born in 2001, the practice had greatly diminished. In his generation it's probably now "unusual" in Australia to be circumcised.

The question didn't arise. It was something we didn't consider. Nor did the doctor raise it. My (nearly eleven year-old) son has had no trouble at all in maintaining all the bits he was born with.

In fact, the only mother I've heard who was dissatisfied with the decision not to circumcise her son, was a woman in my son's kindy class, who complained out loud after doing the rounds of doctors attempting to get her five year-old circumcised- her reason? She didn't like the look of it.

Yabby, Poirot,

Both of you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am not suggesting that circumcision should be compulsory. However, given that the benefits outweigh the risks, maybe marginally, that the choice be left to the parents and that the meddling busy bodies that feel they are obliged to enforce their opinions on others realize that they are doing this for themselves and not for the children.

I was present when the urologist did the procedure. He used an anesthetic cream and with a plastic implement removed the foreskin with the child hardly noticing. The antiseptic cream applied was removed in 4 days with not even a whimper. The emotive dialog is fabricated by those with no concept of the procedure.

Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.

*Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.*

Well that is not what those Jewish boys told me, when these kind of
matters were discussed at boarding school. Given a choice, I only
know of one single male who ever volunteered for the operation.

There would of course also be plenty of fathers around, who had it
done on their sons, so that they look the same, but now try and
justify their behaviour on marginal health grounds. Fair enough,
people are full of human foibles. Admitting them is sometimes harder.

I guess there's no evidence like anecdotal evidence, eh?

Generalising is a lot of fun too. I like to extrapolate what I believe are peoples motives to the general population. That is why I believe that all those catholic priests that oppose women in the clergy are gay. Which would explain why they are all closet pedophiles and oppose gay marriage (priests can't be married). Of course they will try and rationalise all this in terms of 'tradition' and 'scripture', but you know it's true.

Yabby, Bugsy,

The motivation of the parents for choosing the procedure or not is besides the point. The fact that the procedure done under clinical conditions to a new born is nearly completely painless and has long term health benefits.

No one is forcing you to have your kids circumcised. Where is the justification for busy bodies to stop other parents from doing so?

I find the question of desensitisation to most interesting.
Surely the only way this could be proven would be if an 'intact' sexually active male had the operation, so he could offer a before and after evaluation.
Any volunteers?
Come on guys, it's for science. (I'd volunteer myself, but sadly, too late.)

Grim,

Rather why not use references from the men that have had the procedure as adults.

Oh wait, they have already, and found no difference.

I think that has to be flawed SM. You cant compare living with an intact foreskin for 18 plus years to never having had one. That's 18 years of rubbing a developing penis up against clothes and being exposed to the air that the adults haven't been exposed to. That's ridiculously unscientific, so much so that anyone bothering to use such results I reckon has an agenda.

'Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.'

You must have some strange conversations with people you meet for this to be relevant. The higher the sample size you report, the more of a weirdo you are:-)

'Hey I notice you're circumcised, do you mind me asking if you have any regrets?'

Taken objectively, regardless of 'studies', which change every other year, depending no doubt on who instigates them, it's a strange idea to cut part of the natural body off you deem unnecessary.

Not saying I'm massively against it, just when you take all the cultural BS and ideology away, you're left with cutting off a bit of the penis just in case. No general education on hygiene, or safe sex, Naaa just cut it off!

It's a funny world.

I didn't have sons but this 'looking the same' idea I just don't get. Maybe women should all shave their growler and give their daughters a merkin and breast implants at birth.

WTF does it matter? I'm intrigued.

Yes, it's funny the things people don't regret not having.
As much as I like breasts, I've never regretted not having any, strangely enough.
I have on many occasions regretted not having an extra pair of hands, but that's purely functional.
Do I regret not having a foreskin?
This is the first time in 57 years I've even considered the question.
go figgur.

H,

You don't have to be a pervert not to have your head in the sand. The conversations I have had on the issue were either in junior school, or with parents to be discussing the issue.

Those with or without are equally happy with the status quo, which is not an argument either way. What I did find interesting (which may be only the small sample I am acquainted with) is that the bias from the single women, in the discussion, towards their partners was clearly towards their partners being circumcised.

H,

What other subjects are you too frigid to discuss? Who talks about a growler?

*Those with or without are equally happy with the status quo, which is not an argument either way.*

Well its quite simple, SM. Those with, still have a choice. Those
without, just live with it. I don't see those who still have
the choice, rushing to be snipped for the claimed marginal health
benefits.

Some people indoctrinate their kids with religion. Being a parent
hardly qualifies people to be good parents. I am happy that I
was left to decide what is best for me, rather than have somebody
like you as a father, decide for me. I would give a son the same
choice. But I know, parents are trying to create little copies
of themselves and think that they always know best. Its a human
foible.

Growler is the greatest word SM. I re-introduced it into my lexicon recently with much glee! Minge comes close, but nothing beats a growler!

The picture is firming up nicely. It really is an obsession with you isn't it. First the many strident opinions on the topic and rehashing the same ground in many postings, now a detailed expose on your enthusiastic search for information oh how little boys feel about their dicks in junior school, and now, when perhaps that wouldn't be so socially acceptable, to ask their parents.

Do you find it titillating by chance?

Tell you what, next time you're at the urinal at the pub, ask the guy next to you whether he regrets being circumcised. If he objects to this line of questioning, tell him he's frigid. Put your money where your mouth is SM.

Personally, I find "growler" to be excessively masculine and aggressive for that part of the anatomy which is so uniquely feminine.
The ladies in my family always spoke of their "Flossy" when the children needed to expound on some irregularity; much more feminine.
Of course, when my children were children, we spoke of "limbs", never "legs".
I have trouble thinking of the word "growler" without images of teeth...

That's what makes it so amusing Grim. You just have to imagine it growling. I use vagina to my kids, they can use whatever fun word they like though.

I always wished my name was John Thomas. Or Leroy, though only black people are allowed to be called Leroy.

'As much as I like breasts, I've never regretted not having any, strangely enough.'

I have! It must be fantastic

Yabbs,

'Those without, just live with it.'

Not so!

"After four weeks of keeping my glans covered,
I had about the best sex ever in my whole life,
just about what you'd expect in the back seat of a red '75 Impala,
except it was in bed with someone I've lived with for 22 years."
- Rob Roberts

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html

How can I grow my foreskin back?
I really want my foreskin back but I can't order a "Natural Foreskin Restorer" because I'm only sixteen and don't have my own mailbox, so my parents will end up finding it. Is there any homemade device I can use to grow my foreskin back.

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

I am restoring my foreskin and I am having very good success with manual tugging. I use method 2 mostly.

All you need is your hands and some free time during the day.

I manual tug when I wake up in the morning and everytime I go to the bathroom. You only need a minute or two. I manual tug in the evening when I have some privacy.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090404185057AAf8KzE

http://www.restoringforeskin.org/beginners-guide-foreskin-restoration

Google answers all our prayers!

Truthfully, I'm starting to develop a little "man booby".
It's not that flash.

I've seen enough episodes of the Antiques Roadshow to know that a growler is one of those stuffed Steiff playthings with a button in its ear – and a collectable 14 inch mohair one could set you back £40,000.

But this caught my eye… "beginners-guide-foreskin-restoration". Beginners guide? Is there an advanced guide? Or is more than someone's imagination or my credulity being stretched?

SM has presented the research regarding circumcision but I'll defer to Houellebecq's research regarding foreskins.

What's the best tip you've come across?

*Not so!*

Ah Houllie, the joys of Google and the net!

Who knows, perhaps SM's son might want to try it one day, now that
its all available online and he gets to have a choice.

H,

Reading your posts, you clearly appear to get off on this. As an adult I am perfectly capable of discussing issues with others in the correct context. Notably I have never tried discussing this with someone at the urinal, and can see you had a bad experience with this.

If you cannot add anything rational to this discussion, I would ask you to refrain from exposing your particular persuasions and from trying to insinuate that any discussion of a topic that makes you uncomfortable is a perversion.

Yabby,

The procedure has fewer risks of complications and is less painful for a 4 day old than it is for an adult. Suggesting that this procedure is delayed until the male is an adult is similar to argue for a 12 month waiting period for an abortion.

Given that the parents will make many far more important decisions for the child over the years, why do the busy bodies pick on this particular issue?

My you are invested SM! So sensitive.

We could easily allay all your fears by each of us reciting the following...

You, SM, have not done your son wrong by denying him a life with a foreskin!

Give yourself a break mate. Parents make decisions, the best that they can at the time with the values they have and with their own issues (As we see here!) to deal with.

Now, can we stop all this defensive behaviour, all this to-ing and fro-ing, all for the purpose of validating your actions SM?

Let it go!

Be free!

'why do the busy bodies pick on this particular issue?'

Why are you so sensitive about it. You're the one who keeps bringing it up again and again. You're like that joke about the guy looking at ink blots in the psychiatrists office.

You know what SM, take the kid to a nudist resort. I'm sure you've probably got a lot more hangups than the poor boy, but it might put your mind at ease if not his. There would be heaps of opportunities to pour over all the details with the gang. We nudists don't mind discussing such things. You might even find a few kids who don't match their fathers!

*Suggesting that this procedure is delayed until the male is an adult is similar to argue for a 12 month waiting period for an abortion.*

Err hang on SM. We are not talking of chopping up people here, we
are talking of snipping off a bit of skin. Sheesh, you do go to
any lengths, to justify your own past actions, to try and feel better
about it all.

*why do the busy bodies pick on this particular issue?*

Well I don't see that happening here. You started the thread and
OLO is about expressing our opinions. Are you upset that people
don't agree with you perhaps?

H,

Don't be a hypocrite, I have seen you on this topic every single time, I guess you are trying to justify your decision. I don't take offense with anyone discussing the topic, but I do take offense from those suggesting I get aroused from it. That was particularly vulgar of you.

Your clear excitement discussing this would make me concerned about having you near small children.

Yabby,

The logic is the same. The risks and pain as an adult are far greater from the procedure than a 4 day old baby. The decision at 18yrs is not the same, and suggesting that it is, is flawed logic.

SM, given that the odd baby has lost its penis due to circumcision,
it even safer to leave it as nature intended, unless you have shares
in the Vaseline factory and are trying to make a quid on the side.

Teach the kid how to wash it properly and it will be fine.

The one bloke whom I know who did have it done, basically had it
done as most of his mates in his footy team had been done. He did
not seem to think that the operation was a big deal, more like any
other surgical procedure. But what matters is that it comes
down to choice. I'm glad that it was up to me to make that choice,
not some know it all parent.

I see now how this works, if you start a thread that concerns penises, then you have too much invested in them.

Not so if you just merely respond to the thread.

I'll remember that the next time someone starts a thread about banning circumcision.

So, just leave your keyboards alone or you'll go blind.

I can respond and not be really that invested Bugsy. I would have to check but I believe I've probably even supported both sides of the argument in the many different discussions, most instigated by SM on OLO. I want to get to the bottom of SM's issues. I want to help him. He sounds pretty worked up to me. I have dropped in on page 1 and recently to check on how he's going.

'I guess you are trying to justify your decision'

How could that be SM? I don't have any sons?

'Your clear excitement discussing this would make me concerned about having you near small children.'

And yet you feel offended when I make a similar suggestion. Who is the hypocrite SM? You sound very upset about this topic, one could say more upset than you are about any other topic.

Where does the discomfort come from? You seem to be projecting this discomfort onto my good self, and interestingly using words like frigid. Is that where it stems from?

As I said I am interested only in helping you get through this conflict you have within. This obsession.

If you can respond and not be invested in the topic, then why do you care about SM and his obsessions?

Are you in some way invested in helping and psychoanalysing anonymous posters on the internet?

Of course, that would be completely normal behaviour, at least on these pages.

Bugsy,

Psycho-analysing anonymous posters on this forum is half the fun.

: )

I find it remarkable that anyone's taking this thread seriously, much less getting hot and bothered about it (at which point, I believe, the differences no longer exist).
BTW, I think Poirot should be barred from this thread, as she doesn't even have a penis, much less a foreskin.
Come to think of it, everyone with a foreskin should be barred also, as they have no experience of living with a deprived penis.
I said "deprived" not depraved, Houe.

Poirot, only half? What's the other half?

Good question, Bugsy.

I suppose most of us come on here to give our egos a bit of a buff and polish. While we're here, we might learn something. But for the most part, it's a bit like Shakespeare's line - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Feeding the birds and hoping for something in return.

Lets face it, the thoughts on here are rarely original, and I worry about people who are here to enjoy rehashing climate change, juliar, zany MTR (guilty), and God and Gay Marriage.

I once considered creating a series of original discussions but I don't think anyone is really interested. I used to try and tie a few themes together and create a baseline for all sorts of possibilities, but I found the direction of discussion always went in the most obvious and predictable fashion.

Of course it would have been a bit of a circle wank, and the risk and intimacy required would probably have made it a non-starter as you'd have to trust people to invest a lot more honestly than people generally are even when anonymous.

I considered even if people did it dishonestly it would still be fun, but I suppose people don't like to be as dishonest just for the purpose of entertainment like me. Hmmm entertainment, authenticity, strangers, not sure it matters as you can mix honesty and dishonesty to contribute to a shield of ambiguity, and get something out of the exercise with little risk.

But people like to hold a line and their values are very rigid and I suppose stability is comforting.

Lets talk about gay marriage and climate change again...

Wow that was deep.

I can see you've had time to think about this. People rarely want their views challenged, they want them reinforced. This site is perfect for that, you can find all sorts of reinforcement material here.

Pretending to have certain views in order to elicit responses for entertainment purposes has a particular name on the internet.

H,

This is the first thread on this topic that I have ever started, the purpose of which is to respond to the threads where busybodies had stated that circumcision is bad and should be banned.

My point, which is backed up by the US paediatric association is that the risk if any is minute, and on balance is weighed out by the benefits, and the decision should be left to the parents. I have started similar threads on abortion and the internet "safety net" neither of which have anything to do with me directly. If I have any issues, they are with nanny state morons who think that the strength of their personal opinions gives them the right to dictate what others should be allowed to do.

H,

You on the other hand, have been quick to get involved in every thread on the topic, and have been the first to hurl ad hominems and the person to raise sexual titillation about small boys' penises. I am just trying to help you with your issues before they get you into trouble.